Walter Benjamin at Pier 21: Immigration, Identity and a History of Awakening

Ryan Ben Shuvera

Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Degree of Master of Arts (Social and Political Thought)

Acadia University Fall Graduation 2014

This thesis by Ryan Ben Shuvera was defended successfully in an oral examination on

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. Zelda Abramson, Chair

______Dr. Sarah Clift, External Reader

______Dr. Brenda Trofanenko, Internal Reader

______Dr. Andrew Biro, Supervisor

______Dr. Geoffrey Whitehall, Head/Director (or delegate)

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree Master of Arts (Social and Political Thought) …………………………………………

I, Ryan Ben Shuvera, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Ryan Ben Shuvera, Author

______Dr. Andrew Biro, Supervisor

______Date

iii

Table of Contents Approval of Thesis ……………………………………………………………………... ii Permission to the Head Librarian ………………………………………………………. iii Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………….. iv Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… vii Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………… viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTON ……………………………………………………. 1 Canada’s National Museums ……………………………………………………. 3 Walter Benjamin and Museology ……………………………………………….. 4 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………… 9 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 9 The History vs. Heritage Debate ………………………………………………...10 Memory in Museums: Colonialism, National Narratives and The Present in Museum Studies..………………………………………………………………...14 Historical Preservation: Museum and Object Beyond Preziosi’s Dilemma ..…...19 Immigration Commemoration: The Narrative …………………………………..23 Benjamin in Text and in the Museum …………………………………………...26 Conclusion: The Heritage Industry and Beyond ………………………………...29 CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ……………………………....31 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...31 Benjamin as Theorist …………………………………………………………….31 Law as Violence………………………………………………………………….34 Film as Theory …………………………………………………………………..36 The Great Divide: Theory and Politics ………………………………………….39 Benjamin as Critical Historian …………………………………………………..44 Storytelling and Collecting ……………………………………………………...47 Collection as Assembly ……………………………………………………….....50 Benjamin On History …………………………………………………………....51 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………53 CHAPTER FOUR: CASE OUTLINE …………………………………………………..56

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...56 Photos: Pier 21 entrance and the passenger cart monument .....…………………57 Canadian Immigration and Pier 21: A History ………………………………….58 Immigration through Pier 21: 1928-1971 ……………………………………….60 A Struggle for Recognition ……………………………………………………...63 National and Historic Status …………………………………………………….65 The Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21: The Experience ……………67 Map of the museum at Pier 21…………………………………………………...69 Photos: Permanent exhibit area and ship exhibit ………………………………..70 The Museum …………………………………………………………………….71 Photos: Suitcase collection and ship theatre …………………………………….75 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………78 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………....80 Introduction: Benjamin at Pier 21 ……………………………………………….80 Exhibits: Permanent and Temporary, Spectacle and Vision …………………….82 Permanent Exhibit: The Immigrant Experience ……………………………...... 83 Temporary Exhibits ……………………………………………………………..86 The Gift Shop: The Third Exhibit Space ………………………………………..89 Breaking and Creating a National Identity ……………………………………...91 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………96 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………..99 Benjamin in the Museum ………………………………………………………..99 The CMIP21 in 2014 …………………………………………………………..100 Accessibility ………………………………………………………………...... 101 Social Reform ………………………………………………………………….102 Lending Authority and the Multicultural Montage …………………………….104 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..105 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………...107

Abstract This work takes the critical perspectives of Walter Benjamin into the Canadian

Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 and analyzes its practices of preservation of immigration history and policy in Canada. It looks at how the three exhibit spaces

(permanent, temporary, and the gift shop) lend authority to a state-based construction of immigration history in Canada and lack a significant representation of a historical narrative from the perspectives of the forgotten (Benjamin 2002; 155). Based on

Benjamin’s characterization of museums as “dream houses of the collective” (Schwartz

2001; 1728) I offer insight into the potential that the museum presents to the public as a place for the self-representation of various immigrant identities and a more dynamic understanding of national identity.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents, David and Karen Shuvera, for the never-ending support and encouragement. They’ve given me the opportunity to roam this country and expand my mind and they ask for so little in return. Your hard work and love is always an inspiration. I must also thank Dr. Mervyn Horgan for guiding me through the core development of this project. It has taken many forms and Mervyn was always ready for whatever direction I was heading next. Thank you for all of your help and for all of the opportunities you’ve given me. I am very grateful for the help and guidance from Dr. Andrew Biro throughout the program and on this project. His willingness to stick with the project and see it through to the end as the supervisor is something I am very thankful for. I am grateful for the chance to work with you and learn from you over the past few years. I would also like to thank Dr. Brenda Trofanenko for stepping in as the internal reader at such a late point in the process. I appreciate all of your insights on our shared interest in museums. I would like to thank my friends and colleagues for all of their support. Everything from chatting about my work or music, accompanying me on mind clearing drives or photo runs has helped me get through this project and still want to keep writing. I was lucky enough to work with Sonja Sapach who will be a great academic. Thank you for inspiring and challenging me. Daniel Wilson-Carrie, Wayne Jutila and Todd Dufresne are three of the best friends and mentors I could ask for. Thank you to Jeff, Greg, Linda and Paul Mountain. I am lucky enough to call you my second family and have your support wherever I am. Thank you Elaine and Ben Shuvera for your love and inspiration. Thank you to Courtney Harper whose support and encouragement helps keep me sane on a daily basis. Your heart and patience is superhuman. Finally, I must thank my two biggest critics and best friends. Two of the smartest and strongest women I know help me get through every challenge in life, including this project. Cassidy Shuvera, my youngest sister, is always up for a good chat and inspires me to work hard at everything I do. Sharing a good laugh helps me more than you know. Kaitlin Shuvera has been the unofficial first editor for every word in this thesis and I am forever thankful. I am grateful for every argument, chat, discussion and debate we’ve had. Thank you both for your endless love and support. I am very lucky.

vii

viii

Chapter One: Introduction The museum as a cultural institution stands outside of the everyday experiences for most individuals in contemporary Western society. However, as a social institution layered with elements of tradition, culture and power, the museum as a place and concept is becoming recognized as a significant part of contemporary Western culture. This increasing ordinariness or insertion into the experiences of the everyday coincides with a continuous growth in the field of museum studies as an area of interest for theorists in

North America and Western Europe. This sense of museums and preservation as ordinary also provides legitimates a characterization made by German critical theorist,

Walter Benjamin. Benjamin’s characterization of museums as “dream houses of the collective” (Schwartz 2001; 1728) highlighted a social and political element in a place that is traditionally dominated by historical, cultural and economic issues. The museum as a “dream house” does not lose its sense of wonder, preservation and inspiration; however, as the dream house for the collective, the museum as a place of preservation and an institution of power is opened to the ordinary, the everyday, and for Benjamin, the masses. It is at this intersection, where preservation meets power and the everyday, that this work will find its focus.

As each new museum opening helps create a greater self-consciousness about specific historical narratives in cities and towns across Canada and other countries in

North America and Western Europe, it is important to take a step back and analyze the value of these institutions, the significance of the social issues they represent and the issues that underlie their existence. For example, since museums continue to be important institutions for Western cultures, one should look to discover what prompts the deep and perpetual interest in preserving and commemorating certain events, people or

elements of culture, or how these institutions are understood as being valuable to society.

Furthermore, one should want to understand how these institutions are a source of power for the groups being commemorated or preserved within them. For Canada’s newest national museum, the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 (henceforth known as

CMIP21) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, questions of representation, identity and power are mixed in with traditional questions focussed on the value of the history and culture, or its effectiveness as a place of education. Although the CMIP21 is concerned with historical accuracy and value, artifact collection, and economic sustainability, political considerations like creating equal representation, generating and preserving national and cultural identities, and creating solidarity within the museum public must also be heavily considered due to the museum’s celebration of a wide-reaching identity. An ongoing crisis of Canadian identity, the adoption of multicultural values and the location of the

CMIP21 have further created the need for political analysis of the museum.

Consequently, I use a Bejaminian perspective to understand how a site that operates as an intersection between cultural identity preservation and national identity creation might be valuable for the public as a place for influencing a more dynamic understanding of national identity. More specifically, I argue that in its current form, the museum acts as an outlet for sharing a state-centered view of immigration history in Canada. I put forth a

Benjaminian based analysis in order to demonstrate what an account of immigration history in Canada might look like if it were produced ‘from the ground up’ or by the people.

Canada’s National Museums

The fairly recent designation of the CMIP21 as a national museum poses an interesting issue because of its geographical location. Of Canada’s six national museums, four are located inside Ottawa, ON, the country’s National Capital Region and two beyond this region. These four museums include the Canadian Science and

Technology Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, Canadian Museum of Civilization and the National Gallery of Canada. The first national museum located outside of this region was the Canadian Museum For Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The

CMIP21 has been open to the public since July 1st, 1999; however, it was only made a national museum in 2011. Despite challenges presented through having to work to secure private-sector-partnered funding for national institutions located outside of the capital region, these last two national museums have been opened outside of this region in smaller urban areas.

The greatest challenge for the CMIP21 is that it must deal directly with Canada’s unsettled identity. As a ‘settled nation’ and as the northern neighbour of the United

States, Canadians pull elements from other cultures or turn to iconic symbols to try and settle on what it means to be Canadian. The unsettled identity often leaves one wanting something more concrete to hold onto in the face of international interrogators. National institutions are tasked with helping provide something more profound to an increasingly multicultural population. Unfortunately many hold onto and continue to present a historicized and Eurocentric identity that is increasingly alienated more of Canada’s population. The other national museums must also deal with elements of Canadian identity but in certain indirect ways, including for example, how technological

advancements inform a Canadian identity at the Science museum or how nature and the

Canadian landscape shapes and effects parts of Canadian identity at the Nature museum.

However, the CMIP21 must deal more closely with elements of identity creation, preservation and celebration of various cultural groups within one nation in particular. It must work to demonstrate the unique elements of the cultures that make up Canada’s multicultural identity, while also making clear that each of these different cultures forms part of a conception of a general Canadian identity. The CMIP21 must continue to react to changing immigration trends and values, while also working to generate collective identities. It must be responsive and original. It must preserve and commemorate immigration history in Canada and evolve as the issues that shape its existence do as well. The nationalization of the CMIP21 demonstrates the importance and complexity of immigration history and issues to Canadian politics and a Canadian identity. As a result, opening the museum to interpretation on a critical level will reveal the authority and complexity of the social institution as an intersection for identity protection and creation.

Walter Benjamin and Museology

With his characterization of museums as “dream houses of the collective”

(Schwartz 2001; 1728), Benjamin, who is most commonly considered a literary and critical theorist, opens his work up to the field of museum studies. Interestingly, a significant rise in critical interest in the work of Walter Benjamin in North America and the rise of a critical sub-field of museum studies occurred around the same time but independently of one another. The publishing of Robert Hewison’s The Heritage

Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline in 1987 helped spread critical interest in the political and economic status of museums and the act of cultural preservation in Britain.

Two years later, in 1989, the publishing of Susan Buck-Morss’s text The Dialectics of

Seeing set off a massive critical interest in the work of Walter Benjamin in North

America. A demand for English translations of his work increased rapidly. Although the two events may not be directly related, there are certainly a number of connections to be made between the critical historical work of Benjamin and critical work conducted in the relatively new field of museum studies. For example, Benjamin’s and his followers’ work on collection, storytelling, aura and montage all inform the way materials are displayed in museums and the political identities that they represent (discussed in greater detail in later chapters).

As Hewison saw it, the expanding heritage industry was more interested in selling memorabilia as pieces of history as opposed to preserving the historical value of artifacts

(1987; 9). Nevertheless, the field of museum studies would grow as critics both for and against Hewison responded to his work (see Samuel 1994; Urry 1996; Lowenthal 1997).

Similarly, a few decades earlier, critical theory began to be taken seriously in North

America as leaders of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research moved to the United

States of America and responded to a North American culture they believed operated like a culture industry (Adorno and Horkheimer 1944). Buying and consuming were the most significant parts of North American culture and this was considered a negative aspect of the culture by most members of the Frankfurt School. Benjamin however, who would never come to settle in North America like his other Frankfurt School colleagues, was not satisfied with declaring the North American culture industry a complete obstacle for socially active politics. Instead, Benjamin looked to uncover the ways in which certain

elements of the culture industry could help bring about advances that socially conscious writers and activists believed were possible.

The work of Adorno and Horkheimer on the culture industry and Benjamin’s dissenting reaction to their characterisation is discussed in more detail in chapter three.

However, a brief discussion at this point is important in order to demonstrate the parallels between the development of the field of museum studies, Benjamin’s own perspectives on culture and identity, and the further development of Benjamin studies in North

America. The most significant parallel is that they arose as critical reactions to analyses that attempted to economize an immaterial thing that is dependent on its layered structure of value. In other words, both heritage and culture can be spoken of and analyzed in economic terms; however, their value as immaterial elements reaches far beyond economic or commercial potential. In the 1980s British heritage was commodified and bought and sold like any other material good. American culture went through similar changes in the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, as thinkers in the field of museum studies and, as Benjamin and his followers have shown, immaterial things like culture, heritage and identity, although easily materialized and sold, are rich with social and political value.

It is important to take note of this historical background because the reactions and criticisms that shape the following analysis follow a Benjaminian and critical museum studies inspired line of thought. In order to analyze identity commemoration and creation one must look at the materials used to represent and form elements of cultural and national identities. In some cases, the materials are all that is left to base one’s analyses on. Therefore, a museum that holds a collection of these materials and is preserving

cultural identities while creating a national identity is an important case for analysis that calls for a blend of critical perspectives. What makes Benjamin a suitable theoretical basis for this analysis is his emphasis on the value of material things of the past for the creation and protection of immaterial things of the present. Read alongside more concrete work looking at tactics and strategies of museum operations, one can use these theorists to explore important connections between objects, identity and preservation.

Furthermore, similar to the responses to the heritage industry and culture industry indictments, this analysis looks to work beyond purely economic based criticisms and issues with the CMIP21, identity creation and protection and the preservation and commemoration of Canadian immigration history. However, unlike responses to the heritage industry and culture industry charges, there has been no charge of the pure commodification of Canadian identity creation and protection or preservation of

Canadian immigration history beforehand. Nevertheless, the commodification of immigrant identities or a general national identity is not the issue being addressed through this analysis. This analysis stems from reactions to the characterization of museums and culture as commodified, but it moves beyond these initial reactions in order to identify the power structures and potential of the CMIP21 as an intersection of identity preservation and creation. The main goal is to use a Benjaminian perspective to understand how the CMIP21 works to convey narratives of acceptance and multiculturalism as well as portray a Canadian national identity through the story of the immigrant journey to visitors.

I begin by outlining work in the field of critical theory and museum studies that has led to and support this analysis. Going back through the work of Adorno and

Horkheimer, Benjamin, Hewison, Macdonald and more contemporary theorists provides a significant background of the crossover between the two fields of thought and helps one understand the need for and value of the analysis. In chapter three I provide an in-depth outline of the development of Benjamin’s work in response to his Frankfurt colleagues and in North America. It also unpacks the theoretical perspectives that are utilized throughout this analysis. In chapter four, a brief description of Canadian immigration history and a more in-depth history of the CMIP21 is provided, as well as an outline of the layout of the current structure of the museum and its exhibits. In chapter five, an analysis of the CMIP21 as an intersection for identity preservation and creation, as well as a possible site of public influence is provided. Chapter six concludes the argument and touches on some issues to continue to think about for the future.

To fully engage with a museum and museum culture is to observe and interpret the history, artifacts and narratives on display. Although a story is often presented through the artifacts, images and descriptions, the interpretive work is not complete and must be continued by observers and visitors. This analysis continues this interpretive work at the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. It is important because it works to open up the museum to the people by discussing how and why it must be taken from the hands of the state and be an institution primarily influenced by the people that gave it life in the twentieth century and once again as a museum in the twenty-first century. As a national museum that quietly deals with the identity politics of a nation that was built with and continues to grow with elements from various cultures, the CMIP21 requires careful attention and analysis. This analysis is important because as Canada’s identity becomes increasingly tied to its multicultural population, institutions like the

CMIP21 need to evolve with it. They are valuable institutions and must remain relevant to the political realities outside of their walls. By placing Benjamin at the CMIP21, one is pushed to analyze how looking at institutions full of historical material culture can help social and political identities evolve alongside the people that they represent.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction Bringing Walter Benjamin into the sphere of historical analysis is no longer a unique practice among recent social theorists (see McCracken 2002; Schwartz 2001).

His value to the field of historical analysis stems from the fact that he focuses on the potential of one’s interaction with antique material objects of the everyday. Since museums are one of the most significant sites of collection for antiquated materials,

Benjamin’s theories on storytelling, collection and historical progress provide a perspective from which one can analyze the value of the museum beyond its basic cultural or economic value. In order to outline significant sources for this work and to illustrate how Benjamin’s work blends well with the field of museum studies, I will briefly outline five key source areas. This chapter will be structured based on an exploration of key themes in the field of museum studies such as the history versus heritage debate, the place of the ‘nation’ and colonialism in museums, collective history and identity in museums, the role of objects and the power and creation of commemorative narratives. First I will discuss key perspectives in the history versus heritage debate and then Benjamin’s place in this debate. I will then introduce important sources from the field of museum studies such as Tony Bennett and Donald Preziosi and outline their significance for this work. Next, I will look at two main themes that arise in literature related to issues of preservation. The first main theme deals with the role of the object or collections of objects as representations. The second main theme concerns the power behind commemorative narratives within museums. This discussion will focus on ideas concerning the power of the visitor as a mobile and temporary co-producer. Finally,

I will outline where Benjamin scholars have used his work to discuss the acts of

preservation and commemoration. More importantly, I will discuss how these scholars tend to focus solely on the historical and economic aspects of preservation and have left discussions of the political aspects of identity preservation unacknowledged.

The History vs. Heritage Debate

First, it is important to acknowledge the unsettled relationship between history and heritage. It is important to note because in a museum where acts of preservation and commemoration take place it would seem that both history and heritage are present. I will briefly take a step back to the root of this debate and explain Benjamin’s place in it.

