birth of museo

8/12/2019 Birth of Museo

1/10

CULTURE POLI CIES ND P OLI TI C S

Wh at are th e relation s be tween c ultur a l po licie an d cu ltura l p olitics ? of ten non e at a ll In the hi story of c ultural s tudi es so fa r th ere has been noshortage of d iscussion of c ultu ra l politics Onl y rarely however have s uchdi scussions taken acco unt o f th e poli cy in strument s throu gh w hich c ulturalact ivities an d in stitutions a re f unded and r egulated in th e mundane poli t icsof bur eaucratic and co rporate l ife Culture P olicies a nd P olitics w il l a ddressthi s i mbalance Th e book s in this e ries will int er r ogate th e role of c ulture inth e o rganization of soc ia l r elation s of power includin g th o se o f c lass nationet hnicity and ge nder T hey will a lso ex p lo re th e way s in whic h p olitical

agenda s in th ese a reas a re re lated to and haped b y policy processe a ndo utco mes In its commitme nt t o t he need for a f uller and cl earer policyca lculus in the cult ural sp here Cultur e P oli cies and P oli tics will h el p top romote a s ign ifica nt tran sforma tion in th e po liti ca l ambit and orie ntation ofcultural st udies and re lated fie ld

TH IRTH OF

TH MUS UM

History theory politics

Tony ennett

London and New York


2/10

HISTOR Y A N THEOR Y

by popul ar s chooling o r who se heart s a nd mind . fail ed to b e won in th e newped agogic relation . be tween s tate and p eople sy mbolized b y th e open dooro f th e mu seum, the c lose d w all s o f th e penitenti ary thre at en ed a s ternerinstru ction in the l essons of power . Where in struction and rhetoric failedpuni hment began.

3

TH E POLITI L

R TION LITY OF

TH E MUSEUM

88

In her es y T he Mu seum in the Di c ipl in ary So ciety E i lea n H ooperGree nhi ll a r gues that th e ruptur es of th e F re nc h R evolu tion c rea ted th econdi tion of emergence for a new truth , a new r ationality, out of whi chcam e a new f unctionality fo r a new in stitution, th e public mu seum ( HooperGreen h ill 1989: 63 ). E stablished as a mean s of sharing wh at had pr eviouslybee n pri vate, of expo sing what h ad been c oncealed, th e publi c mu eum ex pose d both the dec ad en ce a n d tyr anny of the old forms of co ntrol , th e n cie n r egime a nd the democracy and utilit y of the n ew, th e R epublic (i bid.:68 ). A ppropriating ro yal , a ristocratic and church coll ections in th e name of

the pe o ple, d estroying tho se item s who se roy al o r feud al association sthreate ned th e Republic with contagion and arran ging fo r th e di splay of th erema in de r in a ccordance with r ationalist principle s of cla ssification, th eRevo lution tr ansformed th e mu s eum f rom a sy mbol o f a rbitrary p ower int oan instrum ent which , thr ough the education of it s c itizens, was to se rve th ecollec tive go o d o f th e s tate.

Ye t, and f ro m th e ver y beginning, Hoep er-Greenhill a rgues , (HooperGreen h ill 1 989) the publi c mu seum was s haped int o being as a n app aratuswith t wo deeply contr adictory function s: t hat of th e e l ite t e mp le of t he art s,and th at of a utilitari an in s trument fo r democra tic e ducation (Hoo perGree n hi ll 1 989: 63 ). To whi ch , s he contends, ther e was later added a thirdfunc tion as the mu seum w a haped int o a n in strument of the di sciplinarysoc iety. Through th e in , t itution of a di vision betw een th e pr oducers a nd

cons umers of knowl edge - a divi sion whi c h ass umed an architectural fo rmin the r elations b etween th e hidd en s paces of the mu seum , wh ere kn owledgewas pro duce d and or ganized in ca mera, and it s publi c s paces, whereknowl edge wa offer ed for pas sive con umpti on - the m u eum b ecame a s iteWhere bod ie s co nstantly u nders urveillance , we re to be rendered docile.

In ta king my b earings from th ese remarks, m y pu rp o e in what fo l lows i sto offe r an account o f the b irth of th e m u e um which ca n serve illu minateits political rational ity, a term I borro w f rom Foucault. T he d evelopment ofmode m form s of g overnment, Foucault a rgues, is t raced i n th e emerge nce ofne w techn ologies which aim at regulating th e co ndu of individuals and

89


3/10

HISTO R Y AN D T l-IEOR Y

popul a tions - th e pri on, the ho sp i t al a nd th e asylum , fo r ex ample. As s uch,Fo ucault co ntends, th ese technol ogies ar e ch ar a ct erized by th ei r o wn specificra t ional ities : the y con sti tu te distinct an d speci fic m odali t ies fo r th e exe rciseof p ow er, ge nerat ing th ei r o wn s pe c ific fi el ds o f political problems andre lations, ra ther than com prising ins tances for th e ex e rc ise o f a ge neral formof power . T here i s, Fo ucault f urt he r suggests, fre quently a m ismatch bet w eenthe r heto rics whic h see m ingl y gove rn th e ai ms of suc h t ech n ol o gi e s a n d th epol itical ra tiona li tie s em bo d ie d in the ac tua l m odes of th e ir fun cti onin g.

Wh e re t his is so, th e s pace p rodu ce d by t h is m ismatch s uppl ie s th e co nditionsfo r a d isco urse of ref orm w hic h prove s un endin g be c au se i t mi stakes th enature of its ob je ct . T he pr iso n, Fo ucault thus arg u h as been e ndlesslys ubject to ca lls f or reform to a llow it to li ve up to it s rehabil itative rh etori c.Ye t, h o we ve r i neffective such reforms pr o ve , t he v iab i li ty o f th e p rison isra rely p ut in to q uestion . Wh y? B ecause, F ouc ault a rgu es , th e p oliticalrationality of the p rison lie s e lsew here - less i n it s a bili ty to ge nuinely r eformbehaviour t han in its ca paci ty to sepa rate a m anageable c ri min al s ub-classf rom the res t of the pop ulation.

Th e m u seu m too, of co urse, has been constan tly sub jec t to d em an d s forreform. Mo re ove r, a l though it s spec ific infl ecti ons ha ve v a ri ed w it h t im e an dp lace a s hav e th e s pec i fic pol i t ical co nstitue ncies whi ch h ave been c aughtup in it s adv ocacy, th e d isc ou r se o f re f o rm w h ic h m otivat e th ese demand s

has remained id enti fiably th e sa me o ver the l a t ce ntury. I t is, i n t he main,c ha racter i ze d b y two p rin cipl es : fir st the p rinc iple of p ublicri gh t s s usta iningth e dema nd tha t mu seum s s h oul d b e e qual ly op en a nd acc ess ible to a ; andsecond , the princi ple of re presen tatio na l adequacy sus ta ining th e demandthat m useums should adeq uate ly re prese nt th e c ult ures and v alue s ofd iffer e nt s ec t ions of the p ublic . Whil e i t m igh t be t empting to see these asa lien de m ands im po sed o n m useums by t heir ex te rn a l po litical e n vir onments, s hall s ugges t th at th ey ar e o ne s wh ic h fl ow o ut o f, a re g en erat ed by andon ly ma ke se nse i n re lat ion to th e i nte rn a l d y na m ics o f th e mu seu m form.O r, m ore exac tly, shall arg ue th at they are f uelled b y t he mi smatch b et ween ,o n t he one hand, th e rhetorics whi ch gove rn th e s ta te d a im s of mu seu m s and ,on the other, t he pol itical rationa lity embo died in t he act ual m odes of theirf unc tioning - a mi smatch w hic h g uarantees th a t the d em an d s it ge ne ra tes a re

insat iable.Th us, to br iefly anticipate my arg ument, the p ub l ic ri gh t s d emand is

p rod uced and su s tai ned by th e d isso nance bet w ee n , o n th e o ne h and , thedemocratic rhe to r ic gove rning the co nce pt ion of public mu s eu m s as ve hiclesfor popula r ed uc a tion a nd , on the o ther, th ei r ac tua l f un ct ion in g as in strum en t s for the reform of p ubl ic m anners. W hile th e fo rmer r equires th at theyshould address an undifferentiated p ublic m ade up offree and fo rmal equal s,th e latter, i n giv ing r is e to the development of vari o us tec hno lo g i es forregulating or sc reening o ut the fo rms of behaviou r assoc iated wi th p opul arassemblies ha s meant tha t they h a ve f u nc t io ne d as a p owerf ul means fo r

