THE ENOLA GAY IN AMERICAN MEMORY:A STUDY OF RHETORIC IN HISTORICAL CONTROVERSY
by
SATORU AONUMA
DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Graduate School
of Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
2005
MAJOR: COMMUNICATION
Approved by:
______________________________ Advisor Date
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
UMI Number: 3198673
31986732006
Copyright 2005 byAonuma, Satoru
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
COPYRIGHT BY
SATORU AONUMA
2005
All Rights Reserved
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Foremost important, this dissertation would never have been completed
without generous support and encouragement of the following people: Dr.
George Ziegelmueller, my main dissertation advisor; Dr. Bill Trapani; Dr. Bernard
Brock; and Dr. Gordon Neavill. They are sources of my inspiration and, more
important, they incidentally are on my dissertation committee. I would especially
like to thank Dr. Ziegelmueller for his professional guidance as well as personal
support in completing the manuscript. I would also like to thank Dr. Sandra
Berkowitz (now at Maine), my former advisor, for her encouragement and insight
in developing my thought on the subject. I sincerely wish her well.
My sincere gratitude also goes to the graduate faculty, administrative staff,
and friends I had in the Department of Communication at Wayne State: Dr. Matt
Seeger; Dr. Mary Garrett; Dr. Larry Miller (formerly of Wayne State); Dr. Jack
Kay; and Joe, Beth, Chris, Omar, Dianne, Helen and Sharon. I also owe a great
deal to my mentors at the University of Iowa where I was first disciplined and/or
emancipated as a student of communication: Dr. John Lyne (now at Pittsburgh);
late Dr. Michael McGee; Dr. Bruce Gronbeck; Dr. David Hingstman; Dr. Takis
Poulakos; and Dr. John Peters. I also thank members of debate teams I
associated with at Wayne State and Iowa for sharing fun and joy.
In addition, this study is indebted to the following individuals for their
insights and assistance in locating and obtaining research materials: Cesar
Quinones of the Smithsonian Institutions Office of Public Affairs; Keith Gorman
and Ellen Alers of the Smithsonian Institution Archives; Ted Yorkshire and
iii
Pearlie Draughn of the Air Force Association; Dr. Robert Newman; and Philip
Dalton.
Finally, I thank my parents for their understanding and support and Kanda
University of International Studies and Sano Gakuen for granting me a sabbatical
and research fund that enabled me to complete my doctoral work, including this
dissertation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMETS.............................................................................................. ii
CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction.............................................................................1
CHAPTER 2 From Cabinets of Curosities to Political Forums: The
Metamorphosis of American Museums ......................................................28
CHAPTER 3 Locating the Enola Gay Controversy: Its Time and
Place ................................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 4 From The Crossroads to The Last Act: Putting an End
to the Smithsonians Critical Commemoration...........................................73
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions....................................................................... 116
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 153
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. 180
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT................................................................. 182
1CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Prefer to leave behind you as a memorial images of your character ratherthan of your body. . . Do not suffer your life to be at once wholly blotted out,but since you were allotted a perishable body, seek to leave behind animperishable memorial of your soul. (p. 61)
Isocrates (1928b), To Nicocles
The Americans are a good-natured people, kindly, helpful to one another,disposed to take a charitable view even of wrongdoers. Their angersometimes flames up, but the fire is soon extinct. (p. 285)
James Bryce (1921), The American Commonwealth
Americas social and historical ignorance is so great that it constitutes athreat to American society. It is as if our society were distorting its ownmemory. This, it may be well pointed out, is the mark of an irrational man aswell as of an irrational society. . . One sign of a sick society is the failure tojudge the past in the present, to distinguish the political realities that in thepast tore fabric of the society.
This mythology is not created by a secret elite, it is not taught andperpetuated by a clique of professors and publishers. It is a mythology bydefault and neglect. (p. 218)Richard Means (1969/1970), The Ethical Imperative: The Crisis inAmerican Values
In January 30, 1995, I. Michael Heyman, the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution who assumed that office only a few months earlier, announced the
cancellation of a long planned special exhibit. The exhibit, which was to have
opened at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) in Washington, D.C. in
May of that year, was to have marked the 50th anniversary of the end of World War
II. A significant feature of the planned exhibit was the display of the fuselage of the
Enola Gay, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress from which the worlds first atomic
bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. According to the (official)
2American history of World War II, this historic mission forced Japan to surrender
and eventually ended the war. Since the Smithsonians acquisition of the Enola
Gay, the aircraft spent most of its time at the Institutes storage and restoration
facility outside the Washington Mall and had not been placed on public display.
The planned exhibit got into serious trouble, however, before it was actually
put into place, and that trouble eventually forced the Smithsonian to give up its
whole planning. In early 1994, when the NASM curators released the first draft for
the exhibit, critics immediately took issue with it. The critics harsh reactions to the
script initiated and aroused widespread public controversy. Overall, the
controversy involved philosophical, political and personal concerns, and objections
were raised by diverse individuals and groups who had vested interest in the
history of the atomic bombing and the end of World War II. The issues involved in
the controversy were extremely complex. In the planning stage of the exhibit, there
was an issue over what was the appropriate role of public museums. This issue
became even more complex by the fact that NASM had a special mission that
superceded any general philosophical mission of museums in American culture.
While professional historians pressed the NASM curators to provide a more
balanced historical account of the atomic bombing, veteran groups raised totally
different objections to the exhibit, criticizing the Smithsonian that its planned
exhibit failed to commemorate the Enola Gays historic mission appropriately.
Concessions and negotiations between the Smithsonian and its critics
continued for a year, and during the process the script underwent numerous
3corrections and revisions. The controversy also became overtly publicized and
politicized, as the mass media, members of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, and even White House got involved. Realizing that the negotiations were
getting nowhere, the Smithsonian finally called off any further discussions and
froze preparation for the exhibit. At the same time when the cancellation of the
exhibit was officially announce, Martin Harwit, who had been Director of NASM,
offered his resignation. Heyman took over the curatorial authority from the NASMs
original project team, apologized to the critics, and promised that he would be
personally responsible for writing a totally new exhibit plan which would give more
appropriate treatment to the Enola Gay and its historic mission.
This dissertation presents a rhetorical case study of this historic
controversy. This introductory chapter first provides a general framework for the
study and demonstrates its significance, and then moves on to appraise previous
studies that have dealt with this controversy. Following this critical assessment,
the chapter presents specific research questions that this study will seek to
answer, identifies research materials (texts) and describes the analytical strategy
(method) that will be used to answer these questions. The chapter concludes
with an organizational outline, and with brief descriptions of each of the chapters
that will follow.
4Justification for the Study
There are two primary reasons for studying this particular controversy from
a communication and rhetorical perspective. First, the Enola Gay controversy is a
significant discursive manifestation of nuclear memory in post World War II
America. Americans do remember Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) as one significant
episode in their past, and the controversy powerfully demonstrates that their
memory of the bombing takes a form of discursive struggle or cultural memory.
According to Sturken (1997), cultural memory is a kind of communal (American
in the present context) memory which is shared by many but is never collective or
collected; it is a field of contested meaning shared outside the avenues of formal
historical discourse yet is entangled with cultural products and imbued with cultural
meanings (p. 3). As such, cultural memory offers a discursive opportunity in
which Americans interact with cultural elements to produce the concepts of the
nation. . . where both the structures and the fractures of a culture are exposed
(Sturken, 1997, p. 2-3).
