Museums of Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
M U A N 12128 Dispatch: 31.12.16 CE: Wiley Journal Code Manuscript No. No. of pages: 19 PE: Muthamilselvi S. museum anthropology 1 museums of europe: spatial lens by looking at borders and spatial imagi- 2 Tangles of Memory, Borders, and Race naries as key analytical concepts so as to foreground 3 issues of race, which have long been neglected in 4 memory studies. 5 Chiara De Cesari university of amsterdam Multiple actors, including the EU, push toward 6 musealizing Europe, but there are fundamental diffi- 1 7 culties with this project (Maze 2009, 2014; see also 8 abstract Kaiser et al. 2014, chap. 1). Both the Marseille and 9 Berlin museums are examples of what could be called In this article I investigate the making of two new museums 10 strategic Europeanization on the part of museum and of Europe—Marseille’s Museum of the Civilisations of Eur- 11 — ope and the Mediterranean and Berlin’s Museum of Euro- heritage professionals who rebrand their outdated 12 — pean Cultures—by focusing on the kinds of “Europe” and largely unpopular folklore collections and dis- 13 envisioned in their exhibitions. I argue that museums repre- plays in order to keep up with contemporary public 14 sent an important site where the geopolitical imaginary of a tastes. What is striking is that a kind of creeping Euro- 15 bounded, culturalized Europe is produced, even if by peanization (silent but advancing, as Kaiser et al. 16 default. I explore how these older national folklore collec- [2014] show) is taking place in museums across and 17 tions were strategically rebranded as museums of Europe beyond the European Union (EU). It proceeds, how- 18 to give a second life to their nearly obsolete displays. ever, through discontinuous, disjointed, and contra- 19 National projects and geopolitics play a key role in such dictory processes, often working through the very 20 memorial Europeanization. These insights challenge taken- institutions and tropes of the nation-state it is 21 for-granted understandings of scale in memory studies and expected to supersede. As Thomas Risse (2010) has 22 offer a more nuanced understanding of how Europeaniza- remarked in connection with European identity 23 tion is playing out within cultural institutions. Amid multiple dynamics in general, supra- and transnational mem- 24 European crises, “Europe” is increasingly imagined as a ory works through national and regional sites and 25 diverse but essentially united cultural space—however actors of memory. This is in no way a unidirectional 26 fuzzy and contested its cultural content may be—while this trajectory without detours and even U-turns. 27 spatial imaginary is racialized in subtle ways. [museums of Although EU policies play a key role in this push, 28 Europe, European memory and heritage, strategic Euro- European memory making is a multisited process, 29 peanization, transnationalism, cultural racism] tense with conflicts, and one that has also been 30 advanced by non-EU actors—national, regional, 31 Collective memory plays a crucial role in the making grassroots—for a variety of different purposes. 32 of spatial imaginaries and in shaping the common- MuCEM and MEK exemplify this form of Euro- 33 sense, taken-for-granted boundaries of the political peanization and the representational predicament it 34 community to which we feel we belong. In this article, ignites—that such museums either paradoxically 35 I investigate the way museums are creating a new abdicate their role to represent Europe or produce 36 “European” memory, as well as the kinds of “Euro- highly dissonant and muddled images of it. More- 37 pean” spaces that are imagined in and through this over, their representations are symptomatic of the 38 process. This article focuses on two new museums, current European crisis, which is also a crisis of repre- 39 both reconverted collections of ethnology and folk- sentation both political and aesthetic. They help 40 lore—namely, Marseille’s Museum of the Civilisa- reproduce a peculiar spatial imaginary of Europe as a 41 tions of Europe and the Mediterranean (MuCEM) bounded entity that proliferates in spite of, or per- 42 and Berlin’s Museum of European Cultures (MEK), haps precisely because of, the crisis. My broader theo- 43 which opened in 2013 and 2011, respectively. I dis- retical point is to think of museums and memory 44 cuss how these two museums narrate (or fail to nar- making as “bordering practices” producing spatial 45 rate) “Europe” and its relationship to “other” spaces, imaginaries of containment—social imaginaries of 46 as well as the tensions, contradictions, and gaps that bounded communities-cum-territories or bundles of 47 mark these narratives. Rather than focusing on territory-community-culture (see also Whitehead 48 European identity, I analyze these narratives via a et al. 2013)—that play a role in the legitimation and