In 1987 Robert Hewison published a book called The Heritage Industry: Britain in a

Climate of Decline, wherein he characterizes museum culture as the heritage industry. In this text Hewison is highly critical of the consumerist nature of the heritage industry, just as Adorno and Horkheimer were highly critical of the commodified nature of American culture in the 1940s. Hewison felt that one gave the title heritage to something when public funding ran out and another source of money was needed to keep the myth binding structure alive (1987; 9). The heritage label would then be an acknowledgement of a minimal level of historical value and the structure’s need for some funding for preservation that would come from a source other than the government. Hewison’s other main points concern the nature of nostalgia and the decline of culture. He argues that totemic objects of nostalgic importance and the appeal of heritage sites noticeably increase during times of cultural or economic decline (9). Essentially, Hewison argues that these experiences provide a feeling of security from the destructive and transitory nature of modern life (9).1

1 Many critics have argued against the superficiality of Hewison’s argument (see Lowenthal 1997; Samuel 1994).

Benjamin would not have been satisfied with the purely sceptical nature of

Hewison’s critique, just as he was never satisfied with the cynical nature of the critique of the culture industry that his colleagues produced at the Frankfurt Institute. This sense of elitist judgement pushed Benjamin to understand the reality of the situation of the culture industry at the level of the everyday and to look for ways that would help bring to life the potential hidden within it. Consequently, just as Benjamin looked for ways in which the consumer culture within Western Europe could be utilized for breaking the myths of modern history and politics, a Benjaminian confrontation with the heritage industry would also look beyond the purely economic and cultural value of historical preservation and work to reveal a deeper potential. This potential would once again be embedded in the material reality of the everyday and would help break the dependence on the myth that equates history with a sense of progress. For example, in the essay “The Completion of Old Work: Walter Benjamin and the Everyday,” Scott McCracken notes:

The most difficult theoretical problem of Benjamin's late work is how we

might rescue history's forgotten and discarded objects-the material world of

the everyday-because, he argues, it is through those objects that we might

write a history from the point of view of its victims. (2002: 155)

By looking more closely at the critical and historical goals of the act of nationalized preservation, a Benjaminian perspective can help one see the dreams and struggles of a past unknown. Bringing these past realities to life allows for a more informed engagement with the present and the issues that must be confronted.

From a social and political perspective, the most important point to understand is how these two concepts differ when representing an understanding of the past as dead

and settled or active and in need of interpretation. History is open to involvement from current generations and holds untapped potential by way of a careful revival. Heritage is static, particular and better serves as a point of reference. David Lowenthal characterizes the difference between history and heritage as follows:

History tells all who will listen what has happened and how things came to

be as they are. Heritage passes on exclusive myths of origin and

continuance, endowing a select group with prestige and common

purpose...History is for all, heritage ourselves alone...Heritage reverts to

tribal rules that make each past an exclusive, secret possession. Created to

generate and protect group interests, it benefits us only if withheld from

others...We exalt our own heritage not because it is demonstrably true but

because it ought to be. (Lowenthal 1997; 128)

Although it is perhaps implied by these distinctions, missing is an acknowledgement that even though history “tells all who will listen what has happened and how things came to be,” it is as unsettled and in need of analysis as heritage is exclusive (1997; 128). That is, a historical narrative or museum exhibition requires active participation on the part of the observer or visitor. On the other hand, a heritage museum can often be understood as a large shop for visitors looking to take a piece of history home. This is not meant to imply that heritage is bad history or history for sale; one could certainly argue that neither history nor heritage is more accurate than the other (Urry 1996). Nevertheless, heritage remains dependent upon the pure telling of the story based on a single dominant narrative, while history participates in the continual re-constructing, re-telling and re- interpretation of an object and the story it participates in.

This distinction is important because it is the element of social (common) contemplativeness generated within a history museum that has been left unexplored by most Benjamin theorists and by scholars in the field of museum studies. This social contemplativeness is important because it can lead to the coming together of a public to participate in the act of identity preservation and creation at the CMIP21. As I will illustrate in the following chapters, by confronting elements of historical preservation like identity preservation and construction, the element of collective contemplativeness discussed by Benjamin can be recovered in “collective dreamhouses” (Schwartz 2001;

1728) such as the CMIP21. As groups of people with different cultural backgrounds come together in the dreamhouse that is the CMIP21, the hope is not that immigrant groups will be assimilated or stirred into the melting pot, rather it is that the experience of passing on the stories of one’s past and ideas for the future will be given a place and physical foundation from which these stories and ideas can be shared beyond cultural boundaries.

Memory in Museums: Colonialism, National Narratives and the Present in Museum

Studies

A major point of discussion for this work deals with the state’s role within a museum and in particular the influence on the narratives presented through the exhibits.

Tony Bennett (2004, 1995) is a prominent source in the area of colonialism and state relations with memory and museums. Bennett’s work on memory, colonialism and

Australian Aborigines resonates deeply with Canadian acts of memorialization particularly concerning immigration and First Nations peoples. In what Bennett describes as an “evolutionary ground zero” (2004; 137) he says “in order to serve as a point of

origin, still discernible within the present, for evolutionary processes which have their culmination in the modern west, Aboriginal culture had to be placed outside of time, at its beginning” (137). Bennett points out that modern time for nations like Australia and

Canada started with the arrival of the European settlers and in order to deal with this when constructing the memory and history of a nation, Aborigine or First Nations histories get placed outside of the significant time of remembrance. These cultures are emptied out of any temporal dynamic of their own (2004; 137). However, some aspects of these cultures are appropriated by the settler cultures in cases like natural history museums where natural specimen or artifacts from pre-history or time before the settlers arrived (or when First Nations lived on the land) are harvested to display the great ecological history and diversity of the land ‘discovered’ by settler nations.

This work is important for this analysis because these patterns of erasure and forgetting about a time ‘before history’ are present in Canadian culture and in the

CMIP21. The impression is given that life began with the settlers and that Canada as a nation and land was settled by these same settlers. It is part of a long attempt to forget and let die the injustices committed against First Nations cultures and people. Immigrants are portrayed as giving the gift of life to the nation and then populating it with brothers and sisters from Europe. Nationalized memorialization becomes a practice of patting oneself on the back for being part of a great culture without acknowledging the troubling moments. Furthermore, the collective forgetting also helps maintain a sense of historical progress in the narrative of commemoration. Forgetting that there was a time and culture before the landing of the settlers means that story can flow from landing to development to settling much easier and less guilt ridden than a story of theft, appropriation and war.

Bennett is clearly an important writer for this analysis concerning issues between immigration commemoration and First Nations cultures and will be revisited in Chapter

Five.

Donald Preziosi also discusses issues and process of remembrance and forgetting in national museums but takes another approach. Preziosi questions the arbitrary nature between the object as signifier and the narrative it helps signify. He says, “everything we understand museums to be or want to be rests on a set of expectations or beliefs about objects and how we want them to mean and what we want them to provide witness for”

(2012; 89). More specifically, he is highlighting the “ambiguity of representation” (2012;

89) and a need to cure this fragility and fix the meanings of objects. This very theoretical issue (what he calls Plato’s Dilemma) ripples through to a more concrete level. In regards to national museums, the problem occurs when objects are given a fixed meaning and become tools that help make certain narratives seem as if they are autonomous and always already existing. Preziosi notes that objects are given place, staged, give life to a national narrative which is then irrationally given a life that ““pre-exist[s]” the institutions and occasions in which they are to be “found” by our on-site analyses” (2012;

86). That is, the narrative seems to exist independent of the objects.

Even more damaging is that this produces a linearity and legacy that appears to represent a narrative that is (and has been) developing progressively over time. Unlike

Bennett’s approach, Preziosi focusses specifically on our relationship with the objects in the museum, but still reveals the contingent nature of the narratives constructed in museums and, more importantly, the dangers this presents for constructed “truths” like national narratives. Preziosi makes clear the reality of these constructions:

Any exploration aimed at locating a nation in museums would of course

never be an innocuous, apolitical, or purely instrumentalist exercise,

entailed as is the very notion of the nation with phantasmatic fabrications

purportedly represented by collections of materials in fact precisely chosen

for their putative abilities to witness that which they are purportedly are

intended to prove. (2012; 89)

Preziosi’s work is important for this analysis because concrete examples these issues can certainly be found within the CMIP21. A “de-collecting” of the collection (selectively choosing objects) to include only objects like suitcases to cover the entire story of immigration to Canada is a way of erasing certain cultures and stories from the history.

The suitcases are given a fixed meaning and are staged to hold the stories and memories of a nation that seemingly did not exist before these suitcases arrived and were unpacked.

Nevertheless, I share Preziosi’s optimism in that we should continue to care about national museums. However, this pulling back the curtain on the ‘work’ of objects and national narratives needs to come with move towards what Preziosi calls a “more responsible but more difficult task” (2012; 86) of co-constructing narratives with objects and diverse communities.

Roger Simon, another theorist in the field of museum studies, shares this optimism as well, but in a different sense. Though one might think Simon is a theorist of the past because of his focus on museums, he is quick to assert that “public practices of remembrance are always about the future” (2012; 93). The dangers of collective commemoration in public institutions have been outlined above through the work of

Bennett and Preziosi. However, Simon takes more time to illustrate a better approach to

thinking about the past. If one accepts that it is important to remember, collect and think about the past in collective terms, then Simon’s work can help shed light on Benjamin’s process of historical awakening and deep turn to objects of the past. In particular, Simon notes that “the role of public history is to encourage people to ask themselves not what they must remember in order to be, but what it means, in light of the experience of the past, to be what they are now” (2012; 95). This approach to thinking about the past maintains a sense of responsibility for the visitor in that they see themselves as not simply a spectator of the past, but a co-creator in the present, but of the past and future. Simon’s work stands alongside Preziosi’s in a call for a more difficult but more useful way of looking at the construction of narratives in museums. The payoff of this approach is that it would potentially move the public to not simply see a museum as a collection of things past but also as an active participant in discussions about issues in the present.

Simon’s work helps flesh out some of Benjamin’s more mystical work. Benjamin looked to the past to help explain and take on issues in the present but is based in the wonder of the histories of objects. To complement this work, Simon pins down an approach that brings clarity to how and why it is that a turn to the past is also an awakening to the present. For example, Simon notes that a beneficial approach to collective histories that deal with issues such as torture and genocide “begin with the premise that we have not yet understood how to face the realities of genocidal fascism in a way that makes possible a hopeful relation between the past and future” (2012; 95).

Beginning with this notion eliminates the idea that one goes to view the mistakes of the past and one must not worry because, culturally, we have progressed beyond that former state of historical consciousness. To change this way of thinking, Simon — in a very

Benjaminian style — suggests that museum visitors enter into a “threefold constellation” of thought that pays attention to:

1. The “pastness” of existence and our own position in the made world;

2. The immediacy of an exhibition’s address to its visitors offering

historical remnants as both a gift and demand;

3. The ways in which material traces of the past are bound up with one’s

future world as sources of meaning and commitment. (Simon 2012; 95)

Based on this approach, Simon gives the gift of optimism for the future of public museums and collective narratives of commemoration, but he also demands that visitors take up this challenge. If we are to move beyond passive viewing and biased commemoration, we must inherit, as Simon says, “those past events that are beyond one’s memory and in which one has not been directly implicated” (2012; 96). This turn can help bring together a diverse public that accepts the challenges presented by the future and past and is better equipped to face them.

Historical Preservation: Museum and Object Beyond Preziosi’s Dilemma

A large part of the reason Benjamin believed museums to be “dream houses of the collective” (Schwartz 2001; 1728) is because they had large collections of material objects from the past. In a ruined state — often physically but more in the sense that they no longer had any use-value in contemporary times — these objects are better suited to represent and convey the ideas and desires of forgotten members of past generations.

This is significant because by engaging with the objects one not only brings to life the ideas and goals, but one can also come to a better understanding of the social and political situation of past generations. Through interaction with these objects and critical

contemplation of past social and political realities, one can begin to break down one’s experiences of current events in relation to these past realities. However, a shift in museum culture is occurring in which objects are playing less of a role in exhibitions.

With this shift in exhibition methods and ideology, the role of the object changes.

In the text Do Museums Still Need Objects?” Steven Conn outlines the history and significance of objects within museums. In yet another different approach from

Preziosi, Conn notes that in certain museums where children are increasingly the main target demographic of museum administrators and curators, the displays are beginning to feature fewer objects and more interactive elements (2010; 152). If children can take something away from the interaction with an exhibit then it is assumed that they will be more equipped and more likely to discuss the significance of the exhibit, its effects, the museum and potentially larger social issues. There are of course subjective variables to consider, however, Ringel (2005) and Haywood and Cairns (2005) argue that the shift to more interactive exhibits does not produce a better learning experience for museum visitors and instead reflects a societal shift towards a heavily technological, consumer based, momentary and rapidly stimulated culture. Or, one could follow Hewison’s line of thought and assert that the past is still being manipulated and used for pure entertainment or economic purposes. In both cases, significant moments of contemplation are passed over as one constantly searches for the next source of stimulation.

The question of what objects or exhibits are meant to represent is also of concern for Benjamin. The phenomenon of phantasmagoria was of interest for Benjamin in that he saw material culture as an illusion that stimulated onlookers and hid the darker realities of social and political life of members of the lower classes of society (Buck-

Morss 1989; 81). This is how Benjamin described the function of objects of material culture in a political sense; however, as discussed above, he also felt that they had a lot of potential bound up within what they actually represented (ideas and desires of past generations) and the value this had for current generations. Conn adds that objects are often treated like art in a museum and given a kind of Benjaminian aura. This aura was a sense of authenticity attributed to an original that could not be transmitted through copies or other representations. Conn notes that, with this aura, objects are asked to represent the people that produced or used them which is “a heavy burden for any object to bear”

(2010; 36-37). At the same time, objects also have difficulty taking on a full artistic aura because they are given power through their ability to represent an element of multiplicity, ubiquity and a large part of the culture that produced it. Asking an object to tell the story of a culture and people is a lot to ask of a material object. Nevertheless, it is only once objects no longer have an effective use that they can begin to tell a story. One must also remember that the process of recovery through these antiquated objects is an interaction which implies that the perceiver also plays a role. This is to acknowledge the necessity of reading the past through the lens of current events and practices. As McCracken makes clear, “what is available to the culture critic is not exactly what exists, but rather what remains;” he then notes that “there is no act of description that is not also an act of interpretation after the fact. Such an act inevitably involves a process of reassembly”

(2002; 163-164). It is not only the object that must tell the stories of the past, but it is objects as a collection interpreted through the eyes of the current culture that tell the various stories and offer various representations of the past.

Recognizing that a shift has occurred in the perceived importance of the object within the museum, I have tried to take a step back and look at why the object was considered such an integral part of the museum experience. I have tried to provide less of a general defense of the object and more of an analysis of its value from a Benjaminian perspective. Some museums now try to make the most of what they can with as few objects on display as possible, a practice Preziosi refers to as “de-collection” in extreme cases (2012; 88). In some cases, it is the structural significance and layout of the building that becomes the object on display and the source of inspiration for contemplation about what is being preserved and commemorated. There are a number of examples that outline both of the above cases. For example, the CMIP21 and Ellis Island are unique cases in that the building which houses the museum is just as much an object for display and contemplation as are the objects displayed within the museums.2 It is the historical significance of the buildings as places of landing for millions of immigrants that presented the need for the construction of the museum and the preservation of the memory of the events. Therefore, with an object of such great significance, the objects on display within the museum become pieces that fill in parts of the story and carry less of the burden of representing an entire period of history or part of mass culture. In either case it is still a collection of objects that tells the story of past generations, while also providing the space where assemblies can gather and discuss their significance. By providing the physical space and catalysts for thought, this factor increases the effectiveness of the museum as a place for inciting social and political action.

2 Although the case of Ellis Island is similar to that of the CMIP21, this analysis focusses on the history of Pier 21 and the exhibits at the CMIP21, respecting the differences in Canadian and American immigration history and practices of preservation. For more on Ellis Island history and the museum see Judith Smith (1992).

The second instance is where the building is not necessarily of historical significance but the layout of the museum provides an added source of inspiration or leads one towards a carefully designed final act of contemplation. For example, when discussing the details of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York and Frank

Lloyd Wright’s various sources of contempt for American urbanism, Conn makes a critical observation about the layout of the museum (2010; 228-229). He notes that the layout of The Guggenheim represents the first shift in the museum sphere where attention is being pulled away from the collection of objects on display and more towards the assembly of people gathered on the various levels of the museum (229). Conn explains

The Guggenheim is an unfavourable place to look at art; he also makes clear that the visitors are now just as much a part of the exhibit as they are viewers of the exhibits (229-

230). As the objects begin to become of secondary importance, what comes to the forefront is the importance of the institution as a place of open gathering where “the public can come and behave as a public” (231). The significance of the objects cannot be denied completely; that is, they still serve as the main reason for why the assembly gathers. Despite the fact that their beauty on display may seem less important, the uniqueness of the objects and the stories they tell are what draws most people to these institutions. Nevertheless, questions concerning what is displayed and what kind of publics are drawn to the museum are important and will be explored in later chapters.

Immigration Commemoration: The Narrative

Narratives created and presented often remain coherent despite shifting object collections and exhibits; however, the structure and presentation process still require in- depth analysis. Looking specifically at institutions designed for immigration

commemoration, there are a number of different narratives that are constructed and portrayed to the visitors. Some of these include narratives concerning the immigrant journey and the immigration process, and narratives looking to create a sense of belonging or nationalist association. As a result, it is important to explore and understand the roles of the various participants in the creation and communication of these powerful narratives. The previous section focussed on the role of the object in this process, this section will consist of an analysis of the role of the visitor.

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, there is a difference between being an active participant and a heritage tourist. There is also a difference between the institution considering visitors as potential participants and as tourists. Often there are spaces reserved for one to take on the role of one more so than the other. For example, in the gift shop one is asked to be less contemplative and more of a consuming tourist.

However, as museums become one of the few places where a public can gather to act in and like a democratic public — laying claim to certain identities, discussing and asking questions about the exhibits — asking visitors to remain passive is offensive to the public and of little value for anyone. Thinking of visitors primarily as tourists pushes them to accept what they see as the truth and to remain consumers or audience members for the entertaining aspects of history. Conn notes that despite everyone occupying the role of the consumer, there is more to museums than the passive economic purpose or value

(2010; 231). Museums also reflect the changing interests in urban areas and give a sense of place and civic identity through the acknowledgement of a diversity of people (231-

232). In order to bring this possibility and reality to the forefront, one must look to

understand how visitors can become active participants in narrative creation and the museum going experience.

In order to acknowledge the concern about a belief in the visitor as merely passive and apathetic about the social and political implications of past generations, I will briefly cite a study conducted by Eric Gable and Richard Handler (1996). In the piece “After

Authenticity at an American Heritage Site,” Gable and Handler discuss the legitimacy of museums and heritage sites presenting “real history,” or history as it really was (568).