The Enola Gay controversy is a troubling episode of American nuclear
domesticity (Brown, 1988). Namely, it is a debate over how to commemorate or
remember-together (Gallagher, 1995) the atomic bombing. The debate took
place exclusively within the American cultural milieu. As many scholars from
diverse disciplines have observed, placing the atomic bombing in the nations
political cultural discourse has always provoked controversy (Gay & Lemmond,
1987; L. Hein & Seldon, 1997). Henry Kissinger once wrote, history is a memory
5of states and it is precisely that history which is controversial. Henriksen (1997)
writes: [T]he [atomic] bombs contested place in American society activated great
discomfort and provided evidence of cultural struggle (p. xiix-xix). For many
Americans, what was at stake in this struggle was not only their history or memory
but also their present and future. On one hand, the atomic bombing was a savior
that ended the Pacific War and saved many of their lives. Had it not been for
Hiroshima, many American military personnel might not have been able to live
through the post war period. Hence, even 35 years after the bombing, Fussell
proclaimed, thank god for the atom bomb (Fussell, 1981).
On the other hand, the symbolic impact of the atomic blast was shocking
even to some Americans. The physical, moral and military impact of the use of
nuclear weapons was so overwhelming that Americans could not but continue to
discuss and talk about its implications and meanings even after 50 years. Current
discourses on the War on Terror and the Iraq War, for instance, would make little
sense without Americas memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the one and only
referent for Ground Zero caused by a weapon of mass destruction. As
Goodnight (1986) notes:
The debate over nuclear weapons continues. . . [T]he nuclear issue is soclosely connected with ultimate issues of human survival and itsconventions are so paradoxical that it persists as a kind of subterraneanrepository of issues out of which public argument will emerge. (p. 409)
The Enola Gay controversy symbolically demonstrates the discursive-
argumentative nature of Americas nuclear memory. It reveals that any public
exhibition regarding the use of the atomic bombs will inevitably be controversial.
6What matters in this controversy is not only the physical effects of atomic weapons
or the history of atomic diplomacy, but it also involves a multiplicity of tensions and
issues that are concerned with past memories as well as present and future
survival in the nuclear age. The Smithsonians eventual cancellation of its own
exhibit further evidences the problems of American nuclear domesticity. The
American publics difficulty in discussing and commemorating within its own
culture, its leaders decision to use nuclear weapons against civilian population
makes the issues that emerged in the controversy worth investigating. Because
the Enola Gay controversy uniquely provided such strong discursive tensions over
the use of nuclear weapons, rhetorical and argumentative analysis of this event is
justified.
Second, the Enola Gay controversy is a discourse about a museum exhibit,
and this discussion warrants study from a rhetorical and communication
perspective. Museums in the United States are significant channels of
communication particularly when it comes to history. For many Americans there
is little contact with the past except at the historic sites, monuments, and
museums (Geist, 1978, p. 64). In the words of Richard Kohn (1996), former
President of the Society for Military History, the controversy over the Smithsonian
exhibit and its subsequent cancellation is the one of the worst tragedies to befall
the public presentation of history in the United States (p. 140). From a
communication perspective, one may be tempted to place the blame for the
cancellation of the exhibit solely on the Smithsonian. The Enola Gay controversy
7can be viewed as an example of communication breakdown caused by the
museums own inability as a public communicator. The exhibit (manu)script was
not adequately prepared when it was presented for review. The Smithsonian failed
to communicate a full (hi)story to its audience. Many critics rejected the script
because they believed it contained errors and inaccuracies that were beyond
correction. The Smithsonians failure to communicate might also be seen as a
case of poor adaptation. The message crafted by NASM was simply not
kairotic, i.e., a discourse that was unfit and improper to a particular occasion and
time (Carter, 1988; Kinneavy, 1986; Sullivan, 1992). The Smithsonian simply
misanalyzed the exigencies presented by the particular rhetorical situation and
the expectations of particular intended audience (Bitzer, 1968). Instead of securing
their support and understanding of important constituents, therefore, the NASM
curators ended up offending them and arousing dissatisfaction and anger.
On the other hand, rhetorical and argumentative factors alone does not fully
explain the significance of the Enola Gay controversy, what Kohn has called the
one of the worst tragedies in the nations public presentation of history. More than
a decade has past since the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibit, but the
controversy surrounding it still remains a hot topic for many historians and
museum curators (Boyd, 1999; Crane, 1997a, 1997b; Dubin, 1999; Harris, 1995;
White, 1997; Zolberg, 1996). Many of these professionals remain sympathetic to
what the Smithsonian attempted to accomplish with its exhibit. After the
cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibit, John Coatsworth, President of the
8Organization for American Historians (OAH), published a letter in the Wall Street
Journal, in which he lamented the fact that the exhibit had fallen victim to political
pressure and decried the Smithsonians inability to communicate its perspective
on the historical events surrounding the use of the atomic bomb (Coatsworth,
1995). Moreover, the political pressure to cancel the exhibit created a certain
chilling effect. It was reported that many curators are self-censoring for fear of
bring trouble to their doors or losing financial support. Curators around the country
ask themselves: Is a historical exhibit not presentable unless it passes a
congressional litmus test? (Nash et al., 2000, p. 259)
While not all members of the nations museum community endorse each
and every part of the Smithsonians aborted script, manyperhaps mostof them
supported the particular museological approach that the NASM curators
assumed in the development of its Enola Gays presentation ("Controversy
continues," 1995; "Enola Gay update," 1995; A. F. Young, 1994). American
museums have increasingly moved to the forefront in struggles over
representation and over the chronicling, revising, and displaying of the past
(Dubin, 1999, p. 5). For them, there is nothing inherently wrong with museum
controversy. It is, in fact, a part of their normal operations.
For historians and museum professionals, the Enola Gay controversy was
not merely a case of a communication breakdown. What made the controversy
tragic was not the NASM curators poorly written script or their failure to adapt it to
exigencies of the time and place. Rather, the tragedy was that political and public
9critics challenged the Smithsonians museological approach and communicative
intent.
The tragedy is further magnified by the fact that this controversy took place
over an exhibit at NASM, a museum that belongs to the Smithsonian, the nations
premier and most influential cultural institution. As Young (1994) observed, The
furor over Air and Space is unprecedented and is alarming because the
Smithsonian has often been looked to as a pacesetter by other museums. The
museum horrors. . . raise questions that go to the heart of the enterprise of
historical museums in the United States (p. 6).
Thus, the Enola Gay controversy is a significant social phenomenon that
deserves critical study from the perspective of communication and rhetoric. It
reveals a multiplicity of tensions that were deeply entrenched in late 20th century
American political culture. First, the text of the Enola Gay controversy features
persistent issues within Americas nuclear memory. It is these inherent tensions
within its nuclear domesticity that the Smithsonians planned exhibit provoked.
Moreover, the issues that emerged in the controversy also have to do with
problems of communicative acts performed within a specific institutional context; it
was a discourse over a particular museum exhibit, not a speech or
cinematography or televisual representation, that attempted to present a history of
the atomic bombing. It is the intertwining of these issues that makes the Enola Gay
controversy an interesting subject for a critical case study. It is a controversy in
which the past, present, and future of American nuclear memory and the role of
10
American museums were problematized; it is a controversy that calls for both
textual-interpretive, as well as institutional, analyses of public communication.
Literature Review
This section reviews earlier studies of the Enola Gay controversy. Because
this is a rhetorical case study, the section will isolate and discuss studies
undertaken and published within the field of communication and rhetoric, i.e.,
Newman, Proisese, Biesecker, Taylor, and Cripps. Specifically, the review
consists of the following two steps. First, it seeks to identify how earlier
communication and rhetorical studies framed or characterized the controversy,
what issues they perceive as significant and worthy of analyses, and what
conclusions or judgments they made about the controversy. Second, this section
exemplifies limitations found in these previous studies. The section then attempts
to identify questions that remain unanswered by previous scholarship and that this
dissertation will attempt to address.