90

T HE P OLlTIC AL R ATIONALITY OF TH E M USEUM

different iat ing population s. Similarly , d emands ba sed on th e prin ciple ofrepres entational adequacy are p roduced an d ustain ed by the fa ct t ha t, inp urp or ting to tell the story of Man , th e s pa c e of repr es entation shap ed intobeing in as sociation with the formation o f th e p u bl i c m u se u m e m bo d i e ap rinciple of general h u ~ univer sality in relati.on to w hich, v he the r on . th ebasis of the g endered, ra cial, cl a ss or oth er o cial patt ern s o f It s exc lusionsand b iase , any part icul ar mu seum di spl ay c an be h eld to b e inadequ at e a ndtherefore i n n eed of s upplementation.

To arg ue that thi di scour se of reform is i nsatiable, how ever, is not to a rgueagainst th e politi cal dem ands thathav e been , s t i l l a r e a nd for the f o re e e ~e

fu tur e , w ill continu e to be br ou ght to bear on mu seum s. To the contr ar y, I narguing th e re spect s in whi ch the se d emand s grow out of the mu seu m scontra dictory political rationalit y, my purpo se i s to s ugge t way s in w hi chqu estions of mu seum politi cs might be m ore producti vely pur sued if po sedi n the lig ht of tho se cultural d ynamics and rel ations p eculiar to the mu seumwhic h th ey mu st take a ccount of and n eg oti ate . In thi s re spect, apart f romlo oking to hi s work for methodological g uidance, I shall draw on Foucaultpo litically in u gge sting t ha t a c onsideration of the politi cs of tru th pe culiarto the m use um allow s th e dev elopm ent of mor e fo cused form s of politic s thanmight flow fr om other persp ectiv es.

Let m e m ention one s uch a l te rna t ive h ere. F or th e birth o f th e mu urn

co uld ce r tainly be approa ched, from a Gr amsci an pe r spe ctiv e , as fo rming apa r t of a new se t of relation between state a nd p eopl e th at is best und er toodas pedag ogic in the sen se d efined by Gram sci when he a rgued the state mu stbe conce i ve d o f as an e ducato r , in a s mu ch as it t end s p reci sely to cre atea new type or l evel of c ivilisation Gra msci 1971: 2 47). No r would s uch anaccount b e imp lau sible . Indeed , a Grarn scian p erspective is es s ential to anad equate th eorization of the mu seum s re la tio ns to b ou rgeois-d emo craticpo li t ies. In al l owin g an appreci ation of th e re spect s in which th e mu seuminv o lv ed a rhetorical in corpor ation of th e people within th e proce sses ofpower, it se rves - in way s 1 shall outlin e - as a u seful an tid ote t o th eon e-eyed focu s which re sul ts if mu seum s are view ed , s o le ly th rou gh aFouc aulti an lens, as in strum en t s of di s cipline . Howev er, I wa n t, h er e, to b endth e st ic k in th e oth er dir ection. Fo r on c e, as in th e Grarn sci an par adigm th ey

gener all y are , mu seum s ar e repr esent ed a in strum ent s of rulin g-cla sshegemony, th en s o mu seum s tend to b e thou gh t of as am enabl e to a ge neralfor m of cultural politic s - o ne w hi ch , in c r i t ic i zing tho se he gemoni cid eolo gical articulation s g overn ing th e th emati cs of mu seu m di splays, se eksto for g e new articulations ca pab l e o f organi zing a coun ter-hegemon y. Th edi ffi culty with s uch formul ation s i s that th ey tak e sc an t ac count of th edi stinctive field of politi cal re lations c ons t i tuted b y th e mu seum s s pec ificinstitu tional pro-pertie s . Gram c ia n p ol it i cs in oth er word s, ar e inst itutionally ind ifferent in way s which a Fo u caultian pe r spect ive c an usef ullyte mp er and qualify,

91


4/10

H1ST OR Y AN D T HEO RY

TH I RT O TH M U S U M

Let me now turn , in th e li ght of the se co ns iderations, t o th e o rigins and earlyhi story of th e publi c mu seum a n in ti tut ion w hose d i stinguishing ch aracteris tics cry stallized durin g th e fir st hal f o f th e nin et eenth ce n tury. In doing so sh all f or eground thr ee prin ciples whi ch highlight th e d istinctiveness of thep ub li c m us eu m wit h r espect to , fi rs t , it s relations to the public s it h el pe d toor ganize and co n titut e, seco nd, it s int ernal o rg ani zat ion , an d , t hi rd , itspl acement in rel ation both to k in dr ed in titu tions as we ll as t o tho se - both

a ncient and modern - to w hi c h i t mi ght m ost u ef u ll y b e ju xtaposed.Dou glas Crimp s acco unt of th e birth of th e m od ern a r t mu seum of f ers an

in t ruct iv e rout e in to th e fir st set of q uestions C r im p 1 9 87 ). C rimp regard sth e Alte s Mu seum in B erlin as th e paradi gmatic in stance of th e ea r ly artmu seum , se ei ng in it th e fir t in stitutional ex pression of th e mod ern idea ofart who se initial fo rmula t ion h e a ttribute s to He gel. C ons t ructed by Kar lAu gust Schinkel , a clo se fri end of Hegel s , ov er th e period 18 23 to 1829 whenH eg el d el iv er ed hi s l ectur es o n ae s thetics a t th e U niversity of B erlin, theconception of th e Alt es Mu seum s fun ct ion , C rimp a rgues, w as g overned byHegel philosophy of art in whi ch a r t, h aving ce de d it s pl ace to philo sophya th e s u pr eme m od e of our kno wledge of th e A bsolute , bec ome s a mereobject of p hi lo s op hi c al c ontemplation. Th e s pace of th e mu seum , as thisanalysis unfold s, thu s bec om es on e in which a r t, in be ing abstracted from reallif e c ontex ts , i s depoliticized, Th e mu seum , in s um, co nstitutes a s pecificfor m o f ar t s enclo su r e w hich, in C rim p s postm odernist per spe ctive, art mustbr eak with in order to be come once m ore oc ially a nd polit i cal ly r elevant.