Gable and Handler conduct an analysis of Colonial Williamsburg by interviewing staff and visitors to get a better understanding of the kinds of beliefs and states of mind of people in the midst of a process of the co-construction of narratives of preservation and recovery. The authors make note of the fact that a critical shift has occurred amongst the historians hired to work at the heritage site (569). This shift is explained as follows:

The museum's patriotic, celebratory story of the American founding has

been challenged by a new generation of historians hired at Colonial

Williamsburg beginning in the late 1970s...they wanted to revive what they

saw as a moribund cultural institution by making it tell a new story, one that

included the total colonial community. In other words, to the story of the

colonial elites, which the museum had always told, the new historians

wanted to add stories about the masses, the middle classes, the tradesmen,

the lower classes, and, crucially, the African American slaves. They wanted

to depict the total social life of the community in order to emphasize

inequality, oppression, and exploitation. (569)

This shift represents an understanding of history as not simply a presentation and consumption of objects and facts (569). This places responsibility on the public as well as the historians who still maintain control over the collections and archives but do not control the conveying of history as it was. With this understanding, Gable and Handler questioned whether tourists and visitors knew that what they were seeing was not history as it was, but a story that they were also helping create. Through discussions about the legitimacy of staff apparel and official histories, it is clear that visitors knew they must play a part in the construction of the narrative (571). However, it is also clear that visitors participate in this process on different levels, with some being much more critical

(pointing out minute inconsistencies) and less willing to accept the packaged history than others. Nevertheless, what Gable and Handler’s study illustrates is that there is a critical shift and willingness on both sides of the interaction (museum/heritage site curators and the public) to recognize and participate in the co-construction of history and historic sites.

Benjamin in Text and in the Museum

Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s with writers like Susan Buck-Morss

(1989) and Patrick Wright (1992), discussions of Benjamin’s work centered on his fascination with the city and with ruins of material culture. In the early 2000s Benjamin scholars continued to look at Benjamin’s analyses of the city and ruins of material culture, but other writers also started to focus more closely on Benjamin’s relationship with history and historical preservation (McCracken 2002; Schwartz 2001). These scholars dealt less with a specific group, event or identity and more with drawing out

Benjamin’s concepts and his significance as a historical analyst. In order to understand why I am bringing Benjamin off the streets and under the roof a specific building like the

CMIP21, I will briefly outline how Benjamin’s significance as a historical analyst has been developed.

One of Benjamin’s major contributions to the field of historical analysis is best outlined in the work of Scott McCracken. McCracken begins to unpack how Benjamin’s focus on ideas of the past, material ruins and the act of collection open up a possibility for talking about the significance of the politics of the masses (McCracken 2002). In

Benjamin’s time this referred specifically to a newly recognized working class that remained hidden from significant consideration in the areas of history and politics. For

Benjamin, historical narratives had always been told from the point of view of, first, the victorious in battle, and second, the bourgeoisie. Dominant historical narratives had never come from or explained the lives of the masses, except as stories hidden within the materials of the everyday. This top down approach to the production and dissemination of historical narratives largely contributed to making certain people victims of history and others heroes of it. By shifting the focus of historical narratives to the objects and stories of the everyday, the under-represented could be given a recovered potential for political assembly and action. As theorists continue to bring Benjamin’s work away from what is sometimes considered a messianic interpretation and towards a more purely social and political view, Benjamin’s emphasis on the significance of the everyday and mass culture becomes clearer. An effective analysis of the socio-political implications of a specific act of commemoration like that undertaken at the CMIP21 then becomes possible. If a museum like the CMIP21 is a collection house for objects and ideas from past generations, then the collection (assemblies) of visitors making connections through a

common history can open up a strong possibility for participation in the act of preservation of their cultural identities and the molding of a shifting national identity.

In a closer examination of the play between the collection of objects and collections of people, Schwartz notes that Benjamin’s “interest in “collective dreams” and his argument that they were embodied in such actual “monuments” as the Paris

Arcades makes him the most glaringly absent voice among those interested in history and memory” (2001; 1722-1723). What is important about Schwartz’s point is that she notes the connection between monuments like the Paris Arcades and a sense of place associated with collective power. More commercially oriented than museums, the Arcades were areas with many shops that had collections of objects for sale. Furthermore, the Arcades were large places of assembly and although these assemblies of people may not have had any particular social or political goals in mind, they became part of the characterization of the Arcades as a place where people gathered around collections of objects. Engaging with the objects was a possibility and likely did not incite the same interaction as one might encounter with objects in a museum. Nevertheless, the parallels between

Benjamin’s emphasis on the significance of exploring the streets of Paris and its potential significance for analysis within the walls of a contemporary museum must not be missed.

Schwartz acknowledges Benjamin’s desire to discover and unpack the connection between collections of material objects and the relationship they have with assemblies of people. Out of this relationship, Benjamin develops the idea of the Arcades and museums as “dream houses of the collective” (Schwartz 2001; 1728). It is as a dream house that museums, like arcades, become a source of potential social and political contemplation, discussion and action.

The museum is a place that offers an open, discussion oriented setting to the public. However, like other similar settings including universities, libraries and conference centers, the environment at the museum is constructed and controlled so that these moments of prolonged contemplation and discussion can occur. All of these institutions create an environment which is different from the environment on the streets or in private institutions. Rules and codes of conduct certainly determine one’s behaviour in a museum; however, these rules equally apply to all visitors who monitor themselves and others and incite analysis instead of limiting it based on private interests.

Nevertheless, physical and ideological barriers also control the discussion and ideas brought into a museum. These barriers are also necessary to reduce distractions from the outside world and from breaking down the controlled environment at a museum that produces the unique possibility for prolonged contemplation and interaction.

Conclusion: The Heritage Industry, Colonialism and Beyond

Although themes in the covered literature range from the significance of mass the role of objects in museums and issues surrounding colonialism, identity narrative creation and preservation, the underlying connections help highlight the power held by an institution like the CMIP21 concerning issues like cultural and national identity creation.

Recent work done by Preziosi (2012), Conn (2010), Bennett (2004), McCracken (2002),

Schwartz (2001) and Gable and Handler (1996) continues to help break down the authority of social institutions like museums and heritage places and reveal opportunities for identity and narrative co-construction by the greater population. Pushing these analyses further will help present more opportunities for mass culture and mass politics to intersect with national narratives. The many publics that gather and form at these

institutions tell their own story which has great social and political implications for current society. As theorists start to look more at issues like what the objects on display and various exhibitions say about the museum itself in addition to the culture or identity they are meant to represent, it is important to acknowledge this shift in analysis and pull it in different directions. Although discussing the significance of collecting practices and exhibition constructions of time periods is important, the social and political implications of what these practices represent for the identities being represented and constructed requires more in-depth analysis. Analyzing the value of the CMIP21 through

Benjaminian perspectives as they have been developed above will help to highlight its role as a center for identity preservation and creation.

Chapter III: Theoretical Perspectives

Walter Benjamin as Critical Theorist and Anti-historicist

Introduction

As a theorist whose work is not limited to one or two areas of thought, Walter

Benjamin is commonly recognized as one of the great literary and critical theorists of the twentieth century (Buck-Morss 1981, 1989; Schwartz 2001; Gilloch 2002). His work provides a number of theoretical perspectives from which to draw while engaging in critical analysis. In order to clarify the perspectives used in this thesis I break down

Benjamin’s place in this project down into five sections. First, I outline Benjamin’s relationship with the Frankfurt school and other key theorists that influenced his work.

Second, I make the relationship between Benjamin’s theoretical perspectives and political ambitions clear. Third, I outline Benjamin’s significance within the genre of critical historical thought by outlining the key concepts that are more directly related to the realm of historical analysis. Finally, I briefly outline a few concrete examples of historical importance that are related to Benjamin’s theoretical perspectives. This includes a discussion of the dream house status of museums and the structural significance of these buildings.

Benjamin as Theorist

Walter Benjamin managed to excite and anger some of the Frankfurt School’s most important members, including Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Benjamin fit the basic mold of Frankfurt School thinkers in that he was a Marxist thinker who viewed the world through a materialist perspective; however, he explored areas of thought that were seen as incompatible with materialist views held by some of the most influential

founding members like Horkheimer. This being the case, Benjamin kept close contact with many intellectuals inside and outside of the institute. His closest allies and influences were a mixture of the brightest European intellectuals from his time and included Gershom Scholem, Max Horkheimer, George Bataille, Georg Lukács and eventually the German poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht. Benjamin’s closest colleague and most persistent critic at the institute was Theodor Adorno, with whom he kept an in- depth correspondence throughout his life (Buck-Morss 1989). Through this correspondence one can clearly see the ideological similarities and differences between

Benjamin and Adorno (1989). Despite the fact that both men claimed to be Marxist thinkers and followed dialectical materialist principles, their views concerning the role of material reality, commodity fetishism, and historical progress differed from one another.

In their highly influential essay “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass

Deception,” Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) outline the sentiments of most members of the Frankfurt School concerning Western culture. In this piece, they characterize

Western culture as having shifted from being a culture of production, to becoming completely embedded in the act of consumption. For these men, a culture of consumers was simply a variation of a culture of alienated workers:

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is

sought after as an escape from the mechanized work process, and to

recruit strength in order to be able to cope with it again. But at the

same time mechanization has such power over a man’s leisure and

happiness, and so profoundly determines the manufacture of

amusement goods, that his experiences are inevitably after-images of

the work process itself...In either case [the people] remain objects.

(Adorno and Horkheimer 1944; 137)

Adorno and Horkheimer saw the culture industry as a deceptive power that kept the masses alienated and under a false consciousness of perceived freedom. Benjamin largely agreed with the principles of alienation and Marxist characterizations of working class life; however, he was left unsatisfied by theorists accepting the idea that the growth of the culture industry was another adaptation and extension of capitalist power over the masses. Adorno and Horkheimer’s essay was published after Benjamin’s death in 1940, but the ideas concerning the nature and potential of a heavily consumerist culture were a point of contention between Adorno and Benjamin for a number of years (Buck-Morss

1977).

Benjamin took a closer look at the material reality of consumer life and conducted a more critical analysis of the potential for bringing about a Marxist inspired revolution.

Published nearly a decade before Adorno and Horkheimer’s essay, Benjamin’s pre- emptive ‘response’ to the position of his Frankfurt colleagues is best formulated in “The

Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1968d). This essay outlines

Benjamin’s analysis of consumer life and its revolutionary potential. It is in this essay where many of the ideas found in Benjamin’s later essay “Theses On the Philosophy of

History” (1968b), and two major works, One Way Street (1979), and The Arcades Project

(1999), first appear. For example, Benjamin discusses how, with the rise of mechanical reproduction, the relationship between the masses and the work of art also changes

(1968d; 234). That is, as works of art lose their aura or authorial power through mechanical reproduction and mass distribution they become more visually and critically

accessible to the majority of the population. This has the potential to give rise to mass participation. In other words, the death of this aura releases a work of art from the restricted spaces of bourgeois culture and produces a critical potential through the world of art that was unimaginable prior to mechanical reproduction. This potential is also increased by a new level of accessibility. Individuals who were previously unable to enter the world of art have a greater opportunity to practice their craft and share their ideas and the ideas of the larger population.

Law as Violence

In “Critique of Violence,” Benjamin looks at violence in two ways. He proclaims that, “if that first function of violence is called the lawmaking function, this second will be called the law-preserving function” (1986; 284). His goal however, is not to simply note that there are different categories of violence, but it is to present a critical approach that changes the way one thinks about violence. This stems from his interest in the fact that there even are different categories of violence, namely just and unjust kinds or state- controlled and individually coordinated kinds. Benjamin carefully makes clear the manipulative powers and interest the state has in preserving law and it’s monopoly on violence. He notes:

Law's interest in a monopoly of violence vis-a-vis individuals is not

explained by the intention of preserving legal ends but, rather, by that

of preserving the law itself; that violence, when not in the hands of the

law, threatens it not by the ends that it may pursue but by its mere

existence outside the law. (1986; 281)

If individuals act outside of the law they threaten the current lawmaking violence with their own force of lawmaking violence. This is why the state works to preserve a monopoly over violence and over the individuals in the state. Law-preserving violence is the force which is employed to help the state maintain its power, reach and effectiveness.

These two cases of law as violence are not stand alone instances. In fact, they are reinforcing and part of the same never-ending process.

Social institutions such as the CMIP21 are part of this process and are centres of law-preserving violence. They work against the threat of an individual or group coming together to use their own force of law and bring their own histories to the forefront of the museum. The state does not want an opposing narrative put into force or law, so it works tirelessly to preserve the dominant narrative portrayed. In the case of the CMIP21, the dominant narrative remains one of European settling. The threat of other historical perspectives or even stories of another legal system as one based on First Nations traditions for example, scares the state into working to erase these accounts of history from the public sphere, and ultimately, the private sphere. However, as Benjamin makes clear, law-preserving violence is also law-making violence and the reinforcement of one another means that they (the state or institution) never escape the violent origin (1968;

288). The state, with its monopoly over law and violence, constantly works to escape its origin of violence and reach a point of purity or undeniable legitimacy while also making sure that it preserves its monopoly on violence over individuals and ‘threatening’ groups.

Nevertheless, hope remains in the fact that individuals or groups always have the power to threaten the state as counter law-making, history sharing, or narrative writing forces.

Film as Theory

Benjamin believed that film was the style of artistic expression that broke the most ground for the masses because it had the most revolutionary potential. Benjamin held this belief for a number of reasons. First, unlike a painting, film is reproducible not only in the technological sense that it could reach an unprecedented number of people, but in the sense that it could also reproduce a critically engaged experience for each participant. In other words, the “attention shifts from the work of art itself as a privileged entity to the point of intersection between work and onlooker” (Wolin 1982; 188 emphasis original). A reproduction of a painting on the other hand, fails to recreate this experience through the mechanically reproduced images. The reproduced image always presents itself as a copy and is constantly referring to something else which one in possession of the reproduction cannot access. However, film does not carry this obvious sense of reproduction or constant reference to an original within it. Instead, the only element it creates or refers to is an alternative reality that it invites one into and allows one to be a part of for a short period of time. This feeling of engagement produced by film lay in the fact that mechanical reproducibility “emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual [and] instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice—politics” (1968d; 224). Relieving the work of art from its dependence on ritual, meaning its isolation and placement in the world of bourgeois culture, allows the masses to participate in critical engagement with the work of art. As

Benjamin outlines, this brings the work of art away from a position of inaccessibility and surrounds it with the politics of the people. With this new basis, film as a work of art

facilitated participation in larger cultural critique that the exclusive world of bourgeois culture failed to think about and produce before.

Secondly, Benjamin thought that film was the paradigmatic art form representing the potential of mass culture because it was at the forefront of the explosion of the culture industry and because of its montage-like structure. Understood as a collection of images strung together, the film was the closest art form that reflected the everyday material experiences of the masses. The experience of walking down city streets and gazing at the displays in the shops was comparable to the experience of watching a collection of images go by on the film screen. In both cases, Benjamin described this structure as a phantasmagoric montage-like experience, a collection of loosely related images. The montage is significant for Benjamin because within a montage there is no specific narrative or idea expressed. A montage resists having a structured narrative within itself and also breaks the flow of that which it enters. It is able to resist and break structured narratives because the montage “interrupts the context into which it is inserted” (Buck-

Morss 1989; 77). The film as an art form is montage-like in the sense that its explosion into the art world brought about by mechanical reproduction interrupted the flow of art as a possession of bourgeois culture. The technology of film production at this time limited film production to the use of a montage technique. Nevertheless, its most important effect was that it broke the flow of the exclusivity and became an avenue and point of engagement for the working class population as well. More generally, this interruption is beneficial because it allows for greater critical capacity on the part of the observer (as a momentary passer-by) when experiencing certain forms of rapid imagery.

As for the phantasmagoric experience, Benjamin is once again drawing similarities between the experience of watching a film and the experience of watching the

‘images’ of consumer culture pass by in the shops as one walks the city streets.

Phantasmagoria is a form of illusion and in a more literal sense it is an artistic form created by the projection of images onto a screen which recreate a realistic situation

(1989; 81). For Benjamin, the material objects of consumer culture and the displays they made up were phantasmagoric in the sense that they were a pleasurable illusion hiding the material reality of working class alienation that lay behind their creation. They also represented a collective distaste for the old and were part of a larger narrative of progress.

The pleasure one takes in the act of gazing at the new constantly creates a desire which one is always trying to momentarily fill. This process is never-ending as the fundamental condition of desire is that it remains unsatisfied. Consequently, the production of new commodities continues to flourish and create new desires which are only momentarily satisfied. What is most important to note is that this process of constant desire and unsatisfied fulfillment helps to perpetuate a narrative that continually produces an illusion of the necessity of progress through the constant production of novel objects and ideas.

Whether the initial goal of Benjamin’s analysis of film and the Arcades of Paris were political or purely theoretical in nature is uncertain (Buck-Morss 1981); nevertheless, his dissatisfaction with the existing critiques of consumer culture and the nature of modernity as a history of progress are clear throughout his work. He was heavily influenced by Hegel and Marx but also strayed greatly in that he looked at the experiences of the material reality of the everyday for a way to see beyond the narrative of history-as-progress. For example, McCracken argues that “where Marx urges the

materialization of the dream, Benjamin urges an assembly of materials to provoke the moment of awakening that brings the dream to consciousness” (2002; 160). Both Marx and Benjamin wished to see the realization of the dream of a worker revolution and communality, however, it was Benjamin who analyzed and outlined the revolutionary potential that could be fostered by an assembly of people through a revisiting of the material history of past cultures. As a theorist, Benjamin plays the role of the vanguard and pulls out this motivating element within the material history. He then presents it to the community as a way of helping break a consumerist-based false consciousness.

Where his colleagues at the Frankfurt School found only the failures of a social system,

Benjamin also found hope and possibilities for change. Ultimately, the dominant narratives embedded in a capitalist based society, like private ownership, free markets and unrestrained development, were seen as damaging for Benjamin because they kept the oppressed and forgotten people of the everyday under a false belief that life might always be getting better even as they continued to live in tough conditions at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Consequently, Benjamin sought to find another way to understand the role and goals of history and found hope in the material reality of the everyday (McCracken 2002).

The Great Divide: Theory and Politics

Before moving on to more specific examples of Benjaminian historical analyses, the significance of the notion of a ritual dependence on progress as a way of understanding the role of history requires some unpacking. First, I deal with the notion of ritual dependence on progress as it is a large part of the narrative of modern history that Benjamin attempted to break. Second, I discuss the discrepancy between Benjamin’s

theoretical perspectives and his political beliefs. Benjamin’s political subtlety and connection with different kinds of thinkers forces one to dig deeper into his theoretical perspectives to discover what his political beliefs might have been. Consequently, I sift through the fragments and debris of Benjamin’s political career and theoretical perspectives in an attempt to illuminate the political undertones and consistencies within

Benjamin’s thought.