In Truman and the Hiroshima Cult (1995b) and Enola Gay and the Court of
History (2004), Newman characterizes the Enola Gay controversy primarily as a
debate over history. According to his analysis, the controversy was due to the
Smithsonians (mis)representation of history, particularly with regards to Trumans
decision to use the atomic bombs. He criticized the Smithsonian for basing its
historical presentation of the bombing on what he calls the Hiroshima cult, i.e.,
peaceniks and revisionist historians who attempted to question Trumans
11
decision with insufficient historical evidence. Behind Newmans analysis lies his
firm, a priori conviction that historical evidence shows that the decision to drop the
bomb was unequivocally uncontroversial. For him, therefore, the Enola Gay
controversy was a battle that took place in a court of history and, as such, the
cancellation of the exhibit was logical and welcoming.
Proisise (1997, 1998) frames the Enola Gay controversy similarly, namely
as a debate over a single issue. His characterization of the issue, however,
significantly differs from Newmans. According to Proisises analysis, what made
the Smithsonians planned exhibit controversial was not the misrepresentation of
history by the NASM curators. The controversy, rather, was an unfortunate product
of a tension between history and memory in Americas nuclear domesticity. Put
more precisely, Proisese sees historical scholarship on the side of the
Smithsonian, which directly contradicts Newmans assessment. He claims that the
controversy emerged because critics of NASM deliberately misrecognized
veterans collective memory of the bombing as if it were the objective history.
Thus, unlike Newman, he criticizes the cancellation of the exhibit, as an act of
excommunication. The cancellation, in Proisises view, resulted in the exclusion
of many substantive historical considerations of the atomic attacks from public
space (1998, p. 318).
Biesecker (2003) offers a rhetorical analysis of the Enola Gay controversy
similar to Proisese. She regards memory, as he does, as a singularly important
issue to be explored. Her focus, however, is not exactly on the misrecognition of
12
memory as history but on memory as an uncontestable reification of experience
which becomes the bedrock of identity (p. 113). She finds this to be significant
and problematic, for such memory, as a rhetorical discourse, has a certain
irresistible truth effect, blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction, history
and commemoration, and world-disclosing and problem-solving (p. 114). It also
authorizes a certain privileged few to monopolize the past, present, and future,
because it expels any questioning, let alone challenging, of that memory. This is,
according to Biesecker, what exactly happened in the Enola Gay controversy. It is
discourses and voices of a particular reified experience (veterans memory) that
put the Smithsonians exhibit to a halt, and she critiques these discourses by way
of the rhetorical question: Indeed, why? What were conditions of possibility for the
privileging of the Enola Gays pilot and crew? What play of forces set the stage for
this singular authoritative voice to emerge? (p. 113)
For Taylor (1998), what should matter to scholars of communication is not
exactly history or memory in American nuclear domesticity. The primary issue in
the Enola Gay controversy has to do, rather, with problems of visual rhetoric,
more precisely photographic representation, of the atomic bombing in American
culture. In his view, the controversy demonstrates how realism serves as a
medium of conflict between insurgent and counterinsurgent nuclear interests (p.
333). He specifically isolates and analyzes a series of photographs contained in
the Smithsonians planned exhibit and contends that these images constituted a
significant factor that provoked a controversy, for they represented realism of the
13
ruins of Hiroshima, particularly of (nuclear) bodies. He argued that the rhetorical
impact of these visual images was underestimated by the NASM curators.
None of the above, however, is the central focus for Cripps (1998) study.
He finds the central locus of the controversy not in the Smithsonians planned
exhibits discourses over history, memory, or photographic realism, but rather in
representations of these discourses by broadcast journalism. Cripps thus
contends that one significant decisive factor that helped to spur the controversy
and made it unmanageable to the Smithsonian was the visual rhetoric of
television news which is rooted in the immediacy that all photography transmits
and that [t]his very charged immediacy. . . precludes analysis by viewers, by
striving for an affective rather than more cognitive response (p. 78). Cripps
analyzes the coverage of the controversy in major network news programs as well
as (commercial) breaks between clips and segments, and concludes that these
televisual representations oversimplified and profoundly altered the debate. The
issue, for Cripps concern, was problems inherent in the broadcast media that
choose not to report the real issues at stake, and these made the Smithsonian a
victim of the shrunken, indeed atrophied, American span nurtured by the brevity
of television (p. 78).
Needless to say, each of these studies provides some insight into the Enola
Gay controversy. Diverse analytical methods employed in these studies show that
the controversy involved problematics of communication and rhetoric that were
multifaceted. Each scholar contextualized the Enola Gay controversy within a
14
perspective of communication and rhetoric of his or her own choosing and offered
an analysis appropriate to that contextualization. For Newman, the issue at stake
in the controversy was the Smithsonians misrepresentation of the history of the
bombing, whereas, for Proisese, it was a misrecognition of memory as history.
Biesecker concludes that the controversy exposes rhetorical problems of truth
effects caused by memory of some privileged few and their reified experience. But
according to Taylor and Cripps, the problem had more to do with the rhetorical
impacts of visual communication, one regarding nuclear bodies in the script, the
other televisual representations of all the issues in the controversy. Taken
together, they reveal that significant issues emerged in the controversy, and each
author makes critical judgments against the backdrop of communication and
rhetorical scholarship.
On the other hand, these studies do exhibit some weaknesses, which
creates room for this dissertation to join, extend, and critique the previous
scholarly conversation. First, the previous studies failed to ascertain which
communication issues dominated the controversy and dictated the fate of the
Smithsonian, NASM and the Enola Gay. All the studies reviewed above
characterized the Enola Gay controversy as if it were a single issue debate. For
instance, Newman and Cripps did not account for issues other than the ones they
choose (history or televisual rhetoric), and did not attempt to compare and
evaluate the relative importance of their selected issues.
15
In addition, these studies failed to explain the potential intertwining of
multiple issues that emerged in the development of the controversy. The Enola
Gay controversy was not a one-time event. The NASM curators drafted their first
script in early 1994, and that began a controversy that lasted for a year. As critics
of the draft script objections to it and the NASM undertook script revisions; earlier
objections disappeared and new issues emerged. The existing communication and
rhetorical scholarship does not address these interactive elements, because it did
not put the Enola Gay controversy as constantly changing conflict that evolved
over time.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the current communication and
rhetorical scholarship has not taken into account the museum horrors in the
Enola Gay controversy, i.e., the problems of communication that go to the heart of
the American museum enterprise. Virtually absent in previous studies is any
consideration of the context of a particular museum exhibition. Nowhere in
Newmans analysis, for instance, does he make a distinction between the NASM
curators historical representation of Trumans decision to use the atomic bomb
and a history written by a revisionist historian. Proisese is honest about this
absence. While his own reading of the controversy does not exactly focus on the
institutional role of museums, one implication he does draw at the end of his article
is that the role of museums, as sites of cultural memory, should have been given
greater consideration (2003, p. 342). And because Cripps focuses almost
16
exclusively on the televisual representation, the institutional context of the
controversy is not well considered in his analysis.
To Taylors credit, his study on photographic realism does recognize the
context of museum controversy, because it analyzes visual and photographic
representation in the exhibit. Unfortunately, it does not fully take into account the
significance of this particular context, for the Enola Gay controversy was a
contestation over a particular museum exhibit that was never made realized. What
Taylor analyzed is not exactly the photographic representations used in the actual
exhibit but, rather, representations of the representations, i.e., the photocopy in
the exhibit script. Taking these representations of representations outside the
exhibit space as if they were displayed in the museum does not do justice to the
specific context of occurrence. Bieseckers rhetorical critique does fail to take into
account the institutional context, which, however, is exactly her point. She chose
to ignore this context of occurrence for the sake of her own conjunctural analysis,
a critical interpretive strategy that reads the text not against the backdrop of its
occurrence but, instead, as part and parcel of that dispersed but structured field of
practice (2003, p. 113).
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What were the issues that dominated the Enola Gaycontroversy?
