Decolonising the Museum?
Dilemmas, possibilities, alternatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.3296Keywords:
Decolonialism, museums, repatriation, neo-colonialism, cultural centres, community museums, Indigenous peoplesAbstract
As institutions that arose during the European age of imperial expansion to glorify and display the achievements of empire, museums have historically been deeply implicated in the colonial enterprise. However if we understand coloniality not as a residue of the age of imperialism, but rather an ongoing structural feature of global dynamics, the challenge faced by museums in decolonising their practice must be viewed as ongoing. This is the case not just in former centres of empire, but in settler-colonial nations such as Australia, where “the colonisers did not go home” (Moreton-Robinson 2015: 10). As a white, Western institution, a number of arguably intrinsic features of the museum represent a significant challenge to decolonisation, including the traditional museum practices and values evinced by the universal museum. Using a number of case studies, this paper considers the extent to which mainstream museums in Australia, Britain and Europe have been able to change their practices to become more consultative and inclusive of Black and Indigenous peoples. Not only this, it discusses approaches that extend beyond a politics of inclusion to ask whether museums have been prepared to hand over representational power, by giving control of exhibitions to Black and Indigenous communities. Given the challenges posed by traditional museum values and practices, such as the strong preference of the universal museum to maintain intact collections, this paper asks whether community museums and cultural centres located within Indigenous communities may represent viable alternative models. The role of the Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre in Australia’s Northern Territory is considered in this light, including whether Traditional Custodians are able to exert control over visitor interpretation offered by this jointly managed centre to ensure that contentious aspects of Australian history are included within the interpretation.
As institutions that arose during the European age of imperial expansion to glorify and display the achievements of empire, museums have historically been deeply implicated in the colonial enterprise. However if we understand coloniality not as a residue of the age of imperialism, but rather an ongoing structural feature of global dynamics, the challenge faced by museums in decolonising their practice must be viewed as ongoing. This is the case not just in former centres of empire, but in settler-colonial nations such as Australia, where “the colonisers did not go home” (Moreton-Robinson 2015: 10). As a white, Western institution, a number of arguably intrinsic features of the museum represent a significant challenge to decolonisation, including the traditional museum practices and values evinced by the universal museum. Using a number of case studies, this paper considers the extent to which mainstream museums in Australia, Britain and Europe have been able to change their practices to become more consultative and inclusive of Black and Indigenous peoples. Not only this, it discusses approaches that extend beyond a politics of inclusion to ask whether museums have been prepared to hand over representational power, by giving control of exhibitions to Black and Indigenous communities. Given the challenges posed by traditional museum values and practices, such as the strong preference of the universal museum to maintain intact collections, this paper asks whether community museums and cultural centres located within Indigenous communities may represent viable alternative models. The role of the Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre in Australia’s Northern Territory is considered in this light, including whether Traditional Custodians are able to exert control over visitor interpretation offered by this jointly managed centre to ensure that contentious aspects of Australian history are included within the interpretation.
As institutions that arose during the European age of imperial expansion to glorify and display the achievements of empire, museums have historically been deeply implicated in the colonial enterprise. However if we understand coloniality not as a residue of the age of imperialism, but rather an ongoing structural feature of global dynamics, the challenge faced by museums in decolonising their practice must be viewed as ongoing. This is the case not just in former centres of empire, but in settler-colonial nations such as Australia, where “the colonisers did not go home” (Moreton-Robinson 2015: 10). As a white, Western institution, a number of arguably intrinsic features of the museum represent a significant challenge to decolonisation, including the traditional museum practices and values evinced by the universal museum. Using a number of case studies, this paper considers the extent to which mainstream museums in Australia, Britain and Europe have been able to change their practices to become more consultative and inclusive of Black and Indigenous peoples. Not only this, it discusses approaches that extend beyond a politics of inclusion to ask whether museums have been prepared to hand over representational power, by giving control of exhibitions to Black and Indigenous communities. Given the challenges posed by traditional museum values and practices, such as the strong preference of the universal museum to maintain intact collections, this paper asks whether community museums and cultural centres located within Indigenous communities may represent viable alternative models. The role of the Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre in Australia’s Northern Territory is considered in this light, including whether Traditional Custodians are able to exert control over visitor interpretation offered by this jointly managed centre to ensure that contentious aspects of Australian history are included within the interpretation.