Just as Benjamin believed that mechanical reproducibility would rid art of its dependence on ritual and bring in a recovered sense of politics, the process of dialectical awakening is meant to illustrate how the ritual dependence of narratives of historical preservation on a notion of progress prevents a revived sense of politics from promoting critical historical thought. As a Marxist, Benjamin felt that this process of dialectical awakening or dialectic at a standstill was a way to potentially revive a sense of a Marxist politics that could combat the political situation in 1930s Europe. As a theorist for the mundane and the everyday, Benjamin did not deny the significance of ritual or the notion of the sacred in all aspects of everyday life; nevertheless, Benjamin’s hope for a better state of living for all members of society led him to analyze and question the theoretical and political significance of what he thought was a largely blind dependency on dominant narratives of historical progress. This dependency was not just on the part of the working-class (with whom he placed the most historical and critical potential), but it was on the part of all members of society. Benjamin looked to all members of society because this widespread following of a sense of history-as-progress is what maintained a dependency on the rituals of capitalism and prevented society from shifting away from its increasingly dark and stagnant position. Nowhere is he clearer about changing one’s

approach to the interpretation of history than in the seventh theses of the “Theses on the

Philosophy of History:”

There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a

document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of

barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted

from one owner to another. A historical materialist therefore dissociates

himself from it as far as possible. He regards it as his task to brush history

against the grain. (1968; 256-257)

Brushing history against the grain is meant to be understood as a call for interpretive and physical action. Recognizing the existence of such barbarism pushes one to question the documentation of history-as-progress and calls for individuals to re-interpret history and move to create and document their own. For Benjamin, shifting the way one understands the flow of history and one’s role in this flow is one of the most crucial steps in order to produce social change.

As the above quotation confirms, Benjamin’s theoretical work had strong political undertones. As the primary English language analyst of Benjamin’s work, Susan Buck-

Morss provides many critical insights into the life, work, and politics of Benjamin.

Buck-Morss has argued that it is difficult to understand Benjamin’s work on montage and dialectical awakening as heavily political because it would then become a theory of material manipulation for the organization of the masses (1981; 83). She also does not deny that there is a significant politically conscious or active element to Benjamin’s work. Beyond the fact that it was well known that Benjamin wrote with unsettled

Marxist beliefs in mind, what the specific political elements were within his work are

often difficult to pull out. However, after conducting a closer reading of the text, one begins to get a sense of the strength of the political positions which underlie the theoretical perspectives.

More specifically, in Benjamin’s work on Baudelaire (1968a), it appears as if he is merely engaged in a critical literary analysis of a work of Edgar Allan Poe as translated by Baudelaire:

The story is entitled “The Man of the Crowd.” Set in London, its narrator

is a man who, after a long illness, ventures out again for the first time into

the hustle and bustle of the city. In the late afternoon hours of an autumn

day he installs himself behind a window in a big London coffeehouse…his

main focus of interest is the throng of people surging past his window in

the street. (1968a; 170)

On the other hand, a closer analysis will reveal that he is interested in something much more specific and pertaining to a particular political agenda:

Important as it is, let us disregard the narrative to which this is the prelude

and examine the setting. The appearance of the London crowd as Poe

describes it is as gloomy and fitful as the light of the gas lamps

overhead...He deals with “people,” pure and simple. For him, as for

Engels, there was something menacing in the spectacle they presented.

(171-172)

Benjamin’s focus on Poe’s discussion of the crowd and, briefly, Engels’s fascination with the crowd, is an attempt at working out an understanding of the urban working-class.

Benjamin compares members of the crowd with the more leisurely image of the flâneur

as he works to outline a more nuanced and revived historical sense of the masses. For

Benjamin, the masses were not a class or structured collective. Instead, the image of the crowd in the literary work of Baudelaire and Poe as simply a group of passers-by, best represented the masses in the city (Buck-Morss 1977). Benjamin’s focus on literary imagery was significant in that this is where he found the strongest and most profound descriptions of the reality of the current political situation. The theoretical elements are not meant to cloud over any political aspirations or associations; conversely, the imagery is meant to help illuminate the reality of political life and point towards the possibility of coming together for a common goal.

Throughout his life Benjamin often visited Russia and was said to have placed hope in Russian communism, specifically for the German workers as a way of fighting the growing fascism in the 1930s (1977; 82). The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in

1939 was therefore a crucially disheartening moment for Benjamin in terms of his writing career and his life. Any remaining activist feelings quickly turned into survivalist actions. Before this moment Benjamin gave numerous lectures to card-carrying communists in Russia, all the while remaining as seemingly politically inactive as he could (1977; 143). Benjamin maintained close association with members of the

Frankfurt School even after they relocated to the United States. He also maintained a close connection with Bertolt Brecht, a Marxist in his own right and one who other

Marxists such as Adorno and Horkheimer did not particularly agree with intellectually

(1977; 144). Consequently, while attempting to maintain alliances with all of these men, elements of Benjamin’s political views often shifted and remained unclear. Nevertheless, his commitment to the potential of the working-class and to the defeat of a growing

German fascism were two of the more concrete elements and influences concerning his political views.

The importance of these two elements to the formulation of Benjamin’s understanding of the purpose of history must not be overlooked. It is through these elements of Benjamin’s thought that the theoretical and political ties in his work are best formulated and understood. Benjamin saw the notion of progress as the goal of history, as the element of modern historical narratives that most led to and allowed for the rise of fascism. The widespread belief in history, as necessarily moving towards a particular point of excellence, made it easier for people to follow individuals and groups that could lead them towards this point. It is important to note that Benjamin made these observations a number of years before WWII and that he died in 1940, years before the extent of the horrors of Fascism were known. For Benjamin to recognize the theoretical and political failures of a notion of history-as-progress before fascist powers rose to their peak is remarkable. Although Benjamin’s political position may not have always been clear, the political importance of the debasing of a narrative of history-as-progress is not lost in the profoundness of his theoretical analysis.

Benjamin as Critical Historian Following the work of writers like Baudelaire and Scholem, and Lukács and

Nietzsche, Benjamin developed an anti-modernist tone to his work. This anti-modernist tone was not a denial of the potential of the rapid pace of modern life, but rather, he found fault in the myth of modern Western history as a history of progress. In other words, Benjamin believed that the idea that Western history was necessarily moving towards a particular point of completion or ultimate superiority was deeply problematic.

The fascination with the novel and a sense of progress was, through Benjamin’s eyes, an

experience of the phantasmagoria of the myth of modern history. Like Baudelaire,

Benjamin saw hope in the ruins of yesterday and the fragments of the work of old (Buck-

Morss 1989). He was not against producing new ideas and new materials, however,

Benjamin believed that through a particular process of recovery and preservation, something more valuable could be built that one would not want to throw away so quickly. That which is ruined is not dead and empty. Instead, there is potentially something more critical behind that which has been ruined by its loss of economic or social value. As Scott McCracken notes, Benjamin observed that “it is in everyday experience, the closest, tritest, most obvious, that the promise of the past is to be found”

(2002; 157). It was the discarded materials of the everyday that Benjamin believed held the greatest potential for recovering a sense of history not bound to an idea of progress.

It is through this belief that Benjamin developed the notion of dialectical awakening.

The process of dialectical awakening is the central component of Benjamin’s critique of the myth of modern history-as-progress. This myth only recognizes a series of empty transitions and maintains the “homogeneous time of the always-the-same” (Wolin

1982; 49). At the centre of the process of breaking this myth is the material culture of the city for it is “the material culture of the city rather than of the psyche [that] provides the shared collective spaces where consciousness and the unconscious, past and present meet” (McCracken 2002; 150). This is an important point. For Adorno and Horkheimer material culture was where the problem of capitalist culture hid and grew. Conversely,

Benjamin looked to material culture to demonstrate its potential and to develop his notion of dialectical awakening. Furthermore, quoting the entirety of McCracken’s description:

The dialectical moment of awakening is one of preservation through

recovery, but, once acquired, the reconstellation of the lost objects of the

everyday requires distance and reflection. In Benjamin's dialectic of the

everyday, habit, Proust's "skilful but slow-moving arranger," is broken by

involuntary memories, which then need to be rearranged to become

something other than what is. The point of awakening is the point of

rupture at which past and present may recognize each other, not through a

spurious theory of causation or progress, but in a moment in which the

totality of the past is recognized in the present. (2002; 157)

Essentially, the process of awakening is characterized by an instance where past and present come together as a constellation (one of many points in a collection of images or stories) where the present would find an image of itself in the past and recover a clearer image of history beyond the facade of a false consciousness that attempts to present history as it really was. Benjamin further emphasizes that, “every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably” (1968b; 255), meaning that “the past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again” (255).

Awakening arises as a moment of recognition in these instances in which one is able to break the pattern of seeing history as a narrative of progression and recover a sense of critical historical consciousness that sees the value of history through the present light. In this moment one becomes a critical historian and works to produce a new consciousness through the recovery of an old one.

For Benjamin there is deep theoretical and political significance in recovering and preserving this new sense of historical consciousness. Theoretically, coming to understand the experiences of the members of the mass culture in the struggles of history would help break the dependence on the dominant perspective of modern history as progressing on its own towards an ultimate state of being and create a mass participation among the forgotten and oppressed members of society. The growth of this critical aspect of society is then the first step in understanding the political potential of a new historical consciousness. Politically, breaking the pattern of a narrative of historical progress gives a sense of power back to the people. It reveals one’s power in the movement of history.

One is no longer a bystander to the will of others or a great force. Instead, one recognizes that the forces of history can be moved by the people. In the process of dialectical awakening and bringing about this new historical consciousness it is the producers and, more importantly, consumers of culture that have the most important roles.

Storytelling and Collecting

With a collective shift in individual roles occurring where people were becoming more significant to socio-economic life as consumers than they were as producers,

Benjamin set out to describe the political shift that was occurring as well. Stemming from his fascination with book collecting, Benjamin utilizes two literary figures in order to explain the significance of the co-production of a historical narrative that does not place the forces of production at the center of its worldview. First, storytellers have an important role in that they construct the way in which a historical narrative might be told.

Benjamin believed that it was the job of storytellers to collect the fragments of the past

and present them for consumption by the public (Benjamin 1968c). More specifically, the role of the historian as storyteller was to avoid attempting to tell the story of history as it really was. For Benjamin this was an impossible task and the most fallacious appeal to history as it perpetuated belief in the narrative of history as predominantly a story of progress.

To tell the story of history as it really was is to claim to understand aspects of history that only the material objects of past can effectively demonstrate, if at all. It is an impossible task to understand the story of someone’s life, of an event or of a period of time to the point where one can know exactly what happened. Even material objects of past cultures fail at presenting a complete story of the period of time from which they had the most use-value. Therefore, to attempt to tell the story of someone’s life or of an event as it really happened is to construct a narrative that is more than likely going to tell a story that progresses from the beginning up until its connection to the present. The goal of this process is to explain the significance that the particular moment of history had for those in the present.

For example, the CMIP21 follows this process in order to demonstrate the significance of the building and of European immigration for the growth and expansion of Canada. This process seems very effective and innocent as it flows easily in chronological order. Alternatively, allowing materials to stand on their own and as part of a collection of insights into momentary flashes of history can result in an equally effective understanding of the time, person or event being represented. These flashes need not be strung together by an overarching story that moves towards a specified endpoint. These object-based moments of insight are inserted to break the flow of

understanding history and the process of presenting history as always already moving towards a better or final point of accomplishment. This approach allows materials to provide insight into a moment or aspect of history as opposed to being pieces that are called upon to help advance an imposed narrative. As a collection of flashes these moments effectively relay the thoughts, goals and dreams of past cultures and tell the story of history without fabricating a story of necessarily connected moments of progression.

It was the task of the collector to strip the collection of images, stories or objects of any remaining use or exchange value by way of the collector’s specific connoisseur- like knowledge (1968c). It is only in the post-economic-value life of the materials that their critical potential could be revealed (McCracken 2002). It is the job of the collector to bring about this critical potential. By consuming the objects or images of the storyteller, the narrative of history-as-progress would fall and the possibility for a critical politics could present itself. Ultimately, the act of collection is an act of reassembly and reconfiguration:

What is available to the cultural critic is not exactly what exists, but rather

what remains. In the scatter and confusion that is the modern historical

legacy, there is no act of description that is not also an act of interpretation

after the fact. Such an act inevitably involves a process of

reassembly...The collector first possesses things then reconfigures them;

and it is in the process of that reconfiguration that he is able to possess a

new consciousness. (McCracken 2002; 160, 163-4)

Benjamin’s hope for the future lay in the remnants of the past. He desired to redeem these objects, and bring, if not their actual redemption, then their symbolic redemption

(Wolin 1982; 92). The collector was first and foremost a collector of things, but then also became a guide to a past that had been forgotten. By regrouping these materials in a constellation, these objects become redeemed and begin to shift historical consciousness

(Wolin 1982; 92). This past was an image of the future that came to light through the collective dreams of old. The collector’s process of reassembly gave new life to these images and began to piece together a new montage based understanding of historical consciousness.

Collection as Assembly

There are two sides to the work of Benjamin: first, there is the very literary and theoretical element; and second, there is an underlying political element. For example,

McCracken explicitly argues that it was in fact a political project that Benjamin was interested in most (2002; 164). McCracken understands Benjamin’s work on collection to be a discussion and reconfiguration of the idea of the collective as it appears in the work of earlier Marxists and in material culture. McCracken states:

The project that interested [Benjamin] was not Sammlung (collection), but

Versammlung: a collective assembly. Benjamin's idea of the collective is

also one in which the joins, the disagreements, are allowed to show. As

such, his theory of the everyday acts as a corrective to abstract ideas of the

collective or of revolution. (2002; 164)

The notion of Benjamin’s theory as a reformation of orthodox Marxist ideas holds true in the sense that Benjamin was attempting to reconfigure the power of the forgotten in their

increasing roles as consumers or collectors. Their central role in the process of dialectical awakening or “dialectic at a standstill” (Wolin 1982; 49) and the recovery of a new historical consciousness meant that Benjamin could not deny the reality of material life and consumer culture. On the other hand, one must be clear that the collection of people and objects are two distinct acts. The objects are pieces to a larger puzzle that must be assembled and interpreted by an assembly of people. The gathering of objects on its own will not produce social or cultural change. Benjamin saw the collecting of historically significant objects as the piece or moment which would bring different people together. It is only the people as a collective that can give meaning to these objects and then work to produce something greater that both includes and reaches beyond the differences that reveal themselves through the coming together of many groups of people.

Benjamin On History

Benjamin believed places like railways, piers, arcades, and museums to be the

‘dream houses of the collective’ (Schwartz 2001; 1728). They had this significance for at least two important reasons. First, they are places for collective use and operate based on large numbers of incoming and outgoing users. As points of common usage or gathering, these places are well recognized and uphold a sense of communality and unity between users. Simply put, their use value and cultural symbolism as places of the everyday is understood by most people. Second, these places exist as totemic structures embodying the material reality of the everyday. It is perhaps cliché and meaningless to uses phrases like ‘if these walls could talk’ when discussing places of liminality; however, as architectural forms of collectivity and monuments to the transitory nature of human life,

these structures hold collections of the stories that make up the history of the everyday.

Consequently, in ruinous or afterlife stages, they become museum-like places for the dreams of a collective and play an important role in the recovery and preservation of a new historical consciousness.

In regards to specific acts of preservation, the museum as a dream house embodies and preserves the history of a people through its structure just as much as it does through its exhibits. This is even more so the case with the CMIP21 as it exists within the structure and history of the Pier itself (the significance of the building as the actual site of the events being commemorated is discussed more in Chapter Four). As a dream house, storyscape, and as a collection house containing many objects of material history, the museum preserves the stories of a lost past in order to allow for the revival of these stories and for a critical confrontation with those of the present. The spectacle of the museum itself and of the exhibits within the museum create an environment for which crowds of passers-by are confronted with a montage of stories, objects, and images with the hope of feeling some sense of connectedness or understanding. The CMIP21 serves as the place which collects and tells the story of the objects which have begun to lose their use or exchange value. In the controlled setting of the museum, passers-by get to experience the phantasmagoria of the objects and stories of an unknown past. On the other hand, it is under this more controlled setting where the critical potential of the fragments of the past may be lost if compiled with the goal of illustrating history-as- progress or. By historicizing and containing the immigrant category within a certain period of time and to a certain group of people, one could argue that the museum works to move beyond and close the book on Canadian immigration history. The museum

glorifies one era of Canadian immigration history which socially and politically alienates immigrant groups that continue to enter Canada today. Essentially, it treats immigration as a moment in Canada’s history that is complete rather than as an element of Canadian social, political, cultural and economic life that must be continually analyzed and confronted. Faced with these challenges, the museum is a place of social and political contention. Nevertheless, by playing out certain roles of the producer and the storyteller, the museum permits a revived critical political consciousness and awakening to enter into the collective’s experience of the museum. The visitors as a collective can then work to break the dependence on a sense of history-as-progress and the containment of a certain immigrant history.

Conclusion

Benjamin’s notion of dialectical awakening is a theory that places the material reality of the everyday, the momentary montage-like collection of images, critical awareness, and a sense of historical consciousness as the focus of history and historical preservation. It concentrates on the certain points of history “that are laden with now- time” (Wolin 1982; 51). This stands in opposition to many traditions of thought that placed great weight in the idea of the ultimate goal or purpose of history as progress.

Although where this sense of progress is directed is perhaps undecided and unknown to even those who closely follow this notion, the belief that humankind must constantly be striving forth to an undeterminable end or accomplishment has been the overpowering view of modern history. This constant striving hid the myth that modernization simply became the representation of “the always-the-same as the “new”” (1982; 51). This notion of history is the history of the victorious (in war specifically and ideologically in a more

general sense) and, in Benjamin’s time, is the understanding of the purpose of history that largely made possible the fascism that came to dominate Germany. Although Benjamin’s wide range of colleagues all played important roles in the formulation of his theoretical and political positions, perhaps no influence was more powerful than the reality of the historical situation in Germany in the first half of the twentieth-century. Even a brief understanding of Benjamin’s theoretical work and biographical information can permit one to see that there are valid theoretical and political motivations behind the theory of dialectical awakening which serves as an attempt to break with the myth and rituals of modern history-as-progress.

Throughout this chapter I have illustrated the deep connection between

Benjamin’s theoretical perspectives and his political ideology. As someone who did not participate as directly in the political process of the day as other theorists may have, it is necessary to highlight political implications and goals that are embedded in Benjamin’s theoretical work. Not only does this provide clarification of what Benjamin’s political views may have been, but it also helps to bring a better understanding to Benjamin’s theoretical perspectives. It would be too easy and yet an unfortunate mistake to cast

Benjamin off as a theorist without practical implications. Consequently, I have also tried to bridge the apparent gap between Benjamin’s theory and politics by outlining some concrete examples concerning Benjamin’s relation to the heritage industry and historical preservation.