The review of the previous studies revealed that communication and
rhetorical scholarship has not yet dealt with a set of problems that are most
17
fundamental: What was the Enola Gay controversy all about? What specific issue
or issues in the controversy led to NASMs cancellation of the exhibition? While
some attempts have been made by historians and museum scholars to explicate
issues from the perspectives of museum studies (White, 1997; Zolberg, 1996),
analysis of problems that are related to communicative practices have yet to be
examined and evaluated. Bieseckers conjuctural analysis has merit because the
Enola Gay controversy is not merely a problem of one museum exhibition.
However, neither her study nor any other rhetorical or communication scholarship
has ever fully explored the Enola Gay controversy within what she calls the
backdrop of its occurrence, namely, as a problem of situated communicative
practice.
Issues that emerged during the Enola Gay controversy necessarily have to
do with problems regarding the Smithsonians particular practice of
communication, i.e., placing the bombing as part of its exhibit discourse. In order
to answer the first research question, the issues that emerged as the Smithsonian
attempted to place the Enola Gay in its discursive space will be identified,
analyzed and evaluated.
Research Question 2: What does the Enola Gay controversy tell us aboutpotential problems involved in using museums as forums approach?
In posing this second question, I wish to put a particular analytical focus on
the controversys particular institutional context of occurrence. Placing the atomic
bomb in American society has always provoked discomfort and cultural struggle.
Since the controversy provoked as the Smithsonian attempted to place the Enola
18
Gay in its museum exhibit, issues that emerged in the controversy should
necessarily have to do with problems of a specific location, where/whether to place
history of the bombing in America.
The Enola Gay controversy was not just another museum controversy. In
the first place, NASM is not just another science and technology museum. It is one
of the Smithsonian museums, the nations premier cultural institution. Even more
important, as the one and only national museum devoted to the history of
Americas aviation and space technology, NASM has a specially assigned
communicative mission. That mission is, by law, to memorialize the national
development of aviation [and space flight]; collect, preserve, and display
aeronautical [and space flight] equipment of historical interest and significance
("National Air and Space Museum Act," 1946). This dissertation will explore how
NASMs institutional context and assigned mission became an issue and concerns
about place and mission can affect other museums choices of exhibits and
approaches to exhibition.
Research Question 3: Are there ways in which future controversies such asthat which surrounded the Enola Gay exhibit could be avoided or mitigated?
Finally, this study attempts to inquire into general problems of museum
controversy, using the Enola Gay controversy as a paradigm case. Controversy is
no stranger to students of rhetoric and public communication. The idea of
controversy is one of the most important virtues in Greco-Roman rhetoric. We
continue to teach and study controversy because it is intrinsically significant and
positive (Conly, 1985). Participants in a controversy, through critical exchange,
19
seek to establish (or challenge the already established) social conventions,
precedents and norms (Mitchell, 2000). Controversy is a significant instance of a
communitys engagement in matters of public concern, and is essential to
sustaining democratic ideals in a pluralistic society such as the United States
(Goodnight, 1992; Olson & Goodnight, 1994). Moreover, controversy is no
stranger to the nations museum community. American museums are now premier
sites of cultural struggle. They have now become forums, a center for critical
discourse (Cameron, 1971/2004; Weil, 1995, 2004); debate, contestation, and
controversies, therefore, are normal practices of public communication at many
museums throughout the country.
In seeking to answer this final question, I will attempt to discover what
lessons can be learned from the Enola Gay controversy, particularly with regard to
problems of communicating controversy through museum exhibition. While the
museum horrors that the Smithsonian experienced with The Crossroads may not
be wholly unavoidable, there may exist some ways in which museums could
mitigate unnecessary troubles when they are launching controversial exhibits in
the future. Addressing this problematic necessitates a combination of institutional
and issue analysis. Tracing the institutional metamorphosis of American
museums in conjunction with the analysis of issues that emerged in the Enola Gay
controversy, will, hopefully, provide some insight into the future of museum
controversies in the United States.
20
Method and Text
Method
This dissertation is a case study of controversy. It also highlights a
particular context of its occurrence in its analysis. To this end, its method for
analysis consists of the following two steps: an analysis of museums as institutions
of public communication and a textual analysis of the actual controversy.
In the first place, the study seeks to trace the historical development of
museums in the United States. Drawing on the literature of museum studies or
museology, the particular institutional context in which the Enola Gay controversy
emerged will be examined. One part of this examination will look at the museums
functions as agencies of communication, with specific references to museum
professionals and curators self-understanding of their roles as public
communicators. Another emphasis in this institutional analysis is on particular
American characteristics of museums in the United States which significantly
differ from those of their European origins, given that the Enola Gay controversy is
a provocative instance of nuclear domesticity that took place in the American
context. This recreation of the context also includes a specific backdrop of
occurrence of the Enola Gay controversy, i.e., characteristics of the Smithsonians
NASM as a speaker of public communication. This contextualization of the actual
controversy where it originated is helpful in identifying and illuminating the issues
for critical analysis.
21
A major portion of this study will be devoted to an analysis of the issues
developed during the Enola Gay controversy. Regarding the method for this step,
this study draws on descriptive as well as critical cultural analysis of discourse.
The study first engages in description of issues that emerged in the Enola Gay
controversy, by identifying discourses of pros and cons regarding the NASMs
planned exhibit, and moves onto discuss how these issues were developed,
extended, or subsided as the Smithsonian continued to refine the script. The study
then critically interprets and evaluates these issues.
The study methodically follows a traditional analysis of public controversy
undertaken by rhetorical and communication scholars (Foss, 1979; Lyne & Howe,
1986; Olson, 1989; Olson & Goodnight, 1994; Oravec, 1984; Zaeske, 1995). More
specifically, it seeks to (1) describe the rationale behind the Smithsonians exhibit
as well as issues raised against the Smithsonian, (2) discuss how the Smithsonian
and their critics attempted to resolved (chose not to resolve) these issues, and (3)
identify which issues were persistent and dominant and eventually put the
Smithsonian exhibit to a halt.
One operation that will become particularly important for this study,
however, is an explication of the who of the social discourses. This type of
analysis is crucial to an examination of discourses over national commemoration
such as this debate. Participants in these discourses are what Spillman (1997)
calls culture producing groups who are likely to have vested interest in the
national culture. For such groups, commemorative discourses provide them with
22
important opportunities for producing and contesting the national culture. The
Enola Gay controversy is a provocative aspect of American nuclear domesticity
that concerned the nations premier cultural institution. Given this particular context
of occurrence, analysis of issues should account for the broader discursive field
within which the symbols were organized and became meaningful as national
symbols (Spillman, 1997, p. 7, emphasis in original).
Thus this study will aim to analyze the critical discourses or issues raised
against the Smithsonian by the following culture producing groups. First group
consists of historians, particularly those who are or were in military service. These
include members of the Smithsonian-appointed Special Advisory Board as well as
the Tiger Team, a committee of former military service historians who conducted
an independent review of NASMs draft of the exhibit script. This culture producing
group also includes historians who were in the active military service at that time
and who participated in the script revision as part of the World War II
Commemoration Committee established by the United States Congress.
Military veterans and their organizations comprise the second group of
participants. While they did not play an official role in the Smithsonians script
development and exhibit preparation, at least initially, these individuals and groups
exercised tremendous influence on the direction of the Enola Gay controversy.
Another important military group who participated in the controversy is the Air
Force Association (AFA). The AFA is an organization that represents the United
States military Air Force and others in the formation of the nations politico-
23
economic-culture. The AFA played an important role in making the Enola Gay
controversy public by orchestrating and organizing the media campaigns against
the Smithsonian.
The final group of participants in the Enola Gay controversy are those who
claim to represent voices of mainstream America in the political public sphere.
These included members of the United States Congressional majority
(Republicans) as well as others who shared the same American values with the
Congressional majority and represent such values in mass media, particularly in
print journalism.