Museum Anthropology, Vol. 40, Iss. 1, pp. 19–37 © 2017 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/muan.12128 museums of europe 1 naturalization of hard-and-fast borders, of “Fortress and intellectuals have called for projects promoting a 2 Europe,” and the exclusion of many from the newly new European heritage, and a number of memory ini- 3 re-imagined European cultural community. In spite tiatives have been put in place to bolster EU citizens’ 4 of heightened political fragmentation, Europe is weak European identity and solidarity, as well as the 5 increasingly imagined across multiple sites as a legitimacy of the EU (e.g., Assmann 2006; Barroso 6 bounded cultural community, however fuzzy and 2012; Leggewie and Lang 2011). Since the Maastricht 7 fundamentally contested the cultural content of this Treaty, the European Parliament has issued memory 8 imagined community may be. resolutions and established common memorial days, 9 Methodologically, this article is inspired by as well as Europe-wide conventions, professional 10 Stephanie Moser’s approach to museum displays as associations, and research networks to contribute to a 11 “active agents in the construction of knowledge” growing European infrastructure of memory produc- 12 (2010, 22). My investigation, therefore, involves an tion (Littoz-Monnet 2012; Rigney 2014; Sassatelli 13 analysis of the narrative conveyed by a museum dis- 2009; Sierp 2014, chap. 4). A testament to the promi- 14 play and an investigation of the constellation of nence of this agenda is the fact that “memory and her- 15 diverse actors, forces, and events that enter into its itage” have become a key theme and priority area 16 making (see also the hybrid methodology adopted by governing EU funding for the humanities; in turn, 17 Macdonald [2013] to trace the social import of dis- EU funding is increasingly important for museums 18 plays). I also interviewed a number of key curators and other heritage institutions at a time when 19 and former curators in both museums to grasp not (nation-)state subsidies for culture are being drasti- 20 only their own understanding of how displays came cally cut back. While the EU cultural budget itself is 21 to be, the meanings that they wanted to convey limited, overall there is a growing discursive emphasis 22 through them, and the negotiations, tensions, and on the cultural dimension of the union.1 23 conflicts marking this process—but also their under- Yet, this memory work has run into manifold 24 standing of the structural constraints that limited obstacles—especially regarding the problem of which 25 their own agency. In addition, I spoke with several past and which culture to promote as the communi- 26 museum visitors to obtain some sense of their experi- tarian one, given the deep memory and cultural divi- 27 ences. Finally, I examined exhibition reviews and sions cross-cutting Europe. The purported solution 28 media reports that appeared in the German, French, to this dilemma has been found in the union’s motto, 29 and international press to trace the public debates “unity in diversity.” However, there has been a ten- 30 triggered by these museums. In the following sec- dency toward developing projects promoting a 31 tions, I discuss the growing body of scholarship on bureaucratic “cold” version of the past—a consensus 32 European memory and connect it to studies of bor- past that can hardly “make us dream” (Braidotti 33 ders. Building on this theoretical framework, I then 2008)—or those abdicating the idea of creating any 34 elaborate upon the results of the research sketched meaningful “European” dimension if not for the 35 above in two sections devoted to MuCEM and MEK, homogenization of languages and practices involved 36 respectively. in being part of a EU-wide network (Sassatelli 2009). 37 Such has been the problem with several museums 38 The Making of a European Memory of Europe. These include two history museum pro- 39 The opening of the Berlin and Marseille museums is jects tied to EU institutions, namely, the Brussels- 40 part of a broader trend toward an emerging Euro- based Musee de l’Europe and the upcoming House of 41 peanization of the museum field across the EU European History established by the European Parlia- 42 (Kaiser et al. 2014; Maze 2014). From the 1980s on, a ment. Focusing on postwar integration history, these 43 new interest in a common European culture and museums tend to reproduce a success, even a teleo- 44 memory has emerged in the EU alongside the tradi- logical, story—a kind of new master narrative of the 45 tional focus on economic and political integration. EU—which has in fact deeply divisive implications in 46 This trend solidified in the 1990s with Article 128 of spite of well-meaning inclusionary goals. Like the 47 the Maastricht Treaty, which provided a legal basis broader EU politics of memory, these museums have 48 for a European cultural policy.