Building a connection between Benjamin’s theoretical perspectives and his sense of politics opens the door to a critical analysis that has the strength of both elements of

Benjamin’s work, without diminishing the significance of either. One can then utilize

this strength in order to conduct an analysis that provides a basis from which a system of politics can be constructed, while also dealing with the theoretical implications of the heritage industry and historical preservation. Through an understanding of the process of dialectical awakening and the many different roles of the people involved in the production of the process, one can not only begin to see beyond the pure economic and cultural value of historical preservation, but one can also begin to see the ritualistic dependency on a notion of history-as-progress. Once this dependency is revealed, the critical potential of seeing beyond this myth will help one move past this restrictive ideological framework and begin the process of reviving and preserving a politics of the everyday.

Chapter Four: Case Outline Pier 21 and Canada’s Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 Introduction

As the point of landing for one million immigrants in the mid-20th century (1928-

1971), Halifax has a central place in Canadian history. For these immigrants the doorway to a life in Canada was Pier 21. As the most Eastern port in mainland Canada, it was the landing point for many immigrants who settled in Western Canada. The history of the

Pier is significant in that it also gives a glimpse into the history of Canada in the twentieth century. From Canada’s contribution to the Second World War to the expansion of Canada’s multicultural population, the history of the Pier is entangled with the history of the country and its people. To understand the legacy of the Pier, I discuss points of its history and its relationship with Canadian immigration policies. First, I outline the history of the Pier as an immigrant reception site, including a discussion of its construction and its life until 1971, the year it was no longer used for immigration purposes. Second, I outline the struggle to re-open Pier 21 as a museum recognizing the history of immigration to Canada. Chronicling the work of The Pier 21 Society, I illustrate the process undertaken to give new life to the Pier. The final section will outline the various exhibits and one’s experience of the CMIP21.

Pier 21 Marginal Road entrance.

(Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

A passenger cart commemorating the journey of thousands of immigrants to Western Canada sits in front of the entrance of Pier 21. (Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

Canadian Immigration and Pier 21: A Brief History Pier 21 is arguably Canada’s most famous immigration port. However, Pier 21 was not Halifax’s first major port. From around 1880 until 1917, Pier 2 served as

Halifax’s and Canada’s main port of entry for immigrants. Approximately 2.7 million immigrants entered Canada through Pier 2 (Dodge; 1). After a French warship carrying a large amount of ammunition collided with a Norwegian warship and exploded, most of

Pier 2 was destroyed. The Halifax Explosion was the largest human made explosion in history prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. After the explosion, immigration processing in Halifax became very limited. Consequently, the construction of an alternative port and immigration shed became necessary. Built along the opposite end of the Halifax harbour (South end), construction on Pier 21 was completed in 1924 (The Pier 21 Story 1978; 4). However, Pier 21 would not officially open until March 8th 1928. It would quickly turn into one of the largest and busiest immigration points in Canada alongside other major ports in Québec City, St. John, New

Brunswick, and Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia.

The Pier was connected to the railway station where most immigrants had to wait to embark on another long journey before beginning life in Canada. The completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) brought a different reality to transportation and mobility in Canada. As a result, the decades prior to the opening of Pier 21 saw rapid development of a specific kind. It was at this point in Canada’s development as a nation that Clifford Sifton and Frank Oliver (Sifton’s successor as Minister of the Interior) were trying to populate the open prairie land with skilled farmers (Knowles 2007; 85).

Immigration officials were required to reject those who were physically unable to deal with the land and the winters and carry out hard labour jobs. During Sifton’s nine year

period as Minister of the Interior, admission numbers jumped from averaging 17,000 new arrivals in 1896 when he was appointed to the position, to over 146,000 when he resigned in 1905 (Kelley and Trebilcock 2010; 123).

The period from 1910 until the late 1920s and the opening of Pier 21 saw various immigration tactics from the Canadian government. The war and the resulting economic conditions led policy makers to shape policy according to the country’s perceived needs during the war. That is, during years of prosperity immigration policies were less restrictive and during times of economic downturn policies were highly restrictive

(Kelley and Trebilcock 168). This largely describes the situation for European immigrants only. The restrictions on African immigrants and most Chinese, Indian and

Japanese immigrants were still in place throughout this entire period and throughout a significant part of the twentieth century. In 1917 the Department of the Interior officially became the Department of Immigration and Colonization (169). During WWI the department exercised its power as immigration numbers significantly dropped from around 300,000 annually before the war to around 70,000 per year from 1914-1918

(Citizenship and Immigration Statistics Canada 1996; 4). After the war many immigrants were relieved of their jobs in order to make room for returning soldiers in the work force

(Canadian Council For Refugees 1). Nevertheless, during the early 1920s immigration numbers increased again and the country averaged around 117,000 new arrivals annually.

Most of these arrivals came from a list of preferred countries and only highly skilled labourers from non-preferred countries were allowed to enter (Dench 2000; 1).

Immigration through Pier 21 (1928-1971): History as Progress

The early years of Pier 21’s existence were steady in terms of the number of immigrants entering Canada through the port. Although some of Canada’s highest immigration numbers were in the years leading up to WWI, 1928, the year Pier 21 opened, was a peak year for immigration in the interwar period (Citizenship and

Immigration Statistics Canada 1996; 4). In 1928 Canada granted immigrant status to just over 166,000 people (1996; 4). During the 1930s when the effects of the Great

Depression were felt, the number of people allowed to enter Canada began to decrease.

In 1931 Canada’s most restrictive immigration policies were enacted and by 1935 only

11,277 people entered Canada (Kelley and Trebilcock 2010; 220).

A significant dark point in the history of Canadian immigration policy and specifically Pier 21 occurred just before the Second World War. In 1939, despite some pressure from Canadian citizens, the Canadian government refused entry to a ship that was carrying 930 Jewish refugees in addition to other passengers. The MS St. Louis was turned away by every country that it stopped at in the Northwestern hemisphere and was forced to return to Europe. Despite attempts to portray Canadian immigration history as open and welcoming, this decision is one that illustrates the highly selective immigration policies throughout the history of Canadian immigration. This is only one of many instances of racism and prejudice that the Canadian government showed towards non- preferred groups that were trying to flee oppression. This event is acknowledged by curators at the CMIP21 with a memorial called the “Wheel of Conscience.” The passengers who lost their lives after returning to Europe are listed on the back of the memorial. On the front there are mobile interlocking gears which display the words

hatred, racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism. This structure was unveiled on January

20th, 2011 and is located at the end of the original arrival deck. Despite the (minimal) presence of the monument, it is tucked away in a corner and over powered by the rest of the permanent exhibit that follows in the footsteps of governments past and portrays

Canada as a welcoming nation. It also attempts to paint the picture that the refusal of

Jewish refugees was a one-time mistake in Canadian history. However, like many of the atrocities committed by the Canadian government throughout this period, there are many instances of refusal and discrimination as opposed to a single moment. Once again, the commemoration, however reconciliatory it may seem, also masks a darker history left unacknowledged by the narrative.

When Canada entered the Second World War in September of 1939, the state of the economy began to turn around and Pier 21 would also take on a different role for

Canadian immigration and Canada’s war effort. Once Canada officially entered the war, the Department of National Defense took control of the Pier and it became a point of departure for soldiers going overseas. 1942 saw Canadian immigration numbers hit the lowest point of the century when Canada only accepted around 7,500 immigrants

(Citizenship and Immigration Statistics Canada 1996; 4). Immigration numbers would slowly pick up for the rest of the decade as waves of a number of specific groups entered

Canada. For example, thousands of soldiers would return to Canada, bringing with them around 48,000 war brides and 22,000 children (The Pier 21 Story 1978; 7-8). Other groups that came in waves after WWII were Polish veterans (who were required to work on a farm for a year after their arrival), Italians (after enemy status was removed), and various other European refugee groups (Dench 2000; 1).

It was not until 1947 that groups of refugees and displaced people would be allowed to enter Canada. The Canadian government also realized that there was a shortage in the work force, specifically for hard labour jobs. Consequently, Canada began to open its doors to immigrants who would be willing and able to work physically demanding jobs in more remote places. This further illustrates the degree to which economic situations dictated Canadian immigration policy in the twentieth century.

Subsequently, the late 1940s and early 1950s would become some of the busiest years for

Pier 21 and for Canadian immigration.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, air travel became more affordable and a less time consuming journey. As a result, the number of immigrants entering Canada through

Pier 21 began to decrease significantly. Now under the title of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, ministers under the Diefenbaker, Pearson and the Trudeau governments

(ranging from 1957 to 1971, the year Pier 21 closed) slowly began to loosen the restrictions for people that were previously not allowed to enter the country. With a points based immigration system in place (1967) that claimed to minimize racial discrimination, an Immigration Appeal Board whose role was minimal at first but grew as they began to hear claims from various immigration cases, and a policy based on ideals of multiculturalism, Canada began to accept more people from Asia, India and Africa in addition to the dominant groups from Europe and the United States (Dench 2000; 2).

Despite a wider range of immigrants entering Canada and the yearly average increasing to nearly 145,000 new arrivals, maintaining ports like Pier 21 became too costly and unjustifiable. Consequently, on March 8th 1971, after forty-three years of operation, Pier

21 officially closed as an immigration port.

A Struggle for Recognition

As Canada’s last standing immigration shed, Pier 21 is one of the most prominent symbols of Canada’s history as a multicultural nation. Canada’s history is closely tied to the stories of these immigrants, making the significance of the Pier and the preservation of its legacy an important element of Canadian culture and history. Unfortunately, after

Pier 21 closed in 1971 it essentially became a deserted space on the Halifax harbour. The

Pier was used as an industrial storage shed for some time, but it was largely left unused and was essentially left to ruin over time. However, it was stories of immigrants bringing their children to the Pier years later to relive and tell stories of their first moments in

Canada that ensured that the significance of the Pier would not be forgotten. It was the connection between these stories and the building that fuelled the passion behind those looking to revive the building and use it to illustrate and preserve Canada’s immigration history (Paquet 2000).

More than ten years after the Pier closed, its significance to Canadian history had not been forgotten by many Canadians. Based on personal experience as a war veteran and as a Department of Employment and Immigration employee, as well as after having heard the stories of various immigrants who travelled through Pier 21, John P. LeBlanc created the Pier 21 Society in an attempt to preserve the history of the immigration shed and the stories of the lives connected to it. Although there was a struggle to find the funding and support needed to renovate and preserve the building, the board members began to share and spread ideas about what the facility might one day become.

In 1993 Ruth M. Goldbloom O.C. took over as president of the Pier 21 Society.

Born in New Waterford, Nova Scotia, Goldbloom was well known around the Halifax

area for her fundraising efforts in support of the United Way and Mount Saint Vincent

University (Paquet 2000). At this time, a feasibility study was conducted and a business plan revealed that it would cost around $9 million to support an immigration museum at

Pier 21 (CMIP21 Website(e)). Subsequently, in 1995 at the end of the G-7 Summit in

Halifax, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that a $4.5 million pledge would be put towards re-opening Pier 21. Along with the pledge came a challenge to the Society to raise an additional $4.5 million in order to support the continued existence of the Pier. To help raise this money a National Advisory Committee and an Atlantic Advisory

Committee were created. As a part of a number of fund-raising campaigns, Goldbloom also began travelling the country and personally spread word of the plans and potential of the museum (Paquet 2000).

By November 1998 the society had raised the money needed to complete the necessary renovations on the building. Work on the building began immediately and the society hired Erez Segal as the Director of Research and Information Services (Paquet

2000). Segal oversaw the gathering of records, photos and memorabilia that would make up the museum’s initial exhibits. Segal also took part in the process of archiving around

800,000 immigration records that were provided by the National Archives of Canada

(Paquet 2000). On July 1st 1999 (Canada Day) Pier 21 was re-opened as a museum highlighting individual and collective stories of mostly European immigration to Canada and the Pier’s significance as a historical landmark.

The hidden cost of this pledge however, was that the nationalization of the museum meant a state-sponsored narrative would be presented through the exhibits.

Despite eventually raising enough money, the challenge to minority and underrepresented

groups presented by the imposition of a state-sponsored narrative remains today. The reach and cash flow that came with the nationalization of the museum is significant for a museum of its size. But with this it sacrificed the more open, accessible and ‘grassroots’ approach to commemoration that might have remained had it been a project solely overseen by the Pier 21 Society. For example, local communities like the Mi’kmaq First

Nations community, although not immigrants like the European settlers, have a deeply entwined history with immigration in Canada and Nova Scotia. The nationalization of the museum has made it once again easy and acceptable to forget the offences and persecution committed against First Nations communities across Canada. By focusing on

“the immigrant experience” as the journey to Canada and settling, the museum and its visitors forget that people were settled on this land before the “settlers” arrived.

National and Historic Status

In 1997 Pier 21 was designated as a National Historic Site of Canada which significantly helped spread awareness of its cultural and historical value. Pier 21 was given this status in recognition of its role as a major port of entry to Canada and due to the fact that it is the last standing building of its kind in Canada. It was also given this status because of its significance as a representation of the policies and attitudes of twentieth century immigration in Canada (Canada’s Historic Places). This status is important because it protects the building from being torn down or altered in any significant way. It also signifies that the building holds historical, cultural and economic significance to the surrounding area. However, this status also maintains the strength and presence of the state-sponsored narrative of immigration. It secures the order of the permanent exhibits and the cleanliness of their approach to Canadian immigration

history. If the building was given national historic status partly because of its significance

“as a representation of the policies and attitudes of twentieth century immigration in

Canada” (Canada’s Historic Places), then it needs to recognize the darker points of its history and these attitudes, which it currently fails to do.

On June 25th 2009, after an agreement was made between the Government of

Canada, The Pier 21 Society, The Pier 21 Foundation and the Halifax Port Authority,

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the intention to nationalize the museum. This designation guaranteed $15 million in funding for Pier 21 to be put towards development and operations (CBC 2009). This helps the museum further its potential as a place of commemoration, a place in the cultural and historical industry in Canada, and allows it to expand its services to more visitors from across the country and from other nations. More importantly, this should enable the museum to expand its coverage of immigration history to Canada and reveal some of the dirtier and less glamourous moments of its history. Spreading the museum across the nation can be beneficial as long as it can share a story that does not cover up the unflattering moments and lets the new visitors it reaches bring their own pieces to be added to the picture.

On April 30th 2010, representatives from the Pier 21 Society and from the

Government of Canada signed an agreement that would make the museum of immigration at Pier 21 a national museum. A few months later on July 5th 2010, an amendment to the Museums Act was made in order to officially establish the Canadian

Museum of Immigration at Pier 21.

The Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21: The Experience

“Today the original building with its cement floors and towering ceilings

is juxtaposed with the state of the art multimedia exhibits, reinforcing the

dichotomy of past and present. Like all good stories it is complicated and

full of contradictions. A million souls passed through Pier 21, and even

though we don’t know all of their names or stories, they all left an

impression. They were absorbed into the walls and floors that echo today

with the footfalls of their descendants.” (CMIP21 Website(f))

In the above excerpt, the museum’s curators acknowledge that “like all good stories,” the history of immigration to Canada “is complicated and full of contradictions.”

At present, this is the best and perhaps only recognition of the “complicated” history of immigration history in Canada. It is true, architecturally and technologically the dichotomy between past and present are juxtaposed. Unfortunately, the contradictions within the stories themselves remain hidden. Points of unease and difficulty between nations already settled in Canada and new nations wanting to settle remain concealed under stories about a nation striving for glory in a new age. Even so, the stories of a nation coming into form barely reach out to include the many “non-threatening” nations within its own borders.

Since the CMIP21 is located in Halifax, NS, some critics have called for the museum to send or establish exhibits in more Western parts of Canada so that more

Canadians can have the opportunity to explore and add to the history of the immigrant experience in Canada (Madokoro 2010). Not all immigrants coming to Canada entered through Pier 21 or were accepted. There are certainly just as many stories of groups that

were turned away at the gates. Immigration policy was largely dictated by economic need and the refusal of established Canadians to work on the prairie farmland, and by a desire to maintain a European based Canadian identity. Immigration policies were restrictive to the point where certain groups of immigrants could not enter Canada for reasons based purely on their ethnic background or economic status. Furthermore, during the Second World War, Japanese immigrants who were allowed to enter the country prior to the events of WWII were forced into concentration camps out of a perceived fear of their dangerous potentialities and possible association with the enemy homeland. The stories of the victims of Canada’s selective and discriminatory immigration policies are largely absent from the museum exhibits. Although it may be more difficult to integrate and attract stories from immigrant groups that did not pass through Pier 21, the significance of the building as the last standing immigration shed in Canada can be utilized as a symbol for all periods of immigration and not just the European immigration experience. How the museum should go about achieving this celebration of all immigrant experiences and the experience of the visitor is covered in the next section.

Map of the museum and Pier 21. (Source: CMIP21)

The museum’s re-creation of the waiting area. (Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

An exhibit displaying all the ships that arrived at Pier 21. (Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

The Museum Besides the fact that the Pier was the first Canadian landmark that any immigrant would see or experience, the experiential difference of entering the museum is that immigrants and museum visitors arrive at the Pier from opposite sides. Immigrants entered the building from the rear or port entrance of the building onto the loading dock and into the second floor where customs officers waited to begin the landing process.

Museum visitors must enter on the ground floor from the street entrance (Marginal

Road), or through the doors connecting the building to the Seaport Market. When one enters the building from the street entrance they pass by the Nation Builder’s Plaza which recognizes The Pier 21 Society and the various people and institutions that helped support and fund the creation of the CMIP21. One will also pass the commemorative locomotive car outside the front entrance which commemorates the journey of immigrants who took the train to Central and Western Canada. After passing these two monuments one enters the building on the ground level and quickly experiences the vast shed that is Pier 21. The ground floor is a large open area which houses a gift shop, the ticket stand to the museum, exits to the harbourfront market, administrative offices and a small room which contains an interactive archival facility.

When Pier 21 operated as an immigration shed the ground floor was a cargo shed and not used as part of the immigration service part of the building. However, since the immigration offices and services needed more space than just what was offered on the second floor of Pier 21, the Immigration Annex was built adjacent to the Pier with a walkway connecting the two. The Annex was where processed immigrants met their belongings and could purchase train tickets or access any other social services they needed. At this point everything from large crates to small bags of personal possessions

would be searched and sometimes confiscated by immigration officers. The Annex now houses a brewery, restaurant, coffeehouse, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design’s

Seeds Gallery, and many studios for artists and craftspeople.