Text
While a significant portion of this case study involves analysis of issues that
appeared in rhetorical discourse, unfortunately there is no self-contained text of
the Enola Gay controversy ready for analysis. In addition, there is no specific,
representative, and tangible memory texts available in such forms as
cinematography, photography, and memorials as they often are in other studies of
cultural memory (Biesecker, 2002; Foss, 1986; Hariman & Lucaites, 2002;
Sturken, 1997; Wagner-Pacifici & Schwartz, 1991). On the other hand, the
controversy, as a textual trajectory, continues with its strong rhetorical presence.
Ruins, remains, and spoils of the controversy still exist in a variety of discursive
forms, albeit scattered out and fragmentary. The Enola Gay controversy is an
event that took place when the National Air and Space Museum initiated exhibit
24
preparation in 1987 and ended when the Smithsonian announced the exhibits
cancellation in early 1995. To trace the trajectory of the controversy, this study
utilized the following primary materials that were published or circulated during this
particular period.
In the first place, this study locates the trajectory of the controversy in
documents pertaining to direct communication within and among the Smithsonian
staff and its critics. Materials pertaining to this process include the exhibit scripts,
an external review report, internal memos and personal memoirs of the
Smithsonian personnel; and letters of correspondence between the Smithsonian,
historians, veteran groups and congressional representatives. These documents
were circulated in the public domain either by themselves or through third parties.
The Air Force Association, for instance, compiled these documents and made its
massive collection widely accessible on their web site; they are also available as
bounded copies, free of charge ("Enola Gay coverage 1995," 1995; "Enola Gay
documents part II," 2000; "Enola Gay documents part III," 2002; "Enola Gay
documents," 1996). I also obtained other relevant documents from the
Smithsonian Institution Archives by traveling to Washington, D.C. in December
2004.
Because many issues were raised in the print media (Capaccio & Mohan,
1995), the textual trajectory of the Enola Gay controversy also required
examination of media discourses. Particularly relevant were letters to the editor
sections in newspapers; many of these letters by veterans contained strong voices
25
of opposition to the Smithsonian. Other relevant discursive fragments were found
in editorials written by political commentators and syndicated columnists who
purported to represent the voice of (mainstream) America. From June 1994 to
February 1995, national (e.g., the Washington Post, the New York Times, the
Wall Street Journal) as well as numerous regional newspapers (e.g., the
Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Pittsburgh Gazette) and other periodicals (e.g., Time,
U.S. News & World Report) published letters and editorials regarding NASMs
Enola Gay exhibit. In particular, the Washington Post printed many of these critical
reactions to the Smithsonian and this dissertation extensively draws upon the Post
for the analysis of the textual trajectory. First, as a Washington newspaper, the
Post was the most sensitive and the most influential to the development of the
controversy over the exhibit planned at the museum located on the Washington
Mall. Second, while many other newspapers did print similar critical discourses to
the Smithsonian, it is the Post that printed the very first critical editorial of such
kind (Meyer, 1994) that turned a museum controversy into a nationwide political
scandal (Capaccio & Mohan, 1995).
Other remains of the controversy can also be found in the text of the
Congressional resolutions and hearings. These are public documents which are
readily available. In particular, a 1994 Senate resolution ("S. Res. 207," 1994)
features strong statement by influential Congressional representatives opposing
the Smithsonians planned exhibit. Finally, press releases by Congressional
26
representatives and veterans groups also provided primary documents for
analysis.
Chapter Organization
In closing this chapter, notes about the structure of this dissertation are in
order. Following this Introduction, Chapter 2 demonstrates that American
museums now operate under the metaphor of forum, a place where controversy
and debate take place. The chapter traces the institutional metamorphosis of
museums and examines the museum communitys rationale fro embracing the
forum approach to exhibiting. The discussion in this chapter offers a necessary
context for the analysis of the Enola Gay controversy.
Chapter 3 begins with discussion on the unique mission that NASM is
assigned to perform. It identifies the museums historical role as that of national
epideictic whose stated purpose has always been to glorify the genius and
achievement of Americas air and space industry and heroes. The chapter then
moves to explicate how that unique rhetorical mission has created a long and
troubling relation with the Enola Gay. Toward the end, the chapter also outlines
the script for the Smithsonians controversial exhibit and discusses a specific
institutional context that encouraged the Smithsonian to engage such
museological attempt.
Chapter 4 offers an issue analysis of the Enola Gay controversy against the
backdrop of the context recreated in the previous chapters. Reclaiming and tracing
27
the rhetorical trajectory of the controversy, the chapter first discusses the
Smithsonians rationale for the exhibit, and proceeds to identify and discuss critical
reactions to it by various groups and individual who had high stakes in the Enola
Gay and its mission. This chapter also analyzes how the Smithsonian dealt with
these issues, which ultimately determined the outcome of the Enola Gay
controversy.
Finally, Chapter 5 concludes this dissertation by answering the research
questions. It also discusses some limitations of the study and some implications
for further research.
28
CHAPTER 2
FROM CABINETS OF CURIOSITIES TO POLITICAL FORUMS: THE
METAMORPHOSIS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC MUSEUMS
The purpose of this chapter is to trace the institutional metamorphosis of
American museums with special attention to their role as agents of
communication. As cultural institutions, the primary role of museums had long
been acquisition, collection, preservation, and display of historic artifacts; cabinets
of curiosities used to be the metaphor that best described their function. Given
the current state of American museums, however, that metaphor is no longer
appropriate. Because communication does not take place in a vacuum but occurs
in a specific discursive space, an understanding of this metamorphosis is
necessary for an investigation of the Enola Gay controversy. Subsequent chapters
will demonstrate how this changing character of museums made the controversy
so contentious and complex.
Public Museums as an American Invention
A history of modern museums is that of public museums (Bennett, 1995;
Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991), and this is particularly true in the United States. While
the idea of modern museums originated in Europe, the notion of the public was
secondary to their formation and self-understanding. Conventional history has it
that the worlds first public museum was born in post revolutionary Paris at the end
29
of the 18th century when the former palace of the king was renovated and became
the Louvre (Museum National: Monument Consacre a lAmr et a lEtude des Arts).
Yet, precursors existed in the private sphere to serve the aristocracy. They were
places where the rich and Royal showed off their wealth by displaying private
collections of paintings, sculptures, jewelries, and other valuables and
collectables. They existed solely for private reasons and interests, i.e., ones self-
enjoyment, self-satisfaction and power. Nichlin (1972) has observed the ultimate
transfer of these properties from the hands of aristocratic rulers to the public faced
strong resistance and generated enormous controversies.
The development of American museums took a different path. They were
established in a world devoid of hereditary kings and queensa world that was
both more open and more public in its traditions and values. Their beginning
coincided with the dawn of modern America, and their origin was distinct from that
of their European counterparts. This distinctly American in origin has dictated their
successive formation and self-understanding.
These new museums in a brave new world were fundamentally public
institutions. The mid-19th century saw the blooming of museums in the United
States, a time when private charitable gift giving, testifying to the spirit of
individual initiative, play[ed] a large part in the countrys growth (Hein, 2000, p. 6).
The development of museums was a significant part of the process of building a
strong and cohesive national community. While American museums relied on
donations and gifts from wealthy individuals as their primary source of income,
30
they were not privately owned. With the exception of many art galleries that
were, and still remain, private (Fry, 1972), most of these museums were, at
conception, incorporated along with hospitals, churches, and various educational
and service agencies as nonprofit organizations (Hein, 2000, p. 6). Thus, these
institutions were strongly committed to an American idea of public virtue:
charitable giving for the common good (Bellah et al., 1996). Their raisen detre
was, and remains, social utility, the purpose of which is to serve the American
public.
From their very inception, museums in America have viewed
educationnot aristocratic displayas their fundamental goal. While the scope of
their programs and their approaches to education have evolved over the centuries,
museums in the United States have characteristically embraced four uniquely
American concepts. It is because of their adherence to these concepts that
American museums have made such an important contribution to their publics and
to community building.
