Upload
sam-franklin
View
353
Download
7
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sam FranklinAMCV2650/LubarPrice Response10/17/11
One of the most interesting characters in Sally Price’s Paris Primitive is the French
notion of laïcité, so full of contradictions. Essentially the separation of church and state, laïcité
depends on the idea that secular humanism is a privileged non-religion by which the state
should run. Applied to cultural management, perhaps the purest example of this concept at work
was in Price’s case of the churingas, the aboriginal Australian objects that are created to be
seen only by privileged initiates. Price quotes two French anthropologists who had written
defending their display in a 2001 exhibition, arguing that to respect the makers' religious rules
for the objects by keeping them out of sight would be, in a way, a gross decontextualization. The
objects were now the property of a Western museum where a different set of rules applied.1 The
justification was that the state, and thus the museum, respects no religion. It is outside of the
world of belief, and, presumably, within the world of positivist truth-seeking.
But, as Carol Duncan points out, if we think about museums as secular temples where
visitors act out “rituals of citizenship,” their status no longer transcends religion. We can thus
see them as among the affective apparatus that any hegemonic institution--whether a religious
sect or a secular state--uses to support its world view. The Louvre is, to Duncan, the prime
example of this strategy.2 Seen in this light, the French museum system’s commitment to laïcité
easily fades over to a selective privileging of a French way of seeing and displaying, one that
1 Price, Sally. Paris primitive : Jacques Chirac’s museum on the Quai Branly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
2 Carol Duncan, “Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship,” in Lavine, Steven D. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, Smithsonian Books, 1991. 93.
emerged hand in hand with museums and the other Enlightenment institutions that produce
authority in a secular humanist state.
As Price points out, the commitment to laïcité in cultural affairs is perhaps a result of the
French preoccupation with Frenchness, which is in turn as much a reaction to U.S. hegemonic
influence as it is to hijab in schools. (Or, more accurately, laïcité is a concept that can be
invoked in reference to either). But no matter the reasons for its current political usefulness, this
ideology has fascinating expression in the characters of Kerchache and Chirac. Both are
committed to bashing the idea of cultural hierarchy, and we must take them at their word--they
want France to see the "genius" of non-European cultures, to move past its imperialistic
ethnocentrism. Though there are reasons to be skeptical of their commitment to this, including
the apparent unwillingness of the Musee Quai Branly (MQB) to take seriously any significant
interpretation of said cultures within the museum, they are not necessarily being disingenuous.
We must remember that Price is an anthropologist, and essentially sees the debate as one
between anthropological ways of knowing and art historical ways of knowing, the latter of which
she believes are by definition lacking in the kind of systemic relativism necessary to represent
non-European cultures adequately. Indeed, Kerchache and Chirac seem to be uncritical of their
own fitness to judge the art of other cultures, or of the museum's ability to represent it. Their
brand of post-colonialism seems to reject anthropology, tied as it was historically to the colonial
project, in favor of a color-blind aesthetic appreciation that alone can elevate “primitive” objects
to the status of “fine art.” But what kind of relativism is this? Is the lack of attention paid to their
own subject position evidence of absolute, unquestioned ethnocentrism, one which is bound to
reproduce the prejudices that it purports to dismantle? Or is it a more humble kind of
ethnocentrism, with France not at the center of the world, but with Frenchness nonetheless at
the center of France? Are Kerchache and Chirac simply saying 'we are us, you are you. Neither
is better than the other (but we are all better than the U.S.). We love your art, and this is what
we do with it here in France’? The latter may be more humble, and neatly dispatches with any
pressure to include outside perspectives in the MQB. But at the same time such an ideal would
betray the limits of official state secularism: Museum display would have to be acknowledged as
subjective, a specific cultural practice--a ritual even--and not the universalizing platform Chirac
and Kerchache purport it to be.
[The 2-3 page paper ends here. For an extended version, in which I relate the above discussion
to American museums, continue reading below.]
How does this relate to the American scene? America, too, continually struggles with the
question of pluralism and the republic: To what extent does everybody need to be on the same
page to support a government of the people? Do Catholics have what it takes? Non-
landowners? Blacks? Communists? Non-English-speakers? In mainstream thought we've gone
between melting pot and multiculturalism. Though there have been eras (during and after WWI,
for example) in which conformity and consensus have been major political issues, the U.S. has
not attempted to centralize cultural affairs to nearly the extent that France has.
In a way this makes sense: since the 1920s at the latest its been harder and harder to
make a case that the U.S. has one cultural core. (Though some right-wing Christians have
recently been making a case for it). 20th-century Pragmatism has a fluid, anti-positivist,
individualist view of human affairs that sees culture not as the fount of human action, but as the
result of it, the continually evolving social response to the material realities of everyday life. This
may be one of the reasons we don't have a minister of culture, as Price points out.3
Nonetheless, though it may be tempered by a laissez-faire disposition, the urge for cultural
3 Price 27.
consensus has inscribed itself on the American landscape, for example in the Smithsonian
Institution.
In many ways, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian is similar to
the MQB. It houses and displays ethnology objects collected by anthropologists and enthusiasts
during a long period of generally exploitative state relations with the people from whom the
objects were collected. Like the MQB, the NMAI sought new exhibition strategies that self-
consciously attempt to correct the museological sins of an imperialist past. To that end, yet in
ways at odds with it, both museums were established as separate institutions in separate
buildings from their more broadly defined national or universal museum counterparts. Yet the
interpretive strategy of the NMAI is virtually opposite that of the MQB. From the beginning of the
planning process, the NMAI engaged and granted authority to members of various Native
American tribes, and the exhibition design is heavy on interpretation and contextualization,
though not from a singular curatorial point of view, but rather from multiple and oftentimes non-
academic, non-secular, points of view.
Why would America allow such a fragmentary representation of its culture to exist on the
National Mall itself? There is the aforementioned predisposition to accept multiculturalism as
valid (though not without its critics, many and loud). But what else? As a republic founded on the
same humanistic premises as France, why should the U.S. not be equally bent on creating a
unified front to overcome the snaggles of pluralism? Perhaps it is because it is more secure in
its hegemony. If we agree that France’s rejection of state multiculturalism is largely in the
service of a strong unified defense against the seepage of U.S. culture, then perhaps the
relative American permissiveness is due to a sense that there are really no sub-cultural
differences that could effectively challenge or weaken its ability to function as a state. (Of
course, there are plenty of voices currently resisting cultural relativism in education, media, and
other sectors of society, and urging a “return” to “core values” and “traditional history.” This is a
significant voice in American politics, and I don’t mean to ignore it. I only mean to draw attention
to the reasons that the NMAI could happen in the U.S., and the MQB in France).
THE END.