After paying the fee to enter the museum one can proceed to the interactive facility, the permanent exhibit (which is located on the second floor), or the temporary exhibits. The room which houses the temporary exhibits is located on the first floor of the building. Through the Community Presents program, the museum allows various cultural groups to compile and present their own stories in this space:

The Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21’s Community

Presents program encourages cultural groups to create their own

exhibitions and tell their own stories, while celebrating themes related

to immigration, cultural diversity, cultural heritage and identity. It

provides an opportunity for community groups to showcase their

unique traditions and culture, allowing the public to better understand

our collective and distinct cultural heritages. (CMIP21 Website(d))

Most of the temporary exhibits are rather minimal in structure but still present the story of certain immigrants in detail. Most temporary exhibits are collections of images with a few small artifacts that tell the story of a specific group of people. The transitory nature of these exhibits can enhance the personalization of the experience of the museum for some, while also working to create and uphold the nation building aspect necessarily embedded within the identity of the museum. That is, groups can chronicle the experience of members of their culture through the temporary exhibits which tend to focus less on the groups of immigrants that arrived in Canada through Pier 21 and more

on those groups that immigrated in more recent years and continue to expand the multicultural identity of Canada. Unfortunately, the fact that these are only temporary exhibits further demonstrates the Eurocentric view of the process of immigration commemoration at the CMIP21. By not including non-European immigrant groups in the permanent exhibit the museum remains a museum specifically for European immigration instead of for all stories of immigration to Canada as its name and mandate suggests.

The second floor was where newly arrived immigrants and returning soldiers entered the building. Although many immigrants were pre-screened before boarding the ship in their native countries, some immigrants would just begin the long process of securing landed status once they arrived. The exhibits on the second floor are limited to the arrival area of the Pier; however, there is also a large hall (Kenneth C. Rowe Heritage

Hall) that is now used for special gatherings and ceremonies. Flags of all the countries of origin of the one million immigrants that landed in Canada during Pier 21’s operation hang in this hall.

On the opposite side of the second floor from the Heritage Hall, the permanent exhibit called ‘The Immigrant Experience’ is displayed. The exhibit is located in the

Rudolph P. Bratty Exhibition Hall and maintains the simple yet historically significant presence that the building holds. Included in the exhibit are collections of photographs and artifacts that document the arrival of the one million immigrants. The exhibit is one coherent experience but it is also subtly split into three sections. For analytic purposes I will also divide the exhibit into three distinct sections. First, there is the main section which displays a number of photographs and a small collection of artifacts. Each photograph is accompanied by a description highlighting the story behind the

photograph. These stories cover everything from the various kinds of objects that immigrants brought overseas to the experiences of the nursing staff and immigration officers. A narrative of care and welcoming is evidently portrayed by this exhibit. For example, items displayed throughout the museum include outfits that immigrants, nursing staff, or officers would have worn, everyday household items that immigrants brought with them, and some of the everyday ‘Canadian’ items like certain cereal boxes and toiletries that immigrants would have been given upon arriving to Canada. All of these objects are used to project a sense of comfort and homeliness from the setting at Pier 21.

Unlike most museums where rare objects are displayed to draw attention, the CMIP21 displays objects of comfort and commonality in order to welcome immigrants and visitors and stir up feelings that make one feel connected to the story of Canada as a multicultural nation. Although the objects are still heavily drawn from the European experience, they are generic enough to cross cultural lines and begin to draw connections between them. For example, the CMIP21 has displays centered around clothing, utensils and luggage which all maintain certain cultural specificities. Nevertheless, these objects are common items that represent and allow individuals to call on memories and experiences of the everyday or the immigrant journey.

A collection of suitcases which make up a significant part of the permanent exhibit. (Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

The permanent exhibit also includes a small theatre which is made to look like a ship. (Photograph: Ryan Shuvera)

In some parts of the main section there is also an interactive element which is minimal and likely geared towards younger visitors. These include filling a small suitcase with items that immigrants might have brought, or trying to find certain objects in a cartoon picture depicting attendants searching through immigrant’s belongings. In the center of this area is a model of Pier 21 which allows one to read a description of each section of the building and press a button to highlight where this section of the building is or would have been. Beside this section there is an interactive replica railway coach cart that shows short films about the arrival of immigrants. The cart is divided into personal quarters like a passenger cart, with each section displaying a different short film about the train ride that many immigrants took after arriving at Pier 21. Finally, as one exits the center of this section there is a space that recreates the layout of the interview stations that newly arrived immigrants would have experienced. There are a few benches placed in the center replicating a small section of the area where immigrants would have waited to meet an immigration officer in order to be interviewed and potentially given landed status. There is a desk in front of these benches where officers would interview immigrants or send them to be interviewed by another officer in cases where translators were needed or special issues arose. On the desk there is a stamp with the current date on it where visitors can mark the date of their visit, just as immigrants would have had their immigration papers stamped to confirm arrival on a specific date.

The second section of the exhibit is a partial re-creation of a passenger ship. The exterior of the room is made to look like a ship that immigrants would have arrived on.

The experience of boarding a ship for a long journey is created through basic visual elements. Inside ‘the ship’ is a theatre area where a twenty-minute film called Oceans Of

Hope is shown. This short film covers some of the more significant points in the history of the Pier including the arrival of immigrants and the processing and transfer of immigrants onto the trains, as well as the arrival of soldiers and war brides. This is the only attendant-directed and time-controlled part of one’s experience of the exhibits.

Guided tours of the exhibits are offered and are sometimes led by immigrants that arrived at Pier 21, but one is also allowed to explore the exhibits at one’s own pace. The third section of the exhibit is located on the actual arrival deck of the Pier. The arrival deck is dedicated to the memory of the soldiers who fought in WWII and to the story of the war brides that came to Canada after the end of the war. Mini-stations along the deck house interactive screens that allow one to hear the story of returning soldiers and war brides.

A view of Georges Island, a National Historic Site and the location of Fort Charlotte, is offered from the arrival deck as well.

One of the most significant parts of the building is the arrival deck. It holds a special significance because it is the part of the building and of the country where one million immigrants took their first step in Canada. The fact that this part of the building is dedicated to the Pier’s operations during WWII is of interest. The act of commemoration and memorialisation of soldiers and war time events is not the issue; the fact that the deck was the place where one million immigrants took their first step into

Canada and it was chosen as the space to commemorate events less directly related to immigration alludes to the state presence and narrative communicated through the exhibit. In other words, it is clear that high value is placed on the events and the story of

Canada’s role in WWII. The fact that the story of these events is given its own distinct space of a particular value demonstrates the perceived value of this history in relation to

the stories of European immigration and the lesser valued stories of more recent immigrants that continue to help build the nation. The legitimacy of the museum and this claim will be discussed in Chapter Four.

Conclusion

The mandate of the Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 is to

explore the theme of immigration to Canada in order to enhance public

understanding of the experiences of immigrants as they arrived in

Canada, of the vital role that immigration has played in the building of

Canada, and of the contributions of immigrants to Canada’s culture,

economy, and way of life. –The Mandate of the CMIP21 (CMIP21

Website(a))

The significance of Pier 21 to Canadian culture in the twentieth century and to the growth of Canada is undeniable. One million people passed through the arrival deck of

Pier 21, with some enduring another long train ride before beginning a new life in

Canada. The building itself has endured some hardships of its own throughout its eighty- four year existence. At its lowest point, Pier 21 was a deserted warehouse. Nevertheless, in the twenty-first century it must also stand as a symbol for the continued contribution of immigrants to the prosperity of Canadian society. The mandate states that the goal of the museum is to “enhance public understanding of the experiences of immigrants as they arrived in Canada.” This statement should come with the understanding that the stories are told from a top-down, state-sponsored, historicized approach. If a state-sponsored institution is to commemorate immigration history it should deal with the issues faced by the state and be transparent to the people. It should not hide its history behind the stories

of select groups of citizens. Many communities come together to also attempt to enhance public understandings of their experiences in Canada, but are squeezed out or silenced by state institutions that believe they are the sole or rightful keepers of a nation’s history.

The mandate should focus more on guiding and helping these communities that struggle to find a place to be heard and extend the reach of their voice.

Furthermore, as a recognized institution for the commemoration of The

Immigrant Experience, the museum should also serve as a breeding ground for discussions concerning the social and political status of immigrants within Canada today.

By gathering and presenting the stories that reflect the identities of the cultural groups that continue to add to and contribute to Canada’s identity, the museum will be a place for the intersection of these different cultures and identities. It is through the act of preservation that this political voice or potential comes about. This additional political significance will be explored in the next chapter.

Chapter Five: Analysis

Distraction, Critique, Preservation and Creation

Introduction: Benjamin at Pier 21

As institutions that collect the ideas, objects and stories of the past, museums give members of a society the opportunity to tell the story of past generations. History museums in particular provide a place where members of a society can come to interact with the past. McCracken argues that the main goal of this interaction is to discover how it is that “we might rescue history's forgotten and discarded objects‒the material world of the everyday‒because, [Benjamin] argues, it is through those objects that we might write a history from the point of view of its victims” (2002; 155). Benjamin remains part of the canon of critical theory and is widely read and cited in a number of areas of thought, but he was also a victim of the fascist forces of history. His life ended tragically by suicide in Portbou, Spain after he fled Nazi powers in Germany and France. After an excursion over mountains and through forest, Benjamin and others were refused entry into Spain on their way to North America. This refusal meant that they would be taken by French authorities who were under Nazi control where their chances of survival were slim.

However, the next morning (September 26th, 1940) when they were supposed to go back to France, Benjamin was found dead from an overdose of morphine which he had carried with him for medication.

Benjamin’s story is tragic. Behind the tragic moment of his death, his story is like many others from his time. He was an exile and an immigrant. His own story of escape and attempted immigration to North America is an example of the stories absent from the

CMIP21 and its exhibits. By not including these stories of rejection and immobility, the

museum and the exhibits fail to construct a realistic picture of the immigrant experience and individuals without a sense of place. Furthermore, Benjamin’s only possession leading up to his death was a suitcase holding a few pictures, money, spectacles and a manuscript. The CMIP21 is full of suitcases and suitcase narratives, however, none of these objects or narratives are used to tell the story of the immigrant that never made it to

Canada. Despite the CMIP21’s recognition of the Canadian government’s refusal of the

MS St. Louis in 1939, it fails to utilize its collection and exhibits to “write a history from the point of view of its victims” (2002; 155). Instead, it tells the story of the immigrant experience from the state’s perspective and sets this narrative up as the most important one to be observed by visitors to the museum.

In order to strengthen this analysis of the museum’s role as a center for immigrant identity preservation and national identity creation, I look at three specific issues related to the history of Pier 21, the immigrant story in Canada and the act of preservation and commemoration as conducted by the CMIP21. First, I break down the two exhibit spaces at the museum (permanent and temporary) and their misguided attempts at contributing to the portrayal of the immigrant experience in Canada and to the writing of a history from the perspective of the forgotten. Although the temporary exhibits provide a basis for change, they also remain bound to the linear, silencing narrative of the museum. Second,

I look at the museum gift shop as a consumer based element of a museum that stands as essentially the third exhibit space at the CMIP21. Finally, I discuss the CMIP21’s role in the creation of an alternative national identity.

Exhibits: Permanent and Temporary, Spectacle and Vision

Had Benjamin made it to North America in 1940 he likely would have come to settle with the rest of his Frankfurt colleagues and been included as one of the many stories of the immigrant experience at the CMIP21. However, the exclusion of

Benjamin’s story and other stories like it at the CMIP21 demonstrates the museum’s failure to recognize that for the one million immigrants that came to Canada between

1928 and 1971 and the many more that were refused entry or did not make it, their immigrant experience started well before they landed on Canadian soil and continued long after this point as well. The exclusion of stories such as Benjamin’s demonstrates the museums desire to keep Canada’s immigration history clean and to perpetuate a seemingly complete narrative of an inclusive and welcoming nation. Although the temporary exhibits fall into the linear narrative at the CMIP21, they show some potential to allow groups to make a claim for their own identity production. This is emphasized by the inclusion of the stories of other immigrant groups not covered in the permanent exhibit. For example, one past temporary exhibit was a collection of images and articles called “Past Desires/Exploring African Canadian Identity: Photographs From the Wedge

Collection.” This exhibit explores what it means to be African Canadian through the context of immigration. The first temporary exhibit at the CMIP21 was called “Shaping

Canada: Exploring Our Cultural Landscapes” and was highlighted and represented by a photograph of a Sikh Motorcycle Club in Vancouver, British Columbia (CMIP21

Website(g)). These two exhibits explore and ask questions of a more dynamic understanding of the immigration experience and Canadian identity not demonstrated by the permanent exhibit. However, they are not without their own limitations and

ultimately play into the dominant narrative at the CMIP21. The constructions of

Canadian and immigrant identities in the two exhibits are explored below.

Permanent Exhibit: The Immigrant Experience

The collections at the CMIP21 vary. The largest and most unique collection is a list of names and arrival dates of the immigrants that entered Canada during the years from the late nineteenth century on through the twentieth century. Other collections include photos, suitcases and personal accounts of the journey or the operations at Pier 21 when ships arrived. The permanent exhibit includes all of these elements in an attempt to reconstruct the story of the immigrant experience coming to Canada. The narrative that it produces however, is problematic in that it contains the immigrant category and the immigrant experience to one particular story and one particular period of time that appears to neatly progress in a linear fashion. The story is that of the European immigrant who was able to make it into Canada and start a life in more Western areas of

Canada. The time period is the mid-twentieth century. This appears to close the book on the story of immigration to Canada and reinforce the narrative of Canada as a nation of immigrants. Although it recognizes the significance of immigration to Canada’s history, by containing the narrative to twentieth century European immigration, the museum essentially works to make immigration a particular moment and have a clean linear story.

It also makes immigration appear to no longer be an issue, instead of demonstrating that it is a constant factor in the country’s existence and growth.

The account of immigration history and immigration policy in Canada given through the permanent exhibit is also very general. The generality of the account comes from its basis in a state-held perspective attempting to cover the story of immigration to

Canada without touching on many of the dark details. This state-based perspective of the stories of immigrants coming to Canada helps explain the lack of any history written from the perspective of the forgotten. The story of the immigrant coming to Canada is reconstructed based on accounts from the immigration officers and professionals at Pier

21 with some personal accounts from those immigrants that made it through the process.

Stories of rejection, discrimination, the trouble of starting a life in a new country and the story of the lives of those immigrants unable to leave their native country are largely absent from the permanent exhibit. It silences these individuals and reduces their identity to their country of origin and a suitcase. Its safe and polished account of the immigrant experience and immigration policy in Canada attempts to construct a fixed sense of meaning with the minimal objects and with the issues relating to immigration and a

Canadian identity. In other words, it asks the visitor to take the perspective of the state and think about how immigration to Canada has progressed and become a great part of the nation’s history. This helps to protect a seemingly static understanding of Canadian identity.

It also appears that the only object that works for the permanent exhibit is a suitcase, emphasizing the generality and lack of critical depth at the museum. The museum has engaged in, what Preziosi calls a “de-collecting” (2012; 89). This is essentially an erasure or destruction of parts of a narrative through the lack of diversity in the objects on display in order to maintain a certain linearity or façade in the narrative presented. By including only suitcases in the exhibit the museum is able to distance itself from including difficult narratives associated with Canada’s discriminatory immigration policies. Travel is certainly a significant part of immigration. However, a large

collection of suitcases seems to suggest that everyone who approached Canada’s ‘door’ was let in. This was and still is certainly not the case. Secondly, it not only silences millions of stories of difficult or unsuccessful immigration, but it also reduces the all stories of immigration to one kind of object. The lacking diversity of objects in the museum reflects the lack of diversity in its narrative of immigration and understanding of national identity. Finally, these empty suitcases represent the empty nature of the national narrative at the CMIP21. Furthermore, it is ironically fitting that suitcases are the dominant object on display because they represent the museum’s desire to only display and talk about only what neatly fits into these suitcases and the suitcase narrative on display. The history and culture of immigrants has been reified and hollowed out, leaving space for the state to step in and present its own take. This as the moment when

“the reification of culture takes a totalitarian turn” (Wolin 1982; 196). Anything too daunting or obscure to fit into the suitcase is left outside of the narrative and hidden from the eyes of the public.

Conversely, an alternative construction would brush against and dismantle an identity handed down by the state through representations like the permanent exhibit at the CMIP21. It would ask visitors to look at the immigrant experience from the perspective of the immigrant choosing or sometimes forced to make the journey out of necessity. This perspective would cover more of the risk, work, excitement and fear associated with the experience. A perspective based on the experience of the underrepresented would also affirm a sense of immigration and immigrants as part of the constant production of a Canadian identity. The legitimacy of this identity comes from its basis in the perspective of the individuals who contribute to the creation of it every

day through their life experiences. It display a greater understanding of the diversity of experiences of immigration and of the cultures in Canada.

Temporary Exhibits

It has been suggested with some hope that “replacing exhibits with conversation could make museums...more effective advocates for the peoples represented in the collections” (Haas 1996; 1); however, museum culture and Western culture in general are heavily centered on the flash of the visual display and reliant on the draw of the technological spectacle. In a culture mesmerized by the summary and the snapshot, the well-crafted exhibit centered around the object (photograph, artifact, article) that tells a meaningful story stands as the most powerful and effective medium of communication in the museum sphere for supporting and bringing forward the history and issues of the historically forgotten. Although the use of temporary exhibits is relatively new to the

CMIP21, their potential to serve as an element that brushes against the state perspective of immigration history in the permanent exhibit and present a history from the point of view of the forgotten is important to consider.

The temporary exhibits at the CMIP21 individually and collectively present a more dynamic construction of immigrant experiences in Canada and of Canadian identity. For example, the first two temporary exhibits explored the lives of immigrant groups that are clearly absent from the permanent exhibit’s construction of the immigrant experience. The first exhibit looked at how groups of immigrants have settled across the country and created a cultural identity of their own that has what can be considered

Canadian or North American elements and elements from their native culture. The second exhibit brought to the forefront the experience of African Canadians historically

and in a contemporary context. The third exhibit, Migrating Landscapes, looks at how the mobility of immigrant groups is reflected in and shaped by the concrete world

(CMIP21 website(g)).