As institutions that arose during the European age of imperial expansion to glorify and display the achievements of empire, museums have historically been deeply implicated in the colonial enterprise. However if we understand coloniality not as a residue of the age of imperialism, but rather an ongoing structural feature of global dynamics, the challenge faced by museums in decolonising their practice must be viewed as ongoing. This is the case not just in former centres of empire, but in settler-colonial nations such as Australia, where “the colonisers did not go home” (Moreton-Robinson 2015: 10). As a white, Western institution, a number of arguably intrinsic features of the museum represent a significant challenge to decolonisation, including the traditional museum practices and values evinced by the universal museum. Using a number of case studies, this paper considers the extent to which mainstream museums in Australia, Britain and Europe have been able to change their practices to become more consultative and inclusive of Black and Indigenous peoples. Not only this, it discusses approaches that extend beyond a politics of inclusion to ask whether museums have been prepared to hand over representational power, by giving control of exhibitions to Black and Indigenous communities. Given the challenges posed by traditional museum values and practices, such as the strong preference of the universal museum to maintain intact collections, this paper asks whether community museums and cultural centres located within Indigenous communities may represent viable alternative models. The role of the Uluru Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre in Australia’s Northern Territory is considered in this light, including whether Traditional Custodians are able to exert control over visitor interpretation offered by this jointly managed centre to ensure that contentious aspects of Australian history are included within the interpretation.
References
Adorno T. (1967): Prisms. S. and S. Weber (trans.). London: Neville Spearman.
Armitage A. (1995): Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, Vancouver: UBC Press.
Australian Government (2011): “Australian Government Policy on Indigenous Repatriation”, https://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian-government-policy-on-indigenous-repatriation-august2011.pdf?acsf_files_redirect, (accessed 8/10/2020).
Australian Museum (2007): “Repatriation Policy for Australian Aboriginal Secret /Sacred and Aboriginal Ancestral Remains Collections”, https://australian-museum-prd.s3.amazonaws.com/media/dd/Uploads/Documents/7546/repatriation-2007.c37babd.pdf , (accessed 7/10/2020).
Bennett T. (1995): The Birth of the Museum: History, theory, politics, New York: Routledge.
Berk C. (2015): “This exhibition is about now: Tasmanian Aboriginality at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery”, Museum Anthropology, 38: 2, 149–162.
Bhambra G. (2014): “Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues”, Postcolonial Studies, 17:2, 115-121, DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2014.966414.
Boast R. (2011), “Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as Contact Zone Revisited”, Museum Anthropology, 34, 56–70.
Bodenstein F. and Pagani C. 2017, “Decolonising National Museums of Ethnography in Europe: Exposing and Reshaping Colonial Heritage (2000–2012)”, in The Postcolonial Museum: The Arts of Memory and the Pressures of History, (ed) Iain Chambers, Taylor & Francis Group, ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=1610022,
British Museum (n.d.) ‘Benin Bronzes’, https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/benin-bronzes, (accessed 27/08/2021).
British Museum (2018): “British Museum Policy on Human Remains”, https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/Human_Remains_policy_061218.pdf, (accessed 9/10/2020).
Chambers D. and Buzinde C. (2015): “Tourism and decolonisation: Locating research and self”, Annals of Tourism Research, 51,1-16, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1016/j.annals.2014.12.002.
Chilisa B. (2012): Indigenous research methodologies, California: Sage Publications.