Th e a rg u me n t i s hardl y new. T he s tress C r im p pl ace s o n t he H eg el ia nlin eage of the ar t mu seum is reminisc ent of Adorno s conception of museumsas like family se pulchres o f wor ks of art A do rno 1967: 175), while hispo stmodern i st c redo ec h oes t o th e tun e o f M alraux s museum without wall sMal raux 196 7). Yet w hile it m ay ma ke goo d se nse a p art of a political

pol emi c , to v iew ar t mu s eum s a s in st it ut ion of e nclosure f r om t h e point ofview of th e po ssi bl e a lte rnative co ntext s in whic h wo rks o f art might beex hibited, C rimp is led a s tray whe n h e pr op o es an arc haeo logy of themu seum on th e m odel o f Fo ucau lt S analy is of th e asy lum , th e clini c and thep rison o n th e g rounds that , li ke thes e, it is equa lly a pace of ex clusion andco nfineme nt Cri m p 1 9 87: 62). Q uite apart fro m the fact t hat it s di fficult tosee in wh at se nse w ork s of a rt, o nce pl a ce d in a n ar t mu seum , mi gh be likenedto th e inmat e o f th e penitentiary w hose co nfinement r esult s in s ub je c t ion toa norm al izing sc rutiny dir e cted a t th e m odification of beh a viour , Crimp sthe i s wo uld r equire th at th e co ntext for a rt s d isp lay p rovid ed by the artmu seum be re ga rd ed as m or e enc lo sed than the co ntexts pr ovided by theva riety of in stituti on s w ithin w hic h works of a rt , toget her wit h o t her v aluedobj ect , bad been hou sed f rom th e Renaissance thr ough to th e En lightenment.

Thi s is pa tent ly no t so . Wh i le suc h co llection s whe ther of works of art ,

92

TH E POLITICA L RATIONAUTY OF TH E US UM

cu rio s iti es or object s of scient ific intere st) had gon e under a variety ofna me m use ums , studioli cab in ets d es cur ieux Wund erkammern Kunst -kam mern and f ulfilled a var iety of f unct ions demo nstrations of royal power ,sym b o ls of a ristocratic or me rca ntile status , ins tr ument s of learning , they a llcon titut ed socia lly enclosed sp ac es t o which acce s wa s remarkab ly restr i c te d . S o m uch so th at , in the m ost ext reme cases, acc es wa s ava ilab le toon ly o ne perso n: he p ri nce . As we trace , over the cour se of t he l at e e ighteenthand ea rly n ineteenth cent uries , the d ispersal of these coll ections and theirreconstitution in pub li c m useums , we t ra ce a proce ss in wh ich not j u t w or k sof ar t but co llect ion s of a ll kinds come to be p la ced in context w hich werecons iderably les s e nclosed than t heir antec ed ent s. The c lose d wall s ofm useum s, in ot her wor ds, sho uld not blind us to th e fact t hat t h ey p rogress ively ope ned the i r d oor s to permit free acce ss to the pop ulation at large.The t im in g of t he se deve lo pme nts va ried: what was accompli shed in F rance ,vio lent ly a nd dra matically , in the cour se of th e R evolution wa s, e lsewhere ,mo re typically the p roduct of a h isto ry of gradual and piecemeal reform s .Neve rtheles , by r ou gh ly the mid- nineteent h century , th e prin cip le of thenew form w er e eve ryw here apparent: everyone , a t least in theory , wa swelcome. David B lackbourn and Geoff E ley , in tracing these development sin the German context , thus stress th e r espect s in w hi ch t h e advocacy ofrnu seums - along wi th that of adj a cent in stitutions embodyi ng sim i la r

pr inciples , s uch as pub lic parks and zoos - wa s pr emised on a bourgeo isc ritique of earlier abso luti st fo rm s of di splay, s uch as the r oy al menagerie.In d o in g s o, t hey cou nterpo se i ts formative prin ciple - that of addressing age neral public made up of fo rmal equ als - to th e form ally d if f er entiat edforms of socia bility and edifi cation t ha t had ch aracteri zed th e an cien regime Bla ckbour n and E ley 1984: 198).

In thes e r es pect s, t he n, a nd contrary to Crimp s s uggestion, th e trajector yem bod i ed in the muse um s deve lopment is the r everse of th at e mbodied inthe ro ughly On temporary em ergence of th e pri son, th e asy l um and the clini c .Wh ereas th es e effected the sequestrat ion and in s t itu tional e nclosure ofin digent a nd oth er populations, which had pr eviou sl y mix ed and int ermingledin e ta blis hrnents who se boun daries proved rel atively perme able or. as i n theseeneo f punishment or the s hips offool s, had formed p art s of e laborate p ublic

dratnaturgies the mu eum p laced obj ect s which had pr eviou Iy b een c oncealed from public view into new open and publ i c cont exts . Mo r eover , unliketh e ca rceral in stit ution s whose birth coincided with i t s ow n , the museum - inits co nce ption if not in a ll a spects of it s pra ctice - aimed not at thesequ e Ir ati on of popu lations but , pr ecisely, a t th e mi xing and int e rmin gl in gof public s - e lit e and popular - whi ch had hith erto te nded toward se paratefo rm s of as, embly,

I m ake these point s not merely to sc ore o ff C ri m p b u t r ather to s tress there spe cts in which t he p ublic museum occupied a cultur al pa c e that wa sra dically dist inct f rom those occ upied by it s variou p redeces sor s j ust as it

93


5/10

HISTORY ND THEORY

was dis tinc t in i ts funct ion. This, in turn, serves to underscore a methodological l imitat ion of tho se accounts which tel l the st or y of the m us eu m sdevelopm ent in the fo rm of a l inear h is tory of it s emergence from ear liercolle cting institutions. For it is by no m ea ns cl ear that these provide the mostappropriate historical co-ordinates for theorizing the museum s distinctivene ss as a vehic le for the display of power. Depending on the per iod and t hecountry , man y candidate s might be sugge sted for this role - the royal entry,the c ou rt ma sque, the tournament , the b ll et de cour and , of course, the

var ious pr ecursors of the public mu seum itself. However , while , in the ear lyRenaissance period, many of the se had fo rmed vehic les for the display ofroyal power to the p op ul ac e, the y ceased to have thi s fun ction from thesixteenth century as, with the emergence of absolutism and the associatedrefeudalization o f court ly so ciety, they cam e to fun ction m ai nl y as c ou rtfe stivals or in stitutions des igned to di splay monar chical power within thelimit ed circle s of the aristocracy .

So far as the public di splay of power to the general population wasconcerned , thi s increas ingly took the form , espec ia lly in the e ighteen thcentury, of th e public en ac tme nt of the s cene of p un is hm en t. Yet if themu seum took o ver th is function , it al so tran sformed it in e mb od yi ng a newrhetoric of powe r which enlisted the general public itaddressed as its sub jectrather than i t s o bj ec t. The logic of thi s transformation i s b es t seen i n the

re spects in which the development of the mu seum and the prison criss-crosson e anoth er i n the e ar ly n in et e enth cen tu ry - but as histo ries running inopposing rather than , as Crimp suggests , parallel directions. Thus, if in theeighteenth century the prison is a relatively permeable institution effectingan incomplete enclo sure of its inhabitant s, its nineteenth-century developmenttakes th e f or m of it s increasing separ ation from society as puni shment - nowsevered from th e funct ion of making power publicly manifes t - i s secre tedwith in the clos ed walls of the p enitentiary. The c ou r se of the m us eu m sdevelopment, b y contrast , is one o f its increasing permeability as the varietyof re strictions pl aced on access when granted at al l ) - p eo pl e with c le anshoes, tho se who ca me b y ca rriage, person s able to present their credentialsfo r inspection - are r emoved to produce , by the mid-nineteenth century , aninstitution which had migrat ed f roma variety of private and exclu sive spheres

in to th e publi c dom ain.Th e pla ce of the two in stitutions in the h isto ry of a rchitecture underlinesthi s inverse symmetry of th eir re spective traje ctories. Robin E vans has shownhow , wh ile ther e was no distinctive pr i son architecture before 1750, the nextcentur y witne ssed a f lurry of architectural initiatives oriented to th e production of th e prison as an enclos ed s pace within which behaviour could beconstantly m onitored; an archi t ecture that wa s causal it s focu s on theor ganization of power relations within the interior space of the p rison ratherthan emblemati c in the se n se of be ing concerned with the e xternal display ofpower Evans 1982). Mus eum arch itecture was comparably innovative over

94

T H E P O L IT I C L R TI ON LlTY OF THE M U S E U M

the s ame per iod, witness ing a spate of archi tectural competitions for th edesig n of mu seums in which the empha sis mov ed pro gressively aw ay f romor ga ni zing enclosed spaces of di splay for the private plea sure of the prin ce,ar is tocrat or scholar and toward s an organi zation of spac e and vi sion thatwo uld al low museum s to fun ction as in s truments o f p ub li c inst ruction Seli ng 1967) .