These exhibits are not without their own shortcomings however. The key image for the first exhibit is a photo of a Sikh Motorcycle Club form Vancouver. Although it attempts to demonstrate the way in which part of one immigrant culture has settled in

Canada, it is asked to represent “the story” of immigrants from the Punjab region, or more generally and discriminatory, Asian immigration to Canada. This is much like how

Conn (2010) and Preziosi (2012) explain that a single object is often made to represent a moment of history without demanding any reflection. These objects and images only become useful when one understands the arbitrary nature of their relationship with what it is that they signify (Preziosi 2012; 89). Images of more recent immigrant groups finding their own place in Canadian culture are used to represent the later stages of a linear story being told by the museum from a state-sponsored narrative. The story seems to progress along the line of European settlers arrived and now they are welcoming groups from around the world. Similarly, the exhibit celebrating African Canadian heritage took its place in the linear narrative and shed little light on the deep historical prejudice faced by African Canadians in Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada. This is an unsettling narrative that erases a history of rejection and persecution. However, once one sees beyond the state narrative and that these images demand critical analysis from the viewer, an act collective remembrance of more value can begin.

As the museum attempts to juxtapose the stories of immigrants currently settling in Canada with the stories of the one million immigrants that arrived at Pier 21 between

1928 and 1971, curators will need to incorporate work from a number of cultural landscapes from across the country. As a way of acknowledging the highly selective and discriminatory approach of Canadian immigration policies of the twentieth century, the

CMIP21 should also include the stories of people like Walter Benjamin, who had hopes of one day making it to North America but never did or were denied entry. These stories serve to remind Canadians about their collective identity on an international level, is based on the views of people looking in. Not everyone was or is let into Canada. There remains a large collection of stories of people denied entry to the country which appear to stand outside the history of immigration. The narrative of immigrants facing difficulties and diversity upon arriving in Canada as being the most difficult part of immigration to

Canada needs to be undermined by the inclusion of stories of failed immigration.

Furthermore, the dominant narrative must remain stuck in the past, because, as

Simon notes, “public acts of remembrance are always about the future” (2012; 92). This means it must acknowledge the lack of clean linear progression and strive to demonstrate the collection of moments full of contradictions and points of joy and despair. It must also fulfill a social duty and acknowledge the role that all groups of people continue to play in building the multicultural identity of Canada and the challenges that are faced on a national and communal scale. The museum as a social institution has a responsibility for reading and reacting to public attitudes and reassessing the narratives it presents.

However, since the museum is not a purely reactionary social institution or an institution of the people, its power and relationship to the state requires ongoing analysis as it is the responsibility of the public to use these collections as a way of brushing against the grain of history and the façade of a silencing, linear narrative of national identity.

The Gift Shop: The Third Exhibit Space

As the most commodified element of museum culture, the gift shop brings forward other issues related to the museum’s approach to exhibition methods and identity preservation and creation. Although one could easily characterize the gift shop as simply a reflection of a consumption obsessed culture, it is essentially the third exhibition space

— sometimes the first and only — in the museum after the permanent and temporary exhibits. The gift shop is a place of contention that places the consumption of history above the interpretation of history. Its interpretation of the history of immigration in

Canada comes in the form of stereotypical symbols of the cultures represented at the museum and the assigning of a monetary value. Similar to the permanent and temporary exhibits, it presents the narrative of a clean history of immigration to Canada with no sign of anything pointing to the contradictions within this history. The gift shop does not specifically subscribe to either interpretation presented by the permanent or temporary exhibit even though there are more icons from European countries in the shop. It is able to stand in between the static construction of identity in the permanent exhibit and the more dynamic interpretation of Canadian identity in the temporary exhibit by collecting and presenting objects from cultures represented in both the permanent and temporary exhibits. Nevertheless, this neutral position is challenged by the explicit commodification of the interpretations of history and cultures that are being made sacred and commemorated by the museum, as well as its lack of representation of the hidden elements from the main exhibits.

Located on the first floor of the building, visitors to the CMIP21’s gift shop could potentially experience the exhibits by purchasing one of the books or photo-albums that

share the narratives presented throughout the museum without going through the entire building. In other museums where gift shops are located at the end of the main exhibit tour, one can complete their experience by exploring the gift shop after one has interacted with the various interpretations and learned the significance of all the unique objects on display. For those visitors to the CMIP21 that do not enter to see the museum exhibit, the experience is essentially one based on the consumption of the commodified story of the immigrant journey. Although the gift shop acts as both a preview of the museum and as a place to collect icons to preserve memories, its presence reinforces the commodification and consumption of historical artifacts, with an emphasis on the cultures highlighted in the permanent exhibit.

Similar to the collection of empty suitcases in the permanent exhibit to which all stories of immigration to Canada are reduced, the gift shop maintains a collection of kitschy objects that entire cultures are reduced to. Few objects have anything to do with immigration and simply stand in place for different cultures such as Russian dolls and collectible German steins. The gift shop manages to pull pieces from the dominant narrative of immigration further out of time and hold them up as arbitrary signifiers of a past unknown to visitors. They come to represent a heritage that visitors desire to know about themselves but are unsure or have no way finding. They also have the double significance of further hiding historical contradictions and a historical consciousness behind these moments of desire. Visitors are pushed further into the past without acknowledging the need (demand) for a historical consciousness and “the ways in which material traces of the past are bound up with one’s future world as sources of meaning and commitment” (Simon 2012; 95). Any sense of reflection and projection is hidden in

beneath the commodified, kitschy value of the object and its place in the silencing dominant narrative at the CMIP21. This third exhibit or space further downplays the importance of critical interpretation of the immigrant experience in Canada beyond cultural stereotypes and reinforces the silencing found within the dominant narrative within the museum as a state-sponsored institution.

Breaking and Creating a National Identity

Although the central identity of the museum revolves around Pier 21 and the arrival of the approximately one million immigrants, the dominant narrative presented through the exhibits part of a larger construction of a national identity. Theoretically, the story told by the exhibits is meant to reach out across the country and be as inclusive as possible. However, the short reach of the museum’s exhibits is no revelation at this point. As Bennett demonstrates in his work on museums constructing national narratives in Australia, the starting point for these stories is marked with the arrival of the European immigrants. This is the first step in creating the discriminatory narrative that tries to capture the history of Canada a nation of settlers. It removes and places two distinct narratives outside of time. First, it removes any trace of life before the arrival of the

Europeans, which is also used to erase any stories dealing with confrontations and dark moments surrounding First Nations rights. Second, it pulls a moment in the history of immigration to Canada outside of time and holds it up as the story of immigration. This captures, reduces and erases all the contradictions and unique stories from this history that do not fit into the dominant narrative. Even before any objects are collected and any exhibits are constructed, the narrative desired to be constructed is set up to be discriminatory, selective and bound to fail.

The confrontation between European cultures and First Nations cultures is perhaps the biggest issue in Canada’s history as a nation and, ultimately, from the moment Europeans first landed on First Nations land. Yet any sign of this confrontation is absent from the exhibits at CMIP21. First Nations peoples are the ultimate case of the forgotten and the victims of history in Canada and at the CMIP21. Their history has been placed outside the time of Canadian history and their objects have been de-collected in order to erase any trace of their influence. When acknowledged, their unique stories are marked by discriminatory descriptions and clouded by moments of darkness, leaving any observer with a negative perception of Aboriginals in Canada. Land claims and demands for reconciliation that ‘disrupt’ the history of settlers are silenced and cast aside by narratives aiming for linearity and “progress.” This condemns First Nations peoples to the past in an attempt to erase them from the present and forget them in the future. Since

First Nations peoples are not immigrants and cannot be deported, the government has chosen to remove First Nations peoples and their history from the ‘borders of time’ instead of beyond physical borders. However, the horrifying state of reservations and the challenges First Nations peoples face if they choose to move to urban centres makes one believe that the government has created borders within borders in order to keep First

Nations peoples confined to their own areas or nations and to the past. If they are hidden from the rest of Canada, then it makes it easier for the government to erase their history.

Finally, descendants of European settlers are so under-educated about First Nations lives and issues that it becomes easier with each generation passing to erase the history and significance of an entire nation. Somehow, First Nations peoples still find the will to

stand up against this cultural silencing in institutions like the CMIP21 and generally. For their own survival and for the sake of the nation they continue to fight to have a voice.

As a multicultural nation with very little of a concrete identity, there is an opportunity for people through places like the temporary exhibits at the CMIP21 to claim the way cultural and national identities are historicized and created. For Rosmarie Beier- de Haan, national identities still have an effect in nations like Canada that have partially rejected colonial national identities. However, these identities have taken a different shape in that they are no longer seen as predetermined ideas purely tied to historical narratives that require that newcomers buy into them. For example, she notes that this different shape “bring[s] together different ethnicities and cultural traditions, and demand[s] cultural polyvalence and transculturalism” (Haan 2010; 189). She then goes on to argue that national identities are not insignificant, but given power through their use as a medium of “integration and reconciliation” (2010; 189). The CMIP21 could take part in these actions and be more effective by trying to utilize the power of a national identity to integrate and reconcile relations between many populations in Canada.

However, before any attempt at “integration and reconciliation” (2010; 189), or more appropriately equal recognition and acknowledgment, can be made, the CMIP21 has a number of issues to face concerning the dominant narrative explored through the exhibits.

One of the benefits of developing a bottom-up or self-conscious multicultural

Canadian identity is that it is a less static and determined idea or representation. In this case it is more likely to adapt with a changing sense of community and nation as the issues which bring citizens together from various parts of the country change and increasingly include a wider variety of people. Since identities can change over time, so

should the ways that they are formed or conceived of by a community or nation. The unsettled sense of national identity is a better representation of identity because its most sacred element is the work and ideas of the common citizen as opposed to specific historical narratives enforced by the government in office. Conversely, a more fixed national identity is reliant on major historical ‘heroes’ and solidified narratives which become heavily materialized, normalized and hard to be critical of or alter to reflect the shifting goals and desires of cultural groups and contemporary societies. For example, think of the Harper government’s heavy commemoration of the war of 1812, with commemorative coins and celebrations around the country. The materialization of the stories with objects like coins is a controlled act that works to embed these narratives within everyday culture. However, a more significant type of cultural materialization works in a different way in that a material identity is not given or sold directly to citizens as a symbol. Instead the members of a culture use an object frequently enough and place a significant amount of value in it to the point that the identity of the everyday becomes tied up with the object. These are the objects of interest and because they reveal more about the values, identity and social and political reality of citizens at a particular time than most commemorative materials will. As a place which plays an essential role in working to historicize and build cultural and national identities, the CMIP21 needs to allow members to claim the ability to represent their own culture and tell their story of their own immigrant experiences. Perpetuating a polished state-based perspective of the immigrant experience and immigration history does little for processes of reconciliation or even recognition.

It is through the many groups that make up a population that a national identity is discovered and developed. As what Benjamin might call a ‘montage-like collective’ or

‘montage-like public,’ that is, a group of different people coming together revealing what is shared between them, they develop this national identity and give it a grounding point through its place at the CMIP21 and other similar social institutions. Given place, this montage-like collective can exert its power to break with a false or determined identity because the montage always “interrupts the context into which it is inserted” (Buck-

Morss 1989). A montage-collective breaks this determinacy by refusing to hold one dominant narrative as the overarching identity or defining quality of the collective. More concretely, a montage-collective formed in today’s Canadian culture can help break the dependence on the stories of European heroes who are continually used as symbols to define the nation. European settlement and power is an undeniable part of Canadian history; however, as Asian, Middle Eastern and African immigration continues to rise in

Canada, the stories of European heroics need to be read alongside stories of the influence of other immigrant cultures in Canada. There is an ideological struggle between a professed multicultural identity and a normalized history that focusses on a European- based narrative. This struggle prevents immigrant groups and the nation from claiming and creating an identity that reflects the ideas and desires of the multicultural nation that it professes to be. An identity that understands difference and dynamism as fundamental aspects of what it means to be a Canadian citizen can be produced. Furthermore, an understanding of what is shared and valued in addition to these differences will be produced simultaneously. Ultimately, this opportunity to break determinacy and ritual allows the forgotten segments of a population to learn about themselves and gain a voice

in discussions about issues dealing with how a national identity can develop and spread among citizens of all kinds across the country.

Conclusion

Although Benjamin does not see the museum as the only collective dream house, it is becoming one of the few places that can allow for and encourage a number of different publics to gather and openly and self-consciously represent themselves and their differences to one another. It is also one of the few places where past and present can come together and be interpreted through one another by visitors. This is a key aspect to

Benjamin’s process of awakening as it is only through the stories of the everyday of past generations that one can come to better understand the everyday social realities of the current generation. Furthermore, as a largely urban phenomenon, the museum stands as an institution that reaches out to a wide variety of people regardless of the types of people the exhibits may represent or be geared towards.

What this analysis of the CMIP21 shows is how it remains stuck in the patterns of sharing a dominant narrative that silences large parts of the population and neatly portrays the history of immigration to Canada as a rather simple story. However, as noted through Preziosi (2012) and Simon (2012) at the very least, there is still hope for national institutions. The existence of a place that preserves a forgotten public through the creation and interpretation of various exhibits also preserves and gives life to critical dialogue in the present. As universities struggle to remain the traditional place that guards against attack on this kind of discussion and analysis, the museum holds a different role in that it can potentially reach out to more kinds of people and become a more accessible social institution of reflection and action. On the other hand, these two

institutions differ in that they preserve life in the ideas of the past through different methods. The university gives life to the ideas of old through repeated communication, research and analysis. However, through the power of the material object in a materially obsessed culture, the museum can potentially reach other cultural groups that form a

Canadian identity. This account is meant to reinforce why Benjamin found so much potential bound within the walls of the museum as a place for the people of forgotten histories looking to better understand their own social reality. That is, by reaching out to those of the present by offering the opportunity self-express one’s cultural identity and help develop a more dynamic understanding of a national identity, the museum becomes the place for which the public can respect differences, find commonalities and reveal collective goals and desires.

Finally, it is clear that there is more to museums than just artifacts, old pictures, stories and re-enactments. The issues bound up with the opening of a museum, the creation and maintenance of the displays within them, the existence of gift shops and the effects of the stories told reach far beyond the walls of the museum and even into the future as Simon notes (2012; 95). As Canada continues to develop a collective identity that is founded less on its historical state-idealized identity and more on the social and cultural realities of everyday citizens, institutions which provide a place for these groups to develop and preserve these identities will play an even more significant role. The fact that the location of museums in Canada has begun to shift towards places outside of the

Capital Region can work to reduce the dominance of the historical state-centric identity if ideological and critical distance follows the physical distance. There is no shortage of museums and heritage sites for members of society to visit and experience; however, to

make these places true common houses, members of the public must help ensure that they do not get lost in the spectacle of the welcoming, linear, dominant narrative. By beginning to assert their own presence and constructions of cultural identity, the faults of the state-centric construction of the immigrant experience will be brought forth. As Leon

Wieseltier notes when discussing Benjamin’s work of historical interpretation, the re- interpretation of historical narrative “does not so much discover meaning as release it, and loose it upon the world so as to liberate it” (2007; iii).

Chapter Six: Conclusion

The CMIP21 and National Identity: An Opportunity

Benjamin in the Museum

Bringing Benjamin into the CMIP21 is important because his work helps one think about the museum as a place representing a political history in addition to thinking about its traditional roles as a place of cultural, historical and educative significance.

This political history then helps reveal the opportunity for intervention in the process of preservation and creation on the part of the museum going public. Benjamin’s discussions of collecting, storytelling and the histories of old material objects help acknowledge the museum as a powerful social and political institution and begin to take steps to understand the ways in which an institution like the CMIP21 can hold authority over issues like identity preservation and creation. Just as Benjamin acknowledged the force of the culture industry in America in the early twentieth century but looked for and wrote about the ways in which it could help the masses confront dominating bourgeois accounts of history and culture, he also helps reveal the potential of an institution like the

CMIP21 as a place for mass participation on a social and political level. It is through the myths and rituals of bourgeois history that mass culture, history and politics are lost.

Benjamin sought to find a way to give the masses places of gathering beyond the workplace and a history of their own. Analyzed through a Benjaminian lens, the CMIP21 has the potential to be one of these places and offer the chance to collect and re-interpret a history of mass culture in Canada. In other words, a Benjaminian perspective opens the doors to the museum in a politically focussed way and calls on the general public to take up the opportunity for active participation in the continual interpretation of history.

The CMIP21 in 2014

The CMIP21 is a unique museum in that it works to commemorate a very general history as well as many personal histories at the same time. Canadian citizens from across the country come to collect information about personal histories and to visit the place where family members first arrived when they came to Canada. Furthermore, recent immigrants to Canada come to visit a place that attempts to commemorate a broad history of immigration to Canada and acknowledge the unique cultural traditions that each individual brings and leaves behind as they move to a new country. Two years after its nationalization the museum has expanded to include a more structured and in-depth online presence and increased the opportunity to have various community and cultural groups exhibit work or collections representing the experience of some of the newest immigrants to Canada. Before its nationalization the temporary exhibit space was not part of the museum experience at the CMIP21. Making the exhibits more representative of the populations that have immigrated to Canada in recent years would not only more accurately reflect the nation’s immigration history, it would help build a national identity that better reflects the ideals of its entire population. Instead of being purely reactionary or simply retelling the story of the Pier’s existence, the CMIP21 has the opportunity to play a major role in helping form the principles of a more dynamic Canadian national identity.

As the CMIP21’s symbolic significance increases, the CMIP21’s role as a center of cultural identity preservation and national identity creation will become more prominent as well. Nevertheless, the extent of its reach across cultures and regions within Canada is still limited. The legitimacy of the narratives presented at the museum

100

is still based on the authority that it holds as an institution connected to the state. The narratives presented through the permanent exhibit and the gift shop as the third exhibition space reflect the influence of the state on the construction of narratives of immigration in the museum. It is only in the temporary exhibit space that one begins to see the potential of the CMIP21 as a public institution that is legitimized and given authority by the public. This can be accomplished through the construction and self- representation of various accounts of the immigrant experience. These multiple accounts recognize the multiplicity of cultures in Canada and the role they play in its continued development. Unlike the state-sanctioned narrative of the permanent exhibit, a history constructed by the people does “not aim to inscribe the nation within an uninterrupted narrative of its self-development” (Bennett 1995; 162). Instead, in montage-like fashion, these narratives are inserted into the process of the construction of narratives of immigration history and break the force of the single, uninterrupted state-sanctioned narrative.

Accessibility

This process is not as simple as replacing outdated symbols with new ones that come from other cultures and represent a more dynamic understanding of cultural and national identities. Implementing a process of self-representation of cultural and national identities is more difficult than finding exhibition space and interested artists. The most significant issue concerns accessibility. If the authority of the museum as a public institution is to come from the voice and endorsement of the public, then it must be accessible to all members of the public. There is certainly a sense of idealism associated with this declaration; however, the CMIP21 cannot gain the respect and endorsement of

101

the forgotten if it remains isolated from significant portions of the public through its state-sanctioned narratives and middle-to-upper class appeal. For example, Bennett notes that:

studies of museum visitors thus make it abundantly clear not only that

museum attendance varies directly with such variables as class, income,

occupation and, most noticeable, education, but also that the barriers to

participation, as perceived by non-attenders, are largely cultural. (1995;

104)

The CMIP21 is not immune to these variables or to the construction of these barriers.