First, American museums are instruments of public enlightenment that
provide equal access to education. Unlike their European counterparts that
perpetuate social stratification, privilege, and cultural monopoly (Bourdieu &
Darbel, 1991; Hooper-Greenhill, 1994), American museums are democratic and
popular in principle. Like libraries, notes Katz (1982), museums [in the United
States] are fundamentally educational institutions with a responsibility to make
their collections availableand meaningfulto the largest possible audience, and
31
to serve as valuable educational reservoir to their communities (p. 11). The idea
of an American museum is that of an open space where class distinctions become
largely irrelevant. It was in [these] newly established museums of revolutionary
America that the doors were fully opened to the general public (Roberts, 1997, p.
4).
Second, educational experience in American museums is pragmatic. The
idea behind this is that enlightenment leads to both personal cultivation and
communal growth. Specialization of museums accelerated in the United States
during the late 19th century as it did in Europe. The oldest form of museums were
arts museums whose purpose was to provide the public with an opportunity to
experience beauty ("Museums and their characteristics," 1990). Later, museums
of history and science became centers for serious academic endeavors in areas
such as anthropology, archeology, biology, botany, and entomology. However, the
purpose of American museums, unlike their European counterparts, was not
merely to engage in esoteric research and display exotic artifacts in cabinets of
curiosities. The purpose and the only purpose of museums [in America] is
education in all its varied aspects from the most scholarly research to the simple
arousing of curiosity. That education, however, must be active, not passive, and it
must always be intimately connected with the life of the people (Low, 1942, p. 21).
American museums rest on the idea that research and learning should be usable
and practical; producing and exhibiting knowledge for knowledges sake is not
what they aim at. Ideas are worthless except as they pass into actions which
32
rearrange and reconstruct in some way, be it little or large, the world in which we
live (Dewey, 1929, p.104; also see Schieffler, 1966). This idea of a practical
educational experience is a second distinctive characteristic of American
museums.
Third, American museums are not intended to be all-inclusive, stand-alone
public institutions; they are committed to the total cause of education (Low, 1942,
p. 26). Although tremendously rich in resources, American museums recognize
that the academic opportunities they provide mean little unless they are connected
to other academic institutions. In the United States, primary and secondary
education that benefited the most from the educational resources that museums
offer; schoolchildren, for example, have been their most frequent visitors and
preferred customers.
During the 1920s, the first staff instructors were appointed at American
museums, and a new academic profession devoted to studies of, and education
in, museums emerged. American universities and colleges became the first in the
world to offer majors and programs specializing in museum education, and
scholarly associations for museum professionals were soon inaugurated (Nichols,
1984; Patterns in practice, 1992). In the 1960s when the G.I. Bill made higher
education affordable to larger segments of the American population, museums
began to welcome more college and university students (Solinger, 1990). In recent
years, American museums sought to reach out more broadly to the adult
33
community and have led the way in the development of special programs and
exhibits directed to their special needs and interests.
Finally, American museums have contributed to the total cause of education
at a most fundamental and philosophical level through the constitution of a
community and collective identity. Communities are constituted by their past. . .
and for this reason we can speak of a real community as a community of
memory, one that does not forget its past (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler &
Tipton, 1996, p. 153; also see Wood & Foster, 1997). The American public
chronically suffers from a lack of common memory and hence, of common
community. The existence of a community cannot be assumed a priori in the
United States. The American public has been composed fundamentally of
settlers; the first generation of immigrants, for example, were devoid of a memory
of a common past. Moreover, the American idea of individual liberty and the
pursuit of happiness rests on the dissolution of the common bonds and feudal
solidarities that existed in Europe. As this founding idea was translated into an
ideology of individualism, constituents in the American public were further torn
apart from each other (Levine, 2004).
As public institutions committed to the total cause of education, museums in
the United States have sought to aid in the development of new communities of
American memory: Many U.S. history museums and historic sites developed from
the bottom up, as a result of community initiative that sought ways to memorialize
a communitys history and celebrate its traditions and achievements (Kotler &
34
Kotler, 1998, p. 14). In addition to offering aesthetic experiences and scientific
knowledge, American museums have become places where the public can
engage in gathering and accumulating bits and pieces of their experiences and
creating a common past. They are what Nora calls sites of memory (Nora, 1989)
in the brave new world. By telling themselves to remember what they (want
to/should) take to be their communal, national past, people acquire a sense of
national identity, a sense of themselves as tied to the national society as a whole
(Schudson, 1992, p. 66). By passing this common past on to successive
generations, American museums help communities maintain a sense of history
and continuity from which stable collective identities are derived (Giddens, 1991;
Schelly-Newman, 1997; Schudson, 1992). In so doing, they also work as a
counterbalance to the ideology of individualism. As Perin (1992) has observed:
People living in a society that compartmentalizes and institutionalizes livedexperiencedividing it into work, family, politics, and religion, forexampledepend on cultural institutions for their opportunities to achievecoherence, growth, and an evolving sense of identity. Museums aresingularly important stimuli for human synthesis. (p. 216)
Communicating with the Public
As noted earlier, the mission to serve the public has always already been
central to the development of American museums. Unlike their European
counterparts, American museums have to take the presence of the public
seriously. Given that education is their raisen detre, American public museums
are destined to face a peculiar challenge: Museums must communicate or die
(Hooper-Greenhill, 1994, p. 34). Indeed, for museums in the United States,
35
communicating and building relationships with the public is the heart of their
professional practices (Kotler & Kotler, 1998). Museums assume a role similar to
that of a teacher, and to fulfill that function, they must recognize that
communicating with their audiences is at least as important as collecting and
preserving artifacts. As museums become more focused on communication. . . ,
[museum professionals] are asked to be public communicators as well as research
scholars (Franco, 1981, p. 157).
Because most public communication today is mass-mediated,
contemporary museums are sometimes thought of as a branch of mass media.
Yet, the functions of museums are distinct from those of the conventional media,
thus requiring a special kind of understanding of the process of communication
(Hodge & D'Souza, 1979, p. 146). In the first place, public museums do not
communicate with a mass audience. The members of a mass media audience
are generally conceived of as being essentially identical. Differences within are
considered to be insignificant. This enables the media to treat their audiences in a
singularly fashion, namely as mass. However, curators of todays public
museums are generally aware of the fact that the American public consists of
many communities. Thus museum goers are diverse; they cannot be reduced to a
single entity and conceived as a mass. As Lavine (1992) notes, it is patently false,
and certainly patronizing, to assume a unitary public (p. 139).
Moreover, the idea of mass communication is fundamentally one-way,
namely, a single source transmitting to many. American museums have, on the
36
other hand, increasingly sought to involve their patrons more actively in the
exhibits. Museum audience are encouraged to be less passive listeners and
consumers of knowledge. As Weil (1995) observes, a simple transmission model
does not replicate what takes place in exhibit spaces; it simply does not apply.
Thank to innovations in presentational technology and hands-on exhibits, for
instance, museum spaces have become more interactive (Anderson, 1999).
Further, museum visitors are hardly blank slates or tabula rasa (Graham Jr.,
1995). Contemporary museum goers are equipped with diverse prior knowledge,
semantic systems, expectations, and interpretive frames; accordingly,
communication in museums becomes inherently conversational and multivocal.
Silently or vocally, communication takes place as the visitor responds to a
combination of pictures, demonstrations, exhibits, and labels. . . [A] museum
seeks to share its understanding with the visitor through personal interaction
(Weinland & Bennett, 1984, p. 39).
Given these complexities of their communicative relations with the public,
American museums have moved away from the simple mass media model.
Recent literature reveals that museums have adopted a different language for their
self-understanding and are most frequently referred to as forums (H. S. Hein,
2000; Roberts, 1997; Weil, 1995; White, 1997). The origin of this idea dates back
to 1971, when Duncan Cameron, then Director of the Brooklyn Museum, first
introduced this metaphor with its companion, museums as temples, in his
University of Colorado Museum Lecture (1971/2004). Simply put, these metaphors
37
denote two competing functionalities of communication that museums may
perform: product or process. The product view corresponds to the notion of a
museum as a temple, a place where Truth is enshrined and found. If the
museum said that this or that was so, then that was a statement of truth
(Cameron, 1971/2004, p. 66).