Cowley J. with the Uluru family (2018): I am Uluru- A family’s story, Alice Springs, Kungka Kutjara Aboriginal Corporation.
Daley P. (2014): “The Bone Collectors: A Brutal Chapter in Australia’s Past”, The Guardian, 14 June 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bones-being-returned-australia, (accessed 9/10/2020).
Fforde C. (2009): “From Edinburgh university to the Ngarrindjeri nation, South Australia”, Museum International, Vol 61:1-2: 41-47, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0033.2009.01673.x.
Gapps S. (2018): The Sydney Wars: Conflict in the Early Colony 1788-1817, Sydney: New South.
Giblin J., Ramos I. & Grout N. (2019) “Dismantling the Master’s House”, Third Text, 33:4-5, 471-486, DOI: 10.1080/09528822.2019.1653065.
Grosfoguel R. (2007): “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn”, Cultural Studies, 21:2-3, 211-223, DOI: 10.1080/09502380601162514.harrison
Harrison J. (2005), “Shaping collaboration: Considering institutional culture”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 20: 3, 195-212.
Hicks D. (2020), The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution, London, Pluto Press.
Hoobler E. (2006), “To Take Their Heritage in Their Hands: Indigenous Self-Representation and Decolonization in the Community Museums of Oaxaca, Mexico”, American Indian Quarterly, 30: 3/4, 441-460.
Hopkins C. 2017, “We Are Always Turning Around on Purpose: Reflecting on Three Decades of Indigenous Curatorial Practice”, Art Journal, Vol. 76, No. 2: 39-47.
Jolly M. (2011), “Becoming a ‘new’ museum? Contesting Oceanic Visions at Musee du Quai Branly”, The Contemporary Pacific, 23: 1, 108-139.
Kaus D. (2008): “The management of restricted Aboriginal objects by the National Museum of Australia”, reCollections 3: 1, https://recollections.nma.gov.au/issues/vol_3_no_1/notes_and_comments/the_management_of_restricted_aboriginal_objects#1, (accessed 12/10/2019).
Karp I. Butinx G., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B., Rassoll C (2006): ‘Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums: ‘Museums Serve Every Nation’, in Karp I., Butinx G., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B., Rassoll C., (eds) Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations, Duke University Press: ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=1169312
Kelly L., Cook C, Gordon P. (2006): “Building relationships through communities of practice: Museums and Indigenous People”, Curator: The Museum Journal, 49: 2, 217-234.
Lebovics H. (2006): “The Musee du Quai Branly: Art? Artifact? Spectacle!”, French Politics, Culture & Society, 24: 3, 96-110.
Lonetree A (2009), “Museums as Sites of Decolonization- Truth Telling in National and Tribal Museums”, in Contesting Knowledge: Museums and Indigenous Perspectives, (ed)Susan Sleeper-Smith, University of Nebraska Press: 322-337, ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=452187.
Lugones M. (2011): “Toward a Decolonial Feminism”, Hypatia 25: 4, 2011, 742–759.
Marstine J. (2011): “The contingent nature of the new museum ethics” in The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics, (ed) J. Martsine, Abingdon and New York, Routledge: 3-25.
Mauss M. (2001): Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, Taylor & Francis Group, ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=1829415.
McBride L. and Smith M. (2021): Unsettled, Sydney, Australian Museum Trust.
McCarthy C., Dorfman E., Hakiwai A. and Twomey A. (2013): “Mana Taonga: Connecting Communities with New Zealand museums through ancestral Maori culture”, Museum International, 65, 5-15.
McGonigle Leyh B. 2020, “Imperatives of the Present: Black Lives Matter and the politics of memory and memorialization”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 38(4): 239–245.
Mignolo W. (2007): “Delinking”, Cultural Studies, 21:2-3, 449-514, DOI: 10.1080/09502380601162647.
Mignolo W. (2011): “Geopolitics of sensing and knowing: on (de)coloniality, border thinking and epistemic disobedience”, Postcolonial Studies, 14:3, 273-283, DOI: 10.1080/13688790.2011.613105.