Although the temporary exhibits offer a space for members of immigrant cultural groups to represent their own account of the immigrant experience in Canada, the temporary structure of these exhibits combined with the force of the Eurocentric account of immigration history of the permanent exhibit works to alienate and discourage most immigrant groups from participating in the process. Unless a greater opportunity is presented to archive the temporary exhibits and reduce the dominance of the state- centered account of immigration history in Canada, the rotating exhibition of one immigrant cultural group at a time will continue. This carousel of identity representation will prove to be ineffective in gaining public endorsement if it continues to be structured so that one immigrant account is used to contrast the larger general account of the permanent exhibit.

Social Reform

A potential problem with the popularization of institutions like the CMIP21 as recognized by Bennett is that museums tend to become entertainment parlours instead of

102

institutions of social instruction or reform. Bennett outlines that the debate has been constructed as being between the state-backed institution of instruction ideal and the populist endorsed entertainment industry belief (1995; 105). Specifically he notes that

“in order to attract sufficient visitors to justify continuing public funding, [museums] now often seek to imitate rather than distinguish themselves from places of popular assembly”

(1995; 104). Bennett recognizes that the more interesting questions lie beyond this debate and makes note of the fact that neither popularizing for entertainment purposes nor making the institution a place of instruction will increase a museum’s political or popular value (1995; 105).

Although it is dangerous to flood museums with screens and contemporary gadgets for the sole purpose of attempting to bring in a larger number of visitors, to construct the dichotomy as populist=entertainment vs. state=instruction is a general misunderstanding of the goal of popularizing museums. ‘Popularizing’ as discussed throughout this analysis is based on a critique of popular culture like that of Fredric

Jameson (1979) and refers to the need to make museums more accessible to the many minority cultures that make up a significant part of Canada’s public. Therefore, to construct the demands of the general population as wanting more interesting or interactive exhibits is to miss the fact that only a certain demographic of the mass public has or utilizes access to the museum. Simply adding more interactive exhibits does not extend the cultural reach of the museum. Creating accessibility to the resources and power of the museum is a more complex issue and process. Furthermore, continuing to associate the practice or duty of social instruction with the state removes the power and potential of the practice of self-expression and self-representation that can be offered by

103

an institution like the CMIP21. The duty and power to engage in social instruction through collection and representation can be placed in the hands of the people if the

CMIP21 becomes more accessible.

Lending Authority and the Multicultural Montage

Beyond the most challenging issue of accessibility, the CMIP21 faces the challenge of continually securing funding as a public cultural institution which will arguably be the most pressing issue in the long-term. Politically speaking, the way the permanent and temporary exhibits have been constructed leaves curators as the final arbiters for deciding whose voice is heard and whose story is told in the temporary exhibit space as the single contrasting case to the permanent exhibit. They are also given authority to monitor the final structure of the temporary exhibits at the CMIP21 and the length of time that each exhibit receives. Although some of these factors are negotiated with the various artists, the curators have been granted authority over many of these seemingly minor issues by the state as a primary sponsor and exhibitor. Collectively, these issues pose a larger challenge for curators. These many issues stem from the greater tension that lies between using the museum’s resources as a public institution to give authority back to the state and legitimize its presence to the people through the culture industry, or offer the museum’s space and resources to the people and guide various cultural groups in the process of making “authored statements” (Bennett 1995;

104) to self-express and represent their identities. If seen as experts of a certain area of historical knowledge, curators remain distanced from the multicultural reality that immigration history in Canada has created and that the state-based narrative claims to know and understand. However, if seen as guides to the public, curators can help create a

104

multicultural montage at the CMIP21 that inserts itself and cuts into or disrupts the state- sanctioned narrative of immigration history in Canada.

Conclusion

At this point in its history the CMIP21 still presents and lends authority to a state- based perspective of the immigrant experience and immigration history in Canada. A

Benjaminian analysis of the current structure of the CMIP21 helps reveal this one-sided, top-down approach of preservation conducted at the CMIP21. The amount of significance placed on the many suitcases and suitcase narratives in the permanent exhibit at the CMIP21 and the lack of any representation of a Benjaminian story demonstrates the shallowness of the understanding of the immigrant experience displayed at the museum.

If the museum begins to move away from the dominance of the single, uninterrupted, state perspective by allowing other cultural groups into the arena of public presentation and preservation, then it can also play a larger role in framing and contributing to discussions about current issues dealing with immigration policy in

Canada. The focus on immigration history and the immigration experience of the past does not have to limit potential participation in discussion about the present as the temporary exhibits have begun to help demonstrate. As public institutions, museums are becoming increasingly significant to the Canadian public as the structures and patterns of public space and public life shift in the twenty-first century. They are one of the few places that can potentially remain or be reconstructed as public institutions that provide the public with a concrete location and basis for culturally oriented activities. At the same time, as these institutions are utilized to inform more bases of Canadian history,

105

identity and politics, interpretive work on the part of the museum staff and the public must continue to occur. Historical accounts are incomplete constructions. Historical accounts can have greater value and the public can become more informed if a variety of perspectives are included. Furthermore, since the CMIP21 is a place where the processes of identity preservation and creation occur constantly and simultaneously, interpretive work for both processes must be a continuous duty for curators and members of the public. This will help work to hold these institutions and other members of the public accountable to the realities of mass culture and politics.

106

Bibliography

Albano, Caterina. (2007) “Displaying Lives: The Narrative of Objects in Biographical

Exhibitions” Museum and Society. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp 15-28.

Baudelaire, Charles. (1983) “A Une Passante” Les Fleurs Du Mal. Trans. Richard

Howard. Boston: David R. Godine Publishing. Pg 275-276.

______. (1983) “Le Voyage” Les Fleurs Du Mal. Trans. Richard Howard.

Boston: David R. Godine Publishing. Pg 329-335.

Bayne, Siân, Jenn Ross and Zoe Williamson. (2009) “Objects, Subjects, Bits and Bytes:

Learning from the Digital Collections of the National Museums” Museum and Society.

Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp 110-124.

Baudrillard, Jean. (2001) “System of Objects” Jean Baudrillard Selected Writings. 2nd

ed. Ed. Mark Poster. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pg 13-31.

Beasley-Murray, Jon. (2010) “Telling Stories in Ruins” Ruins of Modernity. North

Carolina: Duke University Press. Pp 212-231.

Benjamin, Walter. (1999) The Arcades Project. Trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin

McLaughlin. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

______. (1986) "Critique of Violence" Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms,

Autobiographical Writings. Ed. Peter Demetz, trans. Joseph Jephcott. New York:

Schocken Books. Pg 274-300.

______. (1979) “One-Way Street” in One-Way Street and Other Writings. Trans.

Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter. Great Britain: NLB, pp 45-104.

107

______. (1968a) “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire” Illuminations: Essays and

Reflections Ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books. Pg

155-200.

______. (1968b) “Theses On The Philosophy of History” Illuminations: Essays

and Reflections Ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books.

Pg 253-264.

______. (1968c) “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Work of Nikolai Leskov”

Illuminations: Essays and Reflections Ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn. New

York: Schocken Books. Pg 83-110.

______. (1968d) “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”

Illuminations: Essays and Reflections Ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn. New

York: Schocken Books. Pg 217-251.

Bennett, Tony. (2004) Pasts Beyond Memory: Evolution, Museums, Colonialism. London

and New York: Routledge.

______. (1995) The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London and

New York: Routledge.

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Birkets, Sven. (1983) “Walter Benjamin, Flâneur: A Flanerie” The Iowa Review. Vol. 13

No. 3/4. Pp 164-179.

Blockley, Marion. (1999) “Preservation, Restoration and Presentation of the Industrial

Heritage: A Case Study of the Ironbridge Gorge” Managing Historic Sites and

Buildings: Reconciling Presentation and Preservation. Ed. Gill Chitty and David

Baker. London: Routledge. Pp 141-156.

108

Bruce, Jean. (1982) After the War. Markham, On: Fitzhenry and Whiteside in

cooperation with the Multiculturalism Directorate, Secretary of State, and the

Canadian Government Publishing Center, Supply and Services Canada.

Buck-Morss, Susan. (1989) The Dialectics of Seeing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

______. (1986) “The Flanuer, the Sandwichman and the Whore: The Politics

of Loitering” New German Critique. No. 39. Second special issue on Walter

Benjamin. Pp 99-140.

______. (1981) “Walter Benjamin: Revolutionary Writer.” New Left Review

129: 77-95.

______. (1977) The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter

Benjamin, and the Frankfurt Institute. New York: The Free Press.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2011) “Halifax’s Pier 21 Designated National

Museum” CBC News, Nova Scotia. Accessed March 11th 2013. Available at:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/02/07/ns-pier-21-immigration-

museum.html

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2009) “PM Announces Halifax’s Pier 21 as Newest

National Museum” CBC News Nova Scotia. Accessed on March 11th 2013. Available

at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/06/25/national-

museum.html

Caygill, Howard. (1998) Walter Benjamin: The Colour of Experience. London:

Routledge.

Chronis, Athinodoros. (2005) “Co-constructing Heritage at the Gettysburg Storyscape,”

Annals of Tourism Research 32, no. 2. Pp 386-406.

109

Citizenship and Immigration Statistics Canada. (1996) Table G2, Immigration By

Calendar Year, 1852-1996. Citizenship and Immigration Statistics Archives (1966-

1996). Available at: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/index.asp

CMIP21 Website(a). (2011) “Minister MacKay Officially Opens the Canadian Museum

of Immigration at Pier 21” Media Releases. Retrieved from:

http://www.pier21.ca/about/official-opening-of-canadian-museum-of-immigration-at-

pier-21

CMIP21 Website(b). (2010) “Welcome Home to Pier 21: Canadian Museum of

Immigration” Media Releases. Retrieved from: http://www.pier21.ca/about/welcome/

CMIP21 Website(c). (2009) “A National Museum of Immigration to be Formed at Pier

21!” Media Releases. Retrieved from: http://www.pier21.ca/about/national-museum-

of-immigration-at-pier-21/

CMIP21 Website(d). “Programs.” Retrieved from: http://www.pier21.ca/programs-and-

events/#cpp

CMIP21 Website(e). “The Pier 21 Society.” Retrieved from: http://www.pier21.ca/wp-

content/uploads/files/First_75_Years/research_the_pier21_society.pdf

CMIP21 Website(f). “The First 75 Years.” Retrieved from:

http://www.pier21.ca/research/pier21/the-first-seventy-five-years

CMIP21 Website(g). “Temporary Exhibits.” Retrieved from:

http://www.pier21.ca/temporary-exhibits

Conn, Stephen. (2010) Do Museums Still Need Objects? Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

110

Cormack, Patricia and James Cosgrove. (2013) Desiring Canada: CBC Contests, Hockey

Violence and Other Stately Pleasures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mikhaly. (1993) “Why We Need Things” History from Things. Ed.

Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp

20-29.

Davis, Fred. (1979) Yearning For Yesterday. New York: The Free Press.

De Certeau, Michel. (1984) “Spatial Practices” The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans.

Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 91-110.

Dench, Janet. (2000) “A Hundred Years of Immigration to Canada 1900-1999: A

Chronology Focussing on Refugees and Discrimination Part 1: 1900-1949, Part 2:

1950-199” Canadian Council For Refugees. Accessed on March 10th 2013. Available

at: http://ccrweb.ca/en/hundred-years-immigration-canada-1900-1999

Dodge, Craig. “Remembering Pier 2: Halifax’s Other Immigrant Gateway.”

Fyfe, Gordon. (2011) “Sociology and the Social Aspects of Museums” A Companion to

Museum Studies. Ed. Sharon Macdonald. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 33-49.

______. (2004) “Reproductions, Cultural Capital and Museums: Aspects of the

Culture of Copies” Museum and Society. Vol. 2. No. 1. Pp 47-67.

Gable, Eric and Richard Handler. (1996) “After Authenticity at an American Heritage

Site” American Anthropologist. Vol 98, no 3. Pp 568-578.

Gilloch, Graeme. (2002) Walter Benjamin: Critical Constellations. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Glover, Nikolas. (2008) “Co-produced Histories: Mapping the Uses and Narratives of

History in the Tourist Age” The Public Historian. Vol. 30 No. 1. Pp 105-124.

111

Haan, Rosemarie Beier-de. (2006) “Re-Staging Histories and Identities” A Companion to

Museum Studies. Ed. Sharon Macdonald. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 186-197.

Haas, Jonathan. (1996) “Power, Objects, and a Voice for Anthropology,” Current

Anthropology 37: S1.

Halbwachs, Maurice. (1980) The Collective Memory Trans. Francis J, Ditter, Jr. and Vida

Yazdi Ditter, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Haywood, Naomi and Paul Cairns. (2005) “Engagement With An Interactive Museum

Exhibit” Proc. of HCI Ed. McEwan, T., Gulliksen, J., Benyon, D. Vol 1, Pg. 113-130

Hell, Julia and Andreas Schonle. (2010) “Introduction” Ruins of Modernity. Ed. Julia

Hell and Andreas Schonle. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Pp 1-16.

Hetherington, K. (2010) “The Empty Gallery? Issues of Subjects, Objects and Spaces”

Museum and Society. Vol. 8. No. 2. Pp 112-117.

______. (2007) “Museum” Theory, Culture and Society. Vol. 23. No.2-3. Pp

597-603.

Hewison, Robert. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. Sussex:

A Methuen Paperback.

Horkheimer Max and Theodor Adorno. (1944) “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as

Mass Deception” Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.

Pp 120-147.

Jameson, Fredric. (1979) “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture” Social Text. No. 1. Pp

130-148.

Kaplan, F. (2006) “Making and Remaking National Identities” A Companion to Museum

Studies. Ed. Sharon Macdonald. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 152-169.

112

Kelley, Ninette and Michael Trebilcock. (2010) The Making of the Mosaic: A History of

Canadian Immigration Policy. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kidd, Jenny. (2011) “Challenging History: Reviewing the debate within the Heritage

Sector on the ‘Challenge’ of History” Museum and Society. Vol. 9. No. 3. Pp 244-

248.

Knowles, Valerie. (2007) Strangers At Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and

Immigration Policy, 1540-2006. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Leblanc, J.P (1978). The Pier 21 Story: Halifax 1924-1971. Halifax: Public Affairs Nova

Scotia Region Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.

Lefebvre, Henri. (2009) State, Space, World: Selected Essays. Minnesota: University of

Minnesota Press.

Lowenthal, D. (1997) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Madokoro, Laura. (2010) “We Need to Extend Pier 21 Across Canada.” The Globe and

Mail, March 18. Retrieved October 10, 2012 Available from:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/we-need-to-extend-pier-21-across-

canada/article4311546/).

Macdonald, Sharon. (2006) “Collecting Practices” A Companion to Museum Studies.

Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 81-97.

______. (2003) “Museums, National, Postnational and Transcultural

Identities” Museum and Society. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp 1-16.

113

Maquet, Jacques. (1993) “Objects as Instruments, Objects as Signs” History from

Things. Ed. Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery. Washington: Smithsonian

Institution Press. Pp 30-40.

Mason, Rhiannon. (2006) “Cultural Theory and Museum Studies” A Companion to

Museum Studies. Ed. Sharon Macdonald. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 17-32.

McCracken, Scott. (2002) “The Completion of Old Work: Walter Benjamin and the

Everyday” Culture Critique. No. 52 “Everyday Life,” pp 145-166.

McLean, Fiona. (2005) “Museums and National Identity” Museum and Society. Vol. 3.

No. 1. Pp 1-4.

Message, Kylie. (2006) New Museums and the Making of Culture. Oxford and New

York: Berg Publishers.

Moore, Oliver. (2011) “Pier 21: A Home for our Collective Immigrant Experience.” The

Globe and Mail, February 8. Retrieved October 10, 2012

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/pier-21-a-home-for-our-collective-immigrant-

experience/article565431/).

Paquet, Laura. (2000) “Passage Through Pier 21” Legion Magazine. Accessed March

15th, 2013. Available at: http://legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2000/05/passage-

through-pier-21/

Preziosi, David. (2012) “Narrativity and the Museological Myths of Nationality” Museum

Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. 2nd ed. Ed. Betina Messias Carbonell. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp 82-91.

114

Prown, Jules David. (1993) “The Truth of Material Culture” History from Things. Ed.

Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp

1-19.

Purbrick, Louise. (2011) “Museums and the Embodiment of Human Rights” Museum and

Society Vol. 9. No. 3. Pp 166-189.

Ringel, Gail. (2005) Designing Exhibits For Kids: What Are We Thinking? Boston:

Boston Children’s Museum.

Rydell, Robert, W. (2006) “World Fairs and Museums” A Companion to Museum

Studies. Ed. Sharon Macdonald. Sussex: Blackwell Publishing. Pp 135-151.

Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory: Volume 1, Past and Present in Contemporary

Culture, London and New York, Verso.

Schlereth, Thomas. (1990) Cultural History and Material Culture: Everyday Life,

Landscapes, Museums. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.

Schwartz, Vanessa R. (2001) “Walter Benjamin for Historians” The American Historical

Review Vol. 106. No. 5. Pp 1721-1743.

Simon, Roger. (2012) “Museums, Civic Life, and the Educative Force of Remembrance”

Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. 2nd ed. Ed. Betina Messias Carbonell.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp 92-96.

Smith, Judith. (1992) “Celebrating Immigration History at Ellis Island” American

Quarterly Vol. 44. No.1. Pp. 82-100.

Sontag, Susan. (1979) “Introduction” in One-Way Street and Other Writings. Walter

Benjamin. Trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter. Great Britain: NLB, pp 7-

28.

115

Stevens, Mary. (2007) “Museums, Minorities and Recognition: Memories of North

Africa in Contemporary France” Museum and Society. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp 29-43.

Susman, W. (2003) Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the

Twentieth Century. Washington: Smithsonian Books.

Thaler, Henri. (2008) “Holocaust Lists and the Memorial Museum” Museum and Society.

Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp 196-215.

Urry, John. (1996) “How Societies Remember the Past” Theorizing Museums ed. Sharon

Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, The Sociological

Review. Pp 45-68.

Wieseltier, Leon. (2007) “Preface.” Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. Ed. Hannah

Arendt. Trans Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken Books.

Wolin, Richard. (1982) Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Wright, Rita. (1993) “Technological Styles: Transforming a Natural Material into a

Cultural Object” History from Things. Ed. Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery.

Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp 242-269.

116

117