The notion of forum, on the other hand, accentuates the process-like
nature of the museum experience. It is a materialization of equal access to
education and other cultural opportunities: a sphere of public communication
where meanings are made, values are tested, identities are (re)created, and
battles are fought. As Cameron (1971/2004) has argued,
[T]here is a real and urgent need for the reestablishment of the forum as aninstitution in society. While our bona fide museums seek to becomerelevant, maintaining their role as temples, there must be concurrentcreation of forums for confrontation, experimentation, and debate. (p. 68)
Cameron has acknowledged that, in general, society needs both temples and
forums, although he obviously opted for the latter.
When Cameron first introduced the idea of museums as forums in the early
1970s, museums in the United States were in an identity crisis. At that time, no
one knew what museums were or where they should to go, and very few
considered his metaphor to be a description of what was actually taking place in
museum spaces. What he attempted by the metaphor was not a description but a
radical reconceptualization of American museums, a kind of psychotherapy
(Cameron, 1971/2004, p. 61).
38
Now in a new millennium, Camerons vision of American museums as
places where conversation, discussion and debate take place has come to be
accepted by more and more American museums. Literature documenting this
metamorphosis abounds. Kamien (1998), for instance, has described the publics
reaction to her exhibit on AIDS (Ending: An Exhibit about Death and Loss) at the
Boston Children Museum as an explosion. Ogline (2004) has reported on the
Liberty Bell controversy, a verbal confrontation that took place at the
Independence National Historical Parks exhibition pavilion and testified to the
significance of interpretive talks at the site. Allen (1996) has reported on another
controversy that took place at the Museum of the Confederacy in Virginia, when
Robin Reed, its ex-Director, attempted to encourage a more inclusive, civil
discussion of the uncivil aspects of the war at the museum long considered to be
a shrine for Confederate die-hards. To provide visitors with food for thought, the
Museum of Science in Boston has a theatrical exhibit titled The Spotted Owl
Caf, in which two actors play characters who take opposing views over issues of
environmental protection and, as Hughes (1998) notes, the caf generates a wide
variety of visitor experiences, talks, and reactions. And Juanita Moore, the Director
of the National Civil Rights Museum, has provided her first-hand account of
visitors behaviors on the exhibition floors. She reports, Most groups are speaking
out for themselves, in some way or another, so you have many people who are
actively watching to make sure that they are being included (Honey & Moore,
1995, p. 75)
39
These are hardly isolated cases. Dubin (1999) has analyzed a variety of
museum exhibits that generated controversies, from the Metropolitan Museum of
Arts to the Brooklyn Museum of Sensation, and concludes: Museums have
become places where conflicts over some of the most vital issues regarding
national character and group identity. . . regularly break out (p. 245). Boyd (1999)
contends that museum controversies and conflicts do not simply happen; they
have become integral part of exhibitions at most American museums. Luke (2002)
also argues that, from a socio-political perspective, most museum exhibitions are
inherently provocations of critical exchange, for they are brimming with
unresolved cultural contradiction and social conflicts (p. 230). According to
McConnells (1998) extensive review of past issues of Museum News, there is an
evident and tremendous increase in controversies and debates over museum
exhibits. Five of the controversies that he refers to have occurred at the
Smithsonian including the one on NASMs Enola Gay.
Thirty years have passed since Camerons initial use of the forum and
temple, metaphors, and the forum concept seems to have become increasingly
more appropriate. American museums are now full of critical discourse. From
Bostons Museum of Arts to the Allen County-Fort Wayne Historical Society
Museum to Winston-Salems Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art to
Alaskas Pratt Museum to the Phoenix Art Museum to the California Academy of
Sciences, contentions and contestations are found nationwide. Public museums
have become more vocal than ever in the past thirty years, and controversies have
40
become a routine part of the professional life of museum staff. Thus Hall (1998)
has assured the museum community that [Y]our mission to educate the public
through your exhibits will not go away, nor will the potential for controversies (p.
4).
The idea of forum is not simply a descriptive metaphor that fits; it has
normative implications for the current formation of public museums in the United
States. Museums curators throughout the nation now embrace the notion of forum
as a guiding principle for their communicative practices of exhibition. Henderson
and Kaeppler (1997) thus note that the cabinets of curiosities are being replaced
by interpretations about the origins, meaning, and value of objects. . . Yesterdays
cabinets of curiosities are living, breathing founts of ideas (p. 1). Controversy and
confrontation are hardly accidental or unexpected in many of American museums;
they are rather staged by curators. Curators believe that controversy provides
visitors with stimuli for human synthesis, and that this is an important contribution
that museums can make to the total cause of education. Through controversy
museum visitors have opportunities to achieve coherence, growth, and an evolving
sense of communal identity. American museums today are institutional sponsors
of discussions and debates on social issues (Gaither, 1992). Hein (2000) observes
that many museums now proudly accept amplified educational mandate to
stimulate and encourage inquiry (Hein, 2000, p. 6). Particularly when it comes to
history, the crucial lesson that museums offer to their visitors is that no version of
41
the past is neutral or objective. . . [T]he ameliorative task of the history museum. . .
is to teach interpretive skepticism (Gable & Handler, 1994, p. 120).
It is important to note, however, that the idea of forum does not make
conventional exhibits obsolete. Visitors critical discourse does not replace
artifacts, interpretive labels, and displays. For instance, it is not the function of
history museums to remain completely silent and let visitors debate history
throughout their exhibit spaces; this is not what the idea of forum stipulates. It
rather suggests that museums should not privilege their status when
communicating. Forums just mean that everyone is equally authorized to speak in
museum spaces. As opposed to museums as temples, museums as forums
recognize that stories they tell visitors are no truer than visitors stories. Museum
stories are simply their own versions of the story. As Weil (1995) states:
The solution. . . is not to stop telling stories but to recognize them for whatthey are: a version, our version, but by no means the only version nornecessarily a wholly true version. . . Simple statements may be true orfalse, but something as complex as a story can never be, in that traditionallegal formulation, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. . . . Asmuseum workers, we are not merely passive reflectors of the worldsimplerecorders of its seven wondersbut active participants in the creation of itsmeaning, shapers of reality. (p. 17)
Chapter Summary
Tracing institutional metamorphosis in the American museum community,
this chapter demonstrated that the idea of communication that guides discursive
practices of exhibition has changed. Museum professionals now have embraced
the metaphor of forum for their self-understanding and ways in which they
42
communicate with their publics. Controversies are not accidents in museum
spaces; they constitute necessary part of the whole educational experience
museum exhibits can offer. The chapter also revealed that museums commitment
public enlightenment remains largely unchanged. As cultural institutions with
distinct public missions, the rationale behind this metamorphosis is the museum
communitys firm commitment, i.e., contribution to the nations total cause of
education.
43
CHAPTER 3
LOCATING THE ENOLA GAY CONTROVERSY: ITS TIME AND PLACE
The previous chapter provided an institutional background to the emerging
Enola Gay controversy. It described the changes that have occurred within the
museum community and how those changes have redefined and refocused the
role of museums in American culture. By the middle of the 20th century the
educational role of most public museums had broadened well beyond the
cabinets of curiosities, and the role of museums as public forums was broadly
accepted.
This chapter will examine more narrowly the unique roles of the National Air
and Space Museum (NASM), one of the newest affiliated unit of the Smithsonian
museums. It will also discuss the unclear place of the Enola Gay in American
history and the tension it created regarding NASMs epideictic mission and its
educational goal as the Museum of the American Century. Finally, it will describe
the script that the Smithsonian prepared for its exhibit commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the end of World War II and the proposed role of the Enola Gay in
that exhibit, with a brief discussion of the particular historical context in which such
an exhibit had emerged within the Smithsonian.