No r, in thu s passing one another like s h ips in the ni ght, a re the mu seumand the penitentiary obliviou s of the fact. When M ill bank P enitentiary o penedin 1817, a room fe stooned wi th ch ains , whip s and in struments of tor tur ewas set aside as a mu seum. Th e sa me p er io d witn e ss ed a n addition toLo nd on s array of exhibitionary in stitutions when , in 1 835, Madam e Tu ssaudset up p ermanent shop featuring, a s a ma jo r attraction, the Cha mb er o fHo rrors where th e barbarous exces ses of pa st practi ces of puni shment wer edis playe d in all the ir gory det ail. A s the c entury developed , the dungeons ofol d cas t les were o pe ne d to p ub li c in spection, oft en as the ce ntrepieces ofmus eu m s. In brief , although often litt le remarked , th e ex hi b it io n of p astreg imes of p unishment became , and remain s, a m ajo r mu seological trope.Wh il e t he functioning of such exhibitions in relation to Whi ggish ac countsof the history of penal ity i s clear , thi s t ro pe h as also s er ved as a meanswhe re by t he mus eum , in instituting a pub lic critiqu e of th e form s f or th edisplay of pow er as soci ated with the n cien regi me has s imultaneouslyde clare d i ts own democrat ic s tatus. Thus, i f the museum supplant ed the sceneof punis hment in ta king on the fun ction of di splaying power to th e popul ace,the rhe torical economy o f th e p ow er t ha t was di spl ay ed was s ignificantlyalte red. Rather than embodying an a li en and coerci ve p rinciple of p owerwh ic h a im ed to cow th e peop le int o s ubmission , the mu seum - a ddressingthe pe ople as a public , as citizen s - aimed to inv eigle the ge nera l p opulaceint o co mplicity with power by placin g them on thi s s ide of a p o wer Which itrep rese nt ed to it as it s own.

AN OR R OF THINGS ND PEOPLES

Th is was not , howeve r, merely a mat ter of the state cl aiming o wnership ofcu ltural p roper ty on b ehalf of the p ub li c o r o f the mu seum openin g its door s .1t was a n effe ct of the new organ izational princi p le s g overning the arra ngement of objects within mu seum di splays and of the subject po sition the seproduce d for that n ew publi c of free and formal equ al s w h ic h mu seumsco ns tit u ted and addres sed. In H oep er-Greenhill s ac count , th e fu nction ofpri nce ly collections durin g the Renaissance w as to recreate th e wo rld inminiature a round the centr al figure of th e pr ince who thu s cla imed dominionove r the w orld sy mbolically as hedid inreal ity Hoo per-Greenhill 198 9: 64).Bas ed on th e interpreta tive l ogic o f wh at F oucau lt has c haracterized as theRena issance episteme which read ben eath the s urface of th in gs to d iscoverhidde n co nnections of mean in g a nd s ignificance , such collections were

95


6/10

HI S T ORY A ND THEORY

o rg an is ed to d em on strate the ancient hierarchie s of the world and t heresemblances that dr ew the th ings of th e world together ibid.: 64). As , in t hecourse of the ei ghteenth century , th e force of t he Renaissance epistemeweak ened u nd er the w ei gh t of. a ga in in Foucault s terms , the princip les ofc lassification governin g the cla ssical episteme mu se um disp lays ca me tobe go ve rn e d in ac corda nc e with a n ew programme. Governed by th e ne wprinciples of scientific taxonomy , the str es s was p la ce d on the o bservabled if f erences between things rather than the ir hidden resemb lances ; the co mmonor ordin ar y ob ject , accorded a repre sentative f unction, was accor ded priorityo ve r t he e xotic or unu sual; and thing s were arranged as parts of se ries rat herthan a s un ique item s.

I t i s odd , however , that Hooper -Greenhill sho uld leave of f her acco unt a tthis point. For the epistemic shift that mos t m a tt er s so fa r as th e pu blicmu seum is concerned is not t ha t from the Renaissa nce t o the classic alep ist eme but tha t f rom the la tte r t o the modern epistem e As a consequ enceof thi s shift , as Foucault describes it in tracing the emergence of the mo dernsc iences of Man , thing s c ea se d to be a rr an ge d as parts of taxonom ic tablesand came, ins tead , in b ei ng in serted wit hin the flow of ti me , to be differentiated i n te rm s of the po sitions accorded them w ithin evo lutionary ser ies.It is this shif t, I sugges t , w hich can best accoun t for th e disc ursive space ofthe public muse um. The birth of the museum iscoi ncident w ith, an d supplieda primary institutional condition for , the emergence of a new set of kn owledges - geology , biolo gy, archaeo logy , ant hropology, history and art hi story- each of which , in its museologi cal deployme nt, arra nged objec ts as partsof evo lutionary seq uences th e hi story of t he ear th , of life , of man , a nd o fciviliz ation) wh ich, in their interrelations , fo rmed a to talizing orde r of thingsand peoples tha t was hi storicized throug h and through.

T he co nceptual shi ft s which made t his pos sib le did no t, of co urse, occ ure ve nl y o r at the s ame tim e acro ss a ll the se know led ges. In the case of his toryand art history, Stephen Bann 1984) attributes the develop ment of the t woprinciple s go verning the poeti cs of the modern hi story museum - the ga lleriapr ogress iva and the p eri od room - to the M us ee des mo nu me nt s fra ncais 1795 ) and lexandre du Sommerard s collectio n at the H ot el de C luny 183 2), although Pev s ne r 1 976) tra ces elements of the former to C hristianvon Michel s di splay at the D usseldorf gallery in 1755. In the case ofanthropology, while Jomard, curator a t the Bibl iothequ e Roy ale, had argue d,as e ar ly as the 1820 s, for an e thnographic mu seum that would illustrate thedegree of civili sation of pe ople s/who are/but slig htly advanced cite d inWilliam s 1985: 140) , it was not u nt il P it t Riv ers developed h is typo logicalsystem that display principle s appropriate to thi s objective were devised. No rwa s it until toward s the end of the c entury that the se pri nciples were w idelydif fused, largely due to th e influence of Ot is Ma son of the Smithsonia n.Simil arly, the theoret ical triumph o f Darwini sm had little effect on m useumpractice s in Britain unti l Richard Owen , a defender of uvier s princ iple of

96

TH E POLITI L R TI O N L IT Y O F T HE M U SE UM

the fix ity of specie s, was succeede d , towards the e nd of the centu ry, b yWill iam Henry F lower .?