Moody A. (2013): ‘Review of Christian Thompson ‘We bury our own’, Das Platforms, 27: 38-42, http://dasplatforms.com/magazines/issue-27/christian-thompson-we-bury-our-own/, (accessed 5/11/2015)
Moreton-Robinson A. (2015): The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt155jmpf. (Accessed 9/10/2020).
Moreton-Robinson A. (2021): “Incommensurable sovereignties- Indigenous ontology matters” in Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies (eds) Hokowhitu B, Moreton-Robinson A, Tuhiwai Smith, Anderson C and Larkin S, New York and London, Routledge.
Morton C. (n. d.): “Spiritual repatriation and the archive in Christian Thompson’s We Bury Our Own (catalogue essay”, http://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/christianthompson.html (accessed 5/09/2021)
Musee Quai Branley (n.d.): http://www.quaibranly.fr/en/a-propos/the-public-institution.html, accessed 3 November 2015.
Maldonado-Torres N. (2007): “On the Coloniality of Being”, Cultural Studies, 21:2-3, 240-270, DOI: 10.1080/09502380601162548.
Parks Australia (n.d.): https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/do/cultural-centre/, (accessed 12/10/2020).
Petersen N., Allen L, Hamby L. (2008): ‘Introduction’, in The Makers and Making of Indigenous Australian Museum Collections, Petersen N., Allen L, Hamby (eds), Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Pitt Rivers Museum (n.d): “Rethinking Pitt-Rivers: analysing the activities of a nineteenth century collector”, http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/rpr/index.php/objectbiographies/72-10-queensland-photographs.html.
Quijano A. (2007): “Coloniality and Modernity/ Rationality”, Cultural Studies, 21: 2-3, 168-178, DOI: 10.1080/09502380601164353.
Shultz L. (2014): “Maintaining Aboriginal engagement in Australian museums: two models of inclusion”, Museum Management and Curatorship, 29: 5, 412-428.
Simpson M. (2006): “Revealing and Concealing: Museums, Objects, and the Transmission of Knowledge in Aboriginal Australia”, in Marstine J. (ed), New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, C. (2005): “Decolonising the museum: the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC”, Antiquity, Vol 79: 424-439.
Sullivan T., Kelly L., Gordon P. (2003): “Museums and Indigenous People in Australia: A Review of Previous Possessions, New Obligations: Policies for Museums in Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”, Curator, 46: 2, 208-227.
Thompson C. (n. d.): “Artist’s Statement: We bury our own”, http://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/christianthompson.html, (accessed 5/11/ 2015).
Tuck K. and Lang E. (2012): “Decolonization is not a metaphor”, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1: 1, 1-40.
Turnbull P. (2020): “International Repatriations of Indigenous Human Remains and Its Complexities: the Australian Experience”, Museum & Society, Vol 18:1, 6-19.
United Nations (2007): “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html, (accessed 8/10/2020).
Unruh L. (2015): “Dialogical Curating: Towards Aboriginal Self-Representation in Museums”, Curator: The Museum Journal, 58, 77-89.
Wajid S and Minott R. (2019): “Detoxing and Decolonising Museums” in Museum Activism (eds) R. Janes and R. Sandell, Abingdon and New York, Routledge: 25-36.
Wolfe P. (2006): “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native”, Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387-409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Vanessa Whittington
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright for all manuscripts rests with the author(s). The editors reserve the right to edit manuscripts. Contributors are responsible for acquiring all permissions from the copyright owners for the use of quotations, illustrations, tables, etc. Each author must, before final publication fill, in a publishing agreement provided by LiU E-Press.
Since 2021 Culture Unbound uses a Creative Commons: Attribution license for new articles, which allows users to distribute the work and to reform or build upon it without the author's permission. Full reference to the author must be given. For older articles please see each article landing page.
