Lambert, Mary Grace (Meg) (2019) Inherited Violence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lambert, Mary Grace (Meg) (2019) Inherited violence: examining museum and academic relationships with the West African illicit antiquities trade in a post-colonial era. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/76733/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Inherited Violence: Examining Museum and Academic Relationships with the West African Illicit Antiquities Trade in a Post-Colonial Era Mary Grace Lambert BA, MRes Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of PhD School of Social and Political Sciences College of Social Sciences January 2019 Abstract This study applies postcolonial and social harms theory to analyse the perspectives of professionals involved in the discovery, identification, trade, collection and scholarship of African cultural objects. It joins the small body of work which is beginning to account systematically for the harms of trade in cultural heritage, and the even smaller body attempting to situate this in a criminological framework. Qualitative research is based on 18 semi- structured interviews, with participants falling into distinct professional groups: art historians; museum curators; archaeologists; and those who are a mix of all three. After reviewing the long history of exploitative and violent extraction of objects from West Africa, I map this field, showing schematically how museums and academics are positioned in relation to markets in a way that facilitated and legalised collection and trade of objects. This thesis presents a theoretical model for understanding how museum and academic institutions perpetuate colonialist ideologies and harm, setting out a multi-level typology of epistemic violence. The research is guided methodologically by various strands of critical discourse studies, which are employed to analyse participant perspectives. In each of these groups, participants displayed shared and distinct positions as to the ethical and practical issues of the trade in African objects and to repatriation of these, often varying according to their professional or academic discipline. Some participants adopted different strategies, which I argue are forms of continued colonial harm, to deny and deflect responsibility for ethically dubious practices like authenticating or publishing the location of objects. Some also spoke of and acted on the harms of trade, demonstrating increasing political engagement and awareness. I conclude by arguing for further work applying postcolonial and social harms theory to this topic, particularly as repatriation efforts gain ground. Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 1 Author’s Declaration ...................................................................................................... 2 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 I. Research Questions ........................................................................................ 5 II. Existing Literature .......................................................................................... 7 III. Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................... 9 2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND MAPPING THE FIELD ............................... 12 I. Introduction ................................................................................................... 12 II. The Commodification of African Cultural Objects ..................................... 12 a. Early Colonial Ventures: Europe and Africa between 15th and the 19th centuries ........................................................................................... 12 b. Colonial Violence: Europe as a colonising force at the turn of the 20th century .............................................................................................. 15 c. Modernism and Anthropology: Commodification and degradation of “the Other” .......................................................................................... 17 d. Capitalism and Neo-Colonialism: the Western market for African objects in the late 20th century................................................................. 23 e. Nationalism and Universalism: Challenges to the market and colonial legacy at the turn of the 21st century ........................................ 27 III. The Evolution of the Africanist Field .......................................................... 33 a. The colonial unity of the academy, the museum, and the market .......... 33 b. The co-dependent evolution of three fields ............................................. 36 c. The fitful disconnection in the late 20th century .................................... 38 IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40 3. THEORETICAL FRAMES: POSTCOLONIAL THEORY AND SOCIAL HARMS ................................................................................................................... 42 I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 42 II. Post-colonial Theory.................................................................................... 43 a. The First Wave ........................................................................................ 44 b. The Second Wave ................................................................................... 46 III. Social Harms Theory ................................................................................... 48 a. ‘Crime’ maintains oppressive power structures ...................................... 51 b. Criminal Intent over-determines the individual actor in causing harm ....................................................................................................... 52 c. Criminalisation Produces Harms ............................................................ 53 V. Post-Colonial Criminology: Defining Violence........................................... 55 a. Defining Violence ................................................................................... 57 b. Defining Epistemic Violence: Five Aspects ........................................... 59 VI. Mechanisms of Structuring Violence ........................................................... 64 a. Colonial Structure ................................................................................... 65 b. Modernist and Early 20th Century Structure .......................................... 66 c. Mid-Century Structure ............................................................................ 67 d. Current Structure ..................................................................................... 70 VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 72 4. METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH PLAN AND PROCESS ............................... 74 I. Initial Approach and Original Research Questions ....................................... 74 a. Quantitative Element ............................................................................... 77 b. Qualitative Element ................................................................................. 79 c. Interview Sample Selection Rationale and Researcher Positionality ..... 80 d. Ethical Procedure .................................................................................... 81 e. Interview Process .................................................................................... 82 f. Discontinuing Quantitative Data Analysis .............................................. 83 II. Revised Approach: A Postcolonial Reading of My Study and Data ............ 88 a. Revised Research Questions and an Inductive Approach ....................... 88 b. Critical Discourse Studies ....................................................................... 89 c. Discourse Historical Approach ............................................................... 91 d. Process of Applying Discourse Approaches to Interview Data .............. 94 e. Analytical Framework Applied ............................................................... 96 III. Participant Sample ....................................................................................... 99 5. THE POST-COLONIAL GENERATION: AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY........................................................................................... 101 I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 101 II. The Participants.......................................................................................... 102 III. Historical Context: Situating Scholarly and Museum Work in the Mid- Century Period ........................................................................................... 102 a. Museums and Academic