W hen all th es e caveats are entered , however , the artefacts - s uch asgeolog ica l speci me ns , works of ar t, curiosit ies a nd anatomical re mainswhich had bee n d isp layed cheek by jo wl i n the m useum s ea r ly p re cur sors intestimony to t he rich d iversity of t he chain of universal being , or whic h h adlater been laid o ut on a tabl e i n acco rdance with th e pr inciples of c lassificatio n, had , by ro ughly the mid -nineteenth cen tury , b een wrenched frombo th t hese space s of repre se ntation and were i n th e p rocess of being us heredinto the new one cons tituted b y the re lations b etween the evo lutionary ser iesorganiz ed by eac h of th ese k nowl edges. In these respects , and li ke t heirp redecessors, m useums p roduced a position of power an d kn owledge inrelation to a microcosmic reconstruc tion of a tota lized order of thi ngs a ndpeoples. Yet , and as a gen u in el y n ew p rincip le, th ese po wer - knowledgerelations were de mocra tic in t heir structure t o the degree th at th ey co nstitutedthe p ublic they addre ssed - the newly fo rmed , undif ferentiated publi c brou ghtin to be ing by th e m useum s ope nness - as bot h the c ulminatio n of th eevolutionary series lai d o ut b e fo re it a nd as the apex o f dev elopm ent f romwhi ch t he direc tion of those series , leading to m odern m a n as th eir accomp lishment, wa s discern ible . J ust as, in t he fes tivals of th e a bsolutist co urt , anid eal a nd ordered wo r ld un folds before and ema nates fr om th e pri vileged andco ntroll ing perspective of thepr ince , so, i n the mu seum , an ideal a nd or deredworld unfolds before and e manates fro m a co ntrolling pos ition of kn owle dgeand vis io n; on e , however, w hich h as been democ r at iz ed in t h at , a t le ast inpri nciple, occupancy of that position - the posit ion of Ma n - is o penly andfr eely a vailable to a ll.

It i s, however , around t hat phrase at least in princip le t ha t t he k ey issueslie. Fo r in practice , of co urse , the space of represe ntation shaped in t o be ingby t he p ublic muse um was hi jacked by a ll so rts of particular soc ial ideo logie s:it wa sex is t in the ge nd ere d patt ern s of it s ex cl usions , racist i n its ass ignationof the a borigina l popu lations of co nquered t err i tories to th e lowes t run gs ofhuman ev olution, and bo urgeois in the re spec t that it was c lea rly ar ticula te dto b ourgeois rhetorics of progress . Fo r all th at , it was an o rder of things andpeoples t h at co uld be opened up to cr iticism fro m within inasmuch as , inpu rporting to tel l the story of Man , it incorporate d a princ iple of ge neralityin re lationto whichany particular museum d isp lay co uld behe ld t o be p artial ,incomplete, inadequate . W hen contrasted wi th ea rlier absolut ist o r theocraticSp ac es o f representat ion - spaces cons tructed in rela tion to a s ingularCOntro lling point of reference , human or divi ne, wh ich d oe s no t cla im arepres ent ative general ity - the space of representation associate d wi th them useum rest s on a princip le of general hum an univer sa li ty w hich ren ders itinherently volati le , ope ning it up to a c on stant d iscour se of reform as hith ertoexcl Uded con stitue ncies seek incJu sion - and inclusionon equal term s - withinthat s pace.

97


7/10

H IS TO R Y A ND T HE O RY

I shall return to these cons iderations l ater. Mea nwhile, l et me ret urn t o th eq uestion of t he re lations be twee n the priso n an d the m useum in o rder toclarify their respec tive posit ions with in the power-k nowledge r elations ofnineteenth-century soc ieties. In examin ing the format ion of th e new socia ldisciplines associated with the deve lopment of the carce ral arc hipelago and,mo re ge nera lly, the d ev el op me nt of m od er n f or ms of g ov e rnmentality,Foucaul t s tresses the respects i n which these knowledges, in ma pping th ebody wit h th eir individualizing a nd pa rticularizing gaze, re nder the popul ace

visible to p ow er and, h en ce , to reg ulation. While the var iou ex hibitionaryknow ledges associated wit h the rise of th e m useum si milarly fo rm p art of aset of power-know ledge relat ions, these differ in bo th t heir organization andf unctioning fro m those Foucaul t i s co ncerned wi th. I f the o rientation o f thep ri so n i to d is ci pl ine and p unish wi th a v iew to effect ing a m odification ofbe haviour, that of t he m useum is to s how and tell so th at th e peo ple mightlook a nd learn. The purpose, here , is no t to k now t h e po pulace but t o al lowth e p eopl e, addre sse d as s ubjects of k no w l ed ge r ather th an a o bjec ts ofadministra tion, to know; not to re nd er the po pulace vis ible to pow er bu t torender power v isib le to the people a nd, at t he sa me ti me, t o represent to themthat power as t heir ow n.

In thus rhetorically i ncorporating an undifferentiated c itizenry int o a setof power-k nowledge re lation s which are re presented to it as e manating from

it self, the m useu m e me rg ed as a n important instrument fo r th e se lf-displayof bourgeois-democratic societies . I nd ee d, if, i n Fo uca u lt s acco unt , thep rison emblemat izes a new set of re lations through wh ich t he populace isconstitu ted as the objec t of governmental reg ulation, so th e mu seum mi ghts er ve as the emb lem for the e me rg en ce of an eq ually important n ew set ofre lat ions - bes t summarized in G ra ms ci s co ncep tion of th e e thical stat through whic h a democ ratic citize nry wa r hetorically in corporated into thep ro ce s es of the s ta te . Jf so, it i i mp or ta n t to reca ll tha t Gr amsci v iewed thi sas a d is ti ng ui sh in g f ea t ure of the m odern bour ge oi s s ta te r ath er than adef in ing a tt ribu te of the s ta te as such . W hereas, h e arg ues, p revious rul ingclasse did no t t end to c onstruct an organic p assage f rom th e ot he r c lassesin to th ei r ow n, i.e. to en large t he ir c la ss s phere tech n ica lly a nd ideologically, the bourgeoisie p os es i ts e lf as an o rganism in co ntinuousmovement, ca pable of absorbing t he enti re society, ass imilating it to its owncult ural and moral level (Gramsci 1971: 260). is in th is re sp ect , hecontends, that the entire function of the sta te i s tr an sf orm ed a it bec omes aneducator. The migra tion of the display of powe r f rom, on t he one hand, thep ublic scene of punishment and , o n the othe r, from the e nclosed sphere o fco urt festivals to the p ub li c m u e um p layed a cruc ial ro le in th is t ransformation p re ci se ly to the de gr ee that it fa sh ion ed a s pa ce in w hic h th ese tdifferentiated functions - the display of power to thepo pulace and it s di splaywithin the ruling clas e s - c oa le ced.

98

THE POLI TICAL R ATI ON A LITY O F T H E M U SE U M

TH E MUSEUM N D P U LI C M N N ER S

Ye t thi s is only h alf th e tory. For h ow ev er mu ch i t ma y hav e ai med atpro moting a mi xing and int ermingling of tho se publi c - e lite a nd p opularwhich had hith ert o tended toward s e parate form s of assembly, th e mu seumal se r ve d a s an in strum ent for di fferentiating populations. In d oing so,mo reover, i t too formed a part of th e e mergence of th ose te chniques o freg ulation and se lf-reg ulation Foucault is co ncerned wi th wh er eb y th ebe haviour of large populations is subj ect tone w fo rms of social m anagement.

To a ppreciate th e re spects in w hi ch th is is so acco unt mu st be tak en of th eeme rge nc e of n ew technolo gies of b ehaviour m anagem ent whi ch a llowedmuse ums to offer a techni cal s olution to the prob lem t h at h ad a lways pl aguedearlier form s for the di pl ay of pow er with th ei r a ttendant r is ks of di sorder.An exa mination of the se issues wi ll a l so se rve t o sho w h ow, in spite of itsfor mally addre ssing an undi fferentiated publi c, the practi ces of the serve d to dri ve a wedg e between the public s it a ttracted and th at rec alcitrantport io n of th e population who se mann ers rem ain ed t hose of th e tavern a ndthe fair.

Fo ucaul t d escribes well enough th e ri sks of di sorder ass ociated wi th thescene of puni shment: on ex ecut ion d ays, he w rites, work stopped, t hetave rns were f ull, the authori ties wer e a bused , in u lt s or stones w ere thr ownat the ex ecutioner, the gu ard s a n d th e so ldiers; att empts were mad e to se izethe c ondemned man , eith er t o save him or to kil l h im more surely; fight s brok eout, and th ere wa s no b ett er prey for thieves th an t he curiou s thron g a roundthe sc affol d (Foucault 1977: 63 ). Da vid Co oper, not ing th e fa irlike atmosphe re o f p ubl i c e xecutions, pa ints a si m ila r p icture fo r late-eighte ent hcent ur y En gland by wh en, of cour se , th e fa ir it self had be com e t he ve rysymbo l of popular di sorder: in 1817 , for exa mp le, B artholomew Fai r,suspec ted of b eing a br eeding ground for se di t ion, wa s a t tacked b y fourregime nts of ho rse. th e b ir th of th e pri son, in d etaching puni shment fromthe public scene, wa s on e response to the p robl em, the b ir th o f the mu seumprovi de d it s complement. D etaching the di spl ay o f pow er - the pow er tocom mand and arrange obj ects for d i splay - from the risk of disorder, it a lsoprov ided a m echanism f o r th e tran sform ation of the crowd int o an ord eredand, ideally, se lf-regulating publi c.

This i s not to say th at it imm ediately pr es ent ed it self in thi s light. To thecontrary, in th e Br itish co ntex t , th e advocates o f p ublic mu seums had to fighthard ag ainst a tid e of in fluential op inion whi ch fea red th at , s hould mu eumsbe op ene d to th e publi c, th ey wo uld fa ll vic ti m t o the di sorderliness of thecrowd . In conservative op inion, i ma ge s of t he po lit ical m ob th e d isorderlycro w d o f the fai r, or of th e drunk and de bauched r abble of th e pub or t avernwere frequently conjur ed up as in terchange abl e spec tres to suggest thatopen i n g th e door s of mu seums c ould on ly r esult in ei ther the destr uction ofthe ir ex hibits or the desecration of their aura of c ulture and knowledge by

99


8/10

HISTOR Y AN 0 T HEO R Y

unseemly for ms of behaviour. We kno w we ll eno ugh from the li terature o nrational recreations t hat , in r eforming opi nion , mu seums we re e nvi sage d asa me an s of ex po in g th e work ing cla se to th e im proving mental influ enceof mi ddle-class c ulture. H owever, t he po int I w ant to stress here co ncerns th erespect in w hich, co nceived as a ntidotes t o th e fo rm s of behaviou r as soc iatedw ith p lace of pop ular asse mbly, mu seums we re a lso rega rded as in strumentscapab le of in du cin g a ref orm of pu bli c ma nners - th at is, o f modif yingexterna l and visib le fo rms of behaviour q uite ind ep end entl y of a ny innerme ntal o r c ultural transfo rma tion.

The m useum, t hat i s to say, ex plicitly t argeted th e popular body as a n objectfor reform , do in g s o t hrough a va riety of ro utine a nd t echnologies req uiringa s hift in th e nor ms of bodi ly co mportment. T hi wa s acco mplished, m ostobvious ly, by the d irect p rosc ription of th ose fo rms of behaviour assoc iatedwit h pl aces of popular a sse m bly b y,for exa mple, rul e s f o rbidding ea ting anddrink in g , o utlawing the t ouching o f ex hibits and , quit e fre quently, s ta tin g _or a t le a t adv ising - w hat should be wo rn and wh at hould not. In this way,while for mally free and ope n,th e mu seum e ffected it s ow n patt ern o f in formald iscrimi na t ions and excl usions. P erhap s more d istinctive , however, was theco nstitution of th e m useum - a longside p ublic park a nd the lik e - as a s paceof e mulation in which the wo rking classes, in b e in g a llowed t o co mminglew ith the midd le cla sses in a fo rmally a nd undiff erentiated s phere, could learnto ado pt new f orms of behavi our by imitation. Supp orters of th e ex hibitionsheld in the Lee ds Mec hanics In stitute thu s lik ened their pedagogic benefit sto t hose ofpu blic wa lking a reas wh ose v irtue, acc ording toon e cont emporary,was to p romote 'a gent le a nd r efined re str aint ' w hich ' keeps bois terouspleasure wit hin boun d ; and te ach es t he gracef ul an of bein g gay w ithoutcoarse ness an d obse rving the lim it w hich se parate spo r t f rom riot (cited inArsco tt 1988: 1 54). I n t i s way, thr ou gh o ffering a sp a ce of ' sup e rvisedco nformity', the mu seum offe red a co ntext i n whi ch new for ms of behaviourmight, in bei ng i nternalized , become se lf-ac tin g imp eratives. >

In the se re pec ts , th e m useum con titut ed not me rel y a c ulturally d iff ere ntiated sp ac e bu t the site fo r a set o f c ulturally di fferentiating pr acticesa imed at scree ni ng ou t the f or ms of p ubl ic b ehaviour assoc iated w i th pl ace sof popular asse mbly. T he arne end was ac hieved b y t he d evelopment of new

ar chi tectural m eans of reg ulating the function of s pectacle. In i

es ay ' TheEye of Powe r' , Fo ucault arg ues that, as arc hitecture ceases to be co ncernedwit h m aking power m anifest, it c om es , in stead , to se rve th e purpo se ofregu lating be haviour bymeans of new orga nizations of the re lations b etweenspace and vi sion - the one -way, hi erarchically o rganized sys tem of looks ofth e penitentiary , for exa mple, o r th e focu sing of the pupil 's g aze on th e personof th e teac her in po pular sc hooling (Fo uc a ult 1980b). Whil e , in th eirimp os ing exter iors , n in eteenth-century mu seum s ret ain ed a n emblematicarc hitectural fu nction , changes in th eir intern al arc hitecture in sti tuted a newset relations bet ween sp ace and v ision in whi ch the p ublic co uld n ot o nly

100

TH E POLIT I CA L R ATI O NA L lT Y O F T HE M USEUM

see the ex hibits a rranged fo r its inspection but co uld, at t he sa me time, eean d be se en by it se lf, thu s p lacing an arch itectural re s traint on any incipientte ndency to row diness.

To foreg round the p oint : the l8 0s witne se d an inquir y int o th e ad ministra ti on of a nc ie nt m onument s in Bri tain . A major f in ding of this i nqui ryco ncerned the imp ossibili ty of a rranging for the effect ive s urve ill ance of thepublic in bu ildings lik e Westminster A bbey w hich co ntai ned a m any nooksan d crannies t ha t it was co mmonly u sed as a publi c urinal. Th e mu seum's

pr ecursors , des igned t o ad mit only ca refully se lected publi c s, s uffered fromthe sa me p roblem. Co nsi st ing, of ten , of myr ia d small room s cl uttered wit hobje c ts they d id n ot len d t hemselves t o t he task of reg ulating th e co nduct ofa large and unsc reened publi c. Th e a rchitectural so urce s which fue lled t hedeve lopment of nin eteenth-century ex hibitionary in sti tutions a re m an y a ndva rio us: s hopping a rca des, r ailway s tations, co nservatories, ma rket hall anddep artment stores to name bu t a few. ? H owever , three ge neral prin ciples canbe o bserved, a ll of w i ca me to gether for the first time in th e Crys talP alacein w ays wh ich exe rted a decisive influ en ce o n th e sub equent de velopmentof exhibit ionary architecture: fir st , t he u se of new m aterials (cast-i ron andshee t g las s) to permit t he e nclosure and illumination of la rge s paces; seco nd,the c learingof exhi b it s t o th e s ides and ce ntres of di splay a reas, thu s a llowingclear pas sagewa ys fo r th e tr ansit of th e public , a nd b reaking t hat publi c up

from a d isaggregated ma ss int o a n or derly flo w; and, th ird, the pr o vi io n o felevated va ntage point s in t he fo rm of ga llerie s which , in a llowi ng the p ublicto w atch over itself, incorporated a prin c ipl e of se lf-survei llance and h enceself -regulation i nto mu seuma rchitecture. Inth us a llowing th e pub lic todo ubleas both the su bjec t and ob ject of a c on tr o l ling l ook , the muse um embodiedwhat had bee n, for B enth am , a ma jo r ai m of panoptici sm - th e democraticaspiration of a soc ie ty rendered t ran pa rent to it s ow n con trolling gaze.

Of course, t his i s not to ga ins ay H ooper-Greenhill s co ntention that themu seum has f unctioned as a n instrument of di scipl ine , no r the fac t that t hemuseum wa and remains a space of surve ill a nce in the m or e o bviou sensethat the beha viour o f the publi c is monitored by sec urity sta ff or te levision.Th ese , however, fo rm on ly one a sp ec t of t he mu seum ' s orga nization of t herelations betwee n space and vis ion which, in afford ing th e publi c a pos ition

of self- in rpect io n, ha a llowed i t to f unction - in it s own right a nd dir ectlyas an agent for both es tabl ishing and po licing n orm s of p ublic co nduct. I t is,moreover, in this respec t, rat her th an i n view of its ideological i nfluence, thatth e s pec if ic fo rm of he ge mo ny p ro mote d b y t he m use um ca n b est bede ciphered. Barry Sm art, i n preferring a Fouca ultian co nception of h egemonyto a G ra m c ian o n e, a rgues that, for Fo ucault, h egemony is to be un derstoodas a form of oc ia l c ohe ion a chi ev ed by va rious way s of pr ogrammingbehaviour rat her th an thr ou gh t he m echanisms of con sent which G ram scipo sit s (Sma rt 1 9 86 ). T he m useum vie wed as a tec hnology of behav iourmanagement, se rved to o rga n ize n ew typ es of s oci a l co hesion preci sely


9/10

HISTOR Y A ND THEORY

thro ugh the new forms of both d ifferentiating and align in g popula tions itb ro ught i n to b ei ng . It s funct ioning in th i s respect, however , ne ed s to beviewed in a compara tive l ight in order to app reciate the distinctive econo myof i t s e ffor t. If , as has bee n sugge sted ear lier, the pri son se rve d t he pu rposeof depol iticizing cr ime by detaching a manag eab le criminal sub -class fro mthe r es t of the po pulation the mu se um provided i ts comp lement in i nstillingnew codes ofpu blic behaviour w hich drove a wedge between the respec tableand the rowdy.

In his disc ussion of t he schemes of late eighte enth-centu ry penal refor mers,Foucault notes the re spects in whic h p unishment , conceived a s a Gar den ofthe L aws tha t famil ies would vis it on Sund ays , wa s intended to provi de aprogramme of instruction in civic ethic s Fouca ul t 1977: 111 ). In the eve nt,however , as p un is hm en t was w ith dra wn from t he public sc en e, it wasincreasi ng ly th e mu seum that wa s conceiv ed as the pr imary instrume nt ofc iv ic e ducation. As s uc h it s function wa s a normalizing one. This was pa rtlya mat te r of wha t it had to s how and t e ll in constructi ng a norm of hum anitywhite, bo urgeois and male - whose normat ive stat us was reinforce d b y thedis play of all manner of deviation : of the underdevelope d crania ofA bo ri gi ne s at t he Pi tt R ive r s Mu s eu m, f or example, or elsewhere, of theallegedly pec uliar cran ia of criminals. But it wa s al so a matterof norma lizingthe visitor d irectly through the influence of a mac hin ery for the regulatio n ofbe haviour. Thus when H enry Cole prai se s the mu se um for its e ducat iv epotential , i t is worth notingwhat h e regard s as it s chief lesson . It would teachthe yo ung child , he wri tes , to re spect prope rty and behave gent ly Cole1884 : 356 ). Goingto a m useum, then a s now, is not merely a matter of lo okingand learn ing; i t i s a lso - a nd preci sely because museum s are a s much pla cesfor being see n as for se eing - an exercise in c ivics.

TH P OL ITIC L D I S C U R S I V E SP CE O T HE MUSE U M

The discur sive space of the mu seum, init s nin ete ent h-century formation, wasthus a h ighly complex one shaped, in the main , by two contradictions w hic hhave se rved to g en er at e and fu el a field of polit i cal relation s and de mandspeculiar to t he museum f or m. In conside r ing these contrad ict io ns m oreclo sely I w ant , in concluding , to advanc e a conception of m u se um p oli ticswhich , in relating it self to these contradiction s self-consciously rather th ansimp ly occupying their grooves , would a im to di smantle the space of th emu seum by e st ab li sh in g a new set o f relations be tw een t he m useum , i tsexh ibit s and its public s which would allow it to function more adequate ly asan instrument for the self -display of demo cratic and plurali st soc ieties.

The firstcontradiction , then , that which ha s f uelled politicaldemands basedon th e principle of repre sentational a dequacy, has con si sted in the dispar itybetween, on the one hand , th e mu seum s u ni ve r salist aspira tions embodie din the c la im that the order of thing s a nd p eoples it shaped into being was

102

TH E P O L lT I C L R T IO N LITY OF TH E MUS E UM

ge nerally re pre se ntative of hum anity a nd , o n th e ot her hand , the fact th at a nypa rticu lar museu m disp lay can a lways be held to be p ar ti a l , selec tive andinadequate in re lation to thi s o bjec tive . P aul Greenhalgh p ut s h is finger onthe poi nt I m after here wh en he no t es , in exp laining why wo rld s fairsbec a me s uch important p oints of fo cus fo r late nineteenth-century femi ni sts,that beca use of th eir c la ims t o e ncyclopaedic cove rage of wor ld c ulture ,ex hib it io n co uld not easi ly excl ude wo me n in the way ot her in stitutionsco ntinua lly did Gree n ha l gh 1 988: 174 ). It was , that is to say , on ly themuseu m s e mbodiment of a prin c ip le of ge neral hum an u niversality th a t le ntpo tentia l significance to t he exc lusion or ma rginalization of women a ndwo me n s c ulture, thereby ope ni ng th is up as a politic izable qu estion. Thesame, of cou rse , is true of the range of demands pl a ced on m use um s on b ehalfof o ther poli tical co nstituencies as th e s pa ce of t he m useum ha s be en subjectto a c onsta nt proce ss of politicization in bei ng ca lled on bo th to ex pand thera nge of i ts re presentational co ncerns to include artefacts r elating to the waysof li fe of m arginalized s ocial gro ups, for exa mple) and/or to ex hibit fa miliarma teria ls in n ew co ntexts t o all ow them t o repr es ent the val ues of the gro upsto which t hey r elate rather th an tho se of th e do minantc ulture I havein mind,for ex ample, A boriginal cr iticis ms of th e evo lutionary ass umptions govern ingthe di splay of Abo riginal rema ins a nd artefact s in natural history museum s).Thes e d em a nd s ari se o ut of , and are f uelled b y, the i nternal dynamic s of them useum which len ds t he m a pertinence t hey did not , and co uld not , have had eighteent h-cen tu ry cab inets of c uriositie s, for exa mple , and sti ll do nothave in re lation to the ir co ntempo rary bow lderi zed ver s io ns , s uch as theRip ley Believe It Or Not Muse ums.

Ye t, important though th e y are , there are clear limit s to what can b each ievedby attempts to hois t th e m useum on the petardof i ts own universali strhet o rics . I ndee d , it is part ly as a c on se qu e nce of t he ho st of competingpoli tica l dema nds p laced o n it tha t th e p retensions of the m useum to offer amic rocosmic reconstruction of th e o r der o f th in gs in t he world ou tside themuse u m s wall s has be en ex ploded fro m wit hin. Give n thi s, rat her th ancal l ing the muse um to ta sk in ac co rdance with tbe p rinciple of rep resentatio na l a de qua cy - t he re by ge nerating a p ol it ic s w hich , s ince its goa l isunac hievab le, is insatiable - political effor t wo uld be b et te r de vo te d totra nsforming the relatio ns betwee n m useum ex hibit s, their organizer s and th em useum vi sitor. Thi s is to s uggest t ha t, i n ad dition to w ha t gets sho wn inm useums, atten t ion n eeds also to be p ai d to the pr ocesses of showing, w hotakes part in tho se processes and the ir conseq uences for t he re lation s th eyes tablish between the m u se um and t he visitor.

Pr esently, to recall Hoepe r-Greenhill s argument , the divi sion between theh idden space of the museum in which know ledge is produ ced and organi zedand the public spaces inwhich it is offered for p assive c onsumption produce s monologic discourse dominated by the authori tative cultural vo ice o f th emuse u m. To break th is d iscourse down, it i s imperativ e that th e tol e of th e

103


10/10

Hl S TO R Y AN D THEO RY

curator be shifted awa y from tha tof th e so urce o f an ex pertise who se functionis to or ganize a repr esentation claimin g the s tatu o f k nowledge a nd toward sthat of the po ssesso r of a technical co mpetence who se f unc t ion i s to as sistgroup s outs ide the mu seum to use its re sources to m ake authored statementswi thin t Aspect s of this reconc eption of th e mu seum s function c an currentlybe found in a handful of A ustra lia n mu e urns whi ch h ave ceded to Aboriginalpeople s the r ight to refa sh ion th e di splay of Aboriginal m ateri a ls in order tom ake their own statements o n their own terms . If th e s p ac e of the m useum isto b ec om e m or e fully d ialogic, and if such sta te me n ts are not to be frame dwithin - and so , potentially , recuper a ted by - th e offi cial voi ce of t hemuseu m , the pri nciple embodied in such ex periments n eeds to b e generalize d ,thereby , in a llowing th e mus eum to fun ction as a s ite for th e e nunciat ion ofpl ural and differe ntiated s tatements, e nabling it function a s an in strumen tfor pu blic deba te.

The second contr adict ion aff ecting the mu seum , T hav e ar gued, consis ts inthe fact tha t w hile i t organ ized and addressed a public made up of for maleq uals i t a lso se rved to differentiate population s vi a a combination of cu lturalmarke rs which es tablished it in a cu ltural zone c learly di stinct from that ofpo pu lar asse mblies and reg ulatory te c hnologie s a ime d at modifying th ebehavio ur of t he visitor . Of cour se, many of the initial argument s made infavour of the museum s openne ss were based on an a sses sment of the benefitst ha t wo uld accrue to t he s tate via t he ex posure of t he pop ulation to itsimproving infl uence rather than on th e basis of public ri ghts principle s . Nonethe les s, it is ea sy to se e how , by virtu e of th eir own democratic rheto ric,mu eums sho uld havebecome the obje cts of politic s ba sed on s uch princi ples.Aga in , however , whi le the r equiremen t that they shou ld b e equally acce ssib leto a ll is o ne that flow s o ut of th e internal dynam ic of t he mu seum, that sa medynamic , in so far a s the mu seum e mbodies a mean s for d iffer entia tingpopu lation s in accordan ce wi th th e norm for co nd uc t w hi ch it e stablis hes ,p lace s impediment s in th e way of reali zing thi s obje ctive. Studi es of muse umvisitor s thus make it abund antly c learnot onl y tha tmu eum attendance variesdirect ly with such variable s as cla s , incom e, occupation and , most noticeable , education , but al so thatth e barri er to p articipation, as perceived byno nattender , are largely cultural . Tho se sec tions of the population which makeli tt le u se of museum s clearl y feel that th e mu seum c onstitutes a cultural spacetha t i s no t m ea nt for th em - and , as we have see n , not without r eason.

The po lit ical is ues p osed by thi s second contradiction , howeve r, arecomplex and contradictory. Fo r , as mu seum s are p laced under increasing lys trong fi scal pre ss ure , there i s e nough evide nce to sugg e t t ha t the m ec ha nisms of differentiation which char acterized th e nin et eenth century museumare being slammed into rever se . In or d er to attra ct s ufficient visitor s toju stifyco ntinuing public funding, they thu s now often se ek to imi ta te ra ther thandis tingui sh them selves from place s of popular a. sembly: interactive com-puter di p lays competing wi th video parlour s, f or example , touch and fee l

4

T HE POLiTI CAL RATIO NA L ITY OF T H E M US EUM

ex hibit , the reco nstr uct ion of p laces of po pular assembly as mu eu m ex hibit s(pubS and c inem for e xample), modell ing mu seum s hops o n the saleout lets of rou ri t s i tes . W hile these atte mpts to de mocrati ze the ethos of themu seum are to be we lcomed , their ca pacity to s ubsta ntia lly a lter the visi torprof les of mu seu m s is d iffic ult to asse ss. Indeed , so lon g as th e educa tionsyste m d elive r a c ulturally d iffe rent iated po pulation to th e mu seum s door s ,socia lly skewed patt ern of par ticipation c an be ex pected t o per sis t.

Th e more int erestin g political qu est ion s, to m y mi nd,co ncern the gro und s_ beyo nd tho se co ncerning the e quitable ap portionm e nt of pu blic re sou rcesfor arg u ing t he polit ical de si rabi lity of more eq uitable pattern s of acce ss to ,and use o f, m u eurns . T he o pt ions , as currently posed wit hin the m u e umprofe ion, are largely po lari zed between po pulist and tati st pos itions - theforme r, envis io ni ng t he m useu m s f uture as pa rt of the l ei s ure in dustry ,urging that th e peo ple h oul d be g iv e n wha t th ey wa nt, w hile the l att e r,retaining tbe view of mu seum s as in struments of in struction , arg ue s theyshould remai n m eans for li fting th e cult ural and in tellectual level of th epopulation. Ne ither positio n offe rs sufficient gro und s for view ing m oredemotic leve l of participation i n mu seums as ne ce sar ily of any po si tivepolitical va l ue i f t he fo rm s of part icipation remain pa ssive. A s with t hepolitical dema nd s b as ed on t he p rinciple of repre sentatio na l ad equacy, thosedemand . b rought to bea r o n th e mu se um o n the b as is of public rightspri ncipl es need t o be re- thought as pertain ing to the r ight to mak e act ive u eof m u eum re o urces r ath er t han an ent it lement to be eith er entertain ed orinstructed.

105

birth of museo

Documents