44
The Smithsonian and its National Air and Space Museum
The Origin
In the mid-1840s the United States government received a half million
dollar bequest from James Smithson. The recently deceased Smithson was an
English scientist who had never visited the United States nor had any known
personal or professional associations with it. The reason for his gift remains a
mystery. After debating what to do with thiswhat was at the timevery large
bequest, Congress eventually authorized the establishment of a center for
scientific investigation with its affiliated museums. In 1853 a site in Washington,
D.C. was assigned to the new Smithsonian Institution, and Joseph Henry was
named as its founding Secretary. The Smithsonian was never the property of the
State and has, from its inception, been, by law, a public institution independent of
the U.S. federal government. Leonard Carmichael, the Smithsonian Secretary
from 1953-63, explained that the [Smithsonian] Institution is by no means
exclusively concerned with museum displays (quoted in Conaway, 1995, p. 276).
All of these make the Smithsonian and its museums a premier and typically
American cultural institution in the United States.
The National Air and Space Museum is a relatively late comer to the
Smithsonians Washington, D.C. museum complex in Washington, D.C. NASM
was officially authorized in 1946, by 77a of Title 20 U.S.C., otherwise known as
the National Air and Space Museum Act ("National Air and Space Museum Act,"
45
1946); however, the appropriation of the funds to carry out the actual construction
of the museum had to wait for another twenty five years (Roland, 1993;
Smithsonian general background, 1970). Nevertheless, the Smithsonians relation
to aviation and, by extension, space flight has been long and passionate and
preceded the actual authorization and construction of NASM (Chaikin, 1997; 2002
official guide, 2002). In fact, the origins of an air and space museum date back to
the late 19th century, 1887 to be more exact, when the Smithsonian welcomed
Samuel Langley as its new Secretary. Langley had always been interested in
aeronautics. A proto-type aviator, he was the designer of Aerodrome, an aircraft
with which he twice made successful unmanned flight. During his tenure at the
Smithsonian, the Institute initiated a succession of manned flight attempts with his
Great Aerodrome. Albeit unsuccessful, these attempts postdated the Wright
brothers.
During this period the Smithsonians aviation collection was begun with the
receipt of a donation of 20 beautiful Chinese kites, a donation it received from the
Chinese Imperial Commission. From that time on, the Smithsonian aggressively
sought to collect more aircraft and other artifacts of historical significance, in the
hope for ultimately building a museum devoted exclusively to history of aviation
and aeronautic technology. Funding had, however, always been a major problem.
While artifacts and aircraft themselves were either donated or loaned at minimum
cost, the problem of accommodation and maintenance posed difficulty (Hotz,
1979). Some remained in the Tin Shed, an old military communication building,
46
while others were at the Art and Industry Building, popularly known as the
Smithsonian Castle. It did not take long for the Smithsonian, to realize that these
spaces were too small to house such a collection.
Nevertheless, the problem of funding and accommodation did not prevent
the Smithsonians already massive collection from growing. By the mid 20th
century, historic aircraft such as Charles Lindberghs Spirit of St. Louis and the
Wright brothers Kitty Hawk Flyer became part of the Smithsonian collection. With
the onset of the age of air travel, the Smithsonian also started to receive donations
of civil and commercial aircraft, including the Douglas DC-7, the worlds first
commercially viable airplane. After the two World Wars, a large influx of military
aircraft came to the Smithsonian, including the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
bomber, Grummans F4F Wildcat fighter, and Douglass Slowly but Deadly
dauntless bomber. Military donation also included such spoils of war as Germanys
V-2 rocket and Japans Zero Fighter. With the advent of supersonic and space
flight, high-tech gadgets such as the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and the
Mercury and the Apollo space capsules joined its collection.
The National Air and Space Museum was officially opened on July 4, 1976
as part of the nations Bicentennial celebration. Its a bird, its a plane, its
Supermuseum! Its the National Air and Space Museum (Huxtable, 1976, p. 22).
Located conveniently between Independence Avenue and the Washington Mall,
NASM has become the citys and the nations premier tourist attraction. The core
of the Museum is its collections: nearly 30,000 aviation artifacts and 9,000 space
47
aircrafts, including more than 350 aircraft and scores of rockets and spacecrafts
(2002 official guide, 2002, p.11).
NASM is not only a Mecca for aviation and space enthusiasts. A cross
between Disneyland and the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, it also bring[s] joy,
instruction, and wonder toas the expression goeschildren of all ages
(Huxtable, 1976, p. 22). By the end of its first year, NASM has already welcomed
10 million visitors (Smithsonian Institution, 1977). By the early 1990s, more than
175 million people had visited the museum, making it the most visited museum in
the world. Visitors now come from every state of the United States and one out of
five comes from overseas (1991 official guide, 1991).
The opening of the Supermuseum on the Mall was significant for the
Smithsonian and, by extension, the American museum community at large. It was
the realization of Langleys and the Smithsonians long-awaited-dream. Their
passion and fascination with aviation had finally come to fruition. More importantly,
NASM was the best the museum community could offer to the American public
and the rest of the world regarding the history of aviation and aerospace. It
carefully chronicles the history of humankinds efforts to fly. The museum gives
visitors a first-hand impression of how aviation and space flight have changed the
ways in which we travel by air, prepare for national defense, study the Earth and
its resources, and explore the solar system and the universe beyond (2002 official
guide, 2002, p. 7; Smith, 1977). In so doing, NASM follows the terms of James
Smithsons will: I then bequeath the whole of my property. . . to the United States
48
of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution,
an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge among men (quoted in
Oehser, 1949, p. 12).
The Air and Space Museum as American Epideictic
To fully understand the significance of NASM in America, the above
account alone is not sufficient. While Langleys passion and the Smithsonians
massive collection of artifacts no doubt constitute a significant part of the
museums character, the realization of an independent national air (and space)
museum should be viewed in a broader cultural milieu. Since the early years of the
20th century, airplanes and (particularly manned) flight have occupied a special
place in American cultural discourse (Corn, 1983; Pisano, 2003). And it is
aviations special place in American culture that gives NASM a unique iconic
status.
In the first place, the airplane is a significant symbol of 20th century
American culture. By way of myriad sourcesprint, illustration, film, cartoon, toys,
radio, and personal travelimages of flight remain. . . parcel of the American
experience and its popular imagination (Bilstein, 2003, p. 32). Aviation is a
realization of the ultimate human dream; manned flight is the epitome of our
conquest of the nature, i.e., the law of gravity. The airplane is thus not just another
machine; it rather symbolize[s] the promise of twentieth-century technology, a
49
shining promise of the machine age and exemplars of the gospel of flight
(Bilstein, 2003, p. 18).
Second and more importantly, for many Americans aviation is a unique
American accomplishment, a product of American genius and spirit that
contributes significantly to the advancement of humanity. As August Post, then
Secretary of Aero Club of America, exclaimed on the occasion of Orville Wrights
first successful flight: The whole town is up in the air. . . All the big guns are going
to boom this afternoon and the great American Eagle is going to spread its
wings. . . . [o]n account of the success of Orville Wright and the supremacy of
American Genius (quoted in Crouch, 2003, p. 5). As a parcel of experience and
imagination, this image of aviation as a uniquely American accomplishment has
appeared in many forms. For instance, many Americans consider flight as to be a
brave, heroic act. Thus, many of the great heroes in American fictions and comics,
from Superman to Batman to a high school teacher in the television series The
Greatest American Hero, can fly. By the same token, those who have made
significant accomplishments in the field of aviation are accorded with the status of
heroes and heroines in American culture; the Wright brothers, Charles Lindbergh,
and Amelia Earhart, to name a few, are all American heroes and heroines.
Moreover, this American image of aviation as a heroic accomplishment is
attributed not only to those who fly or flew, but also extends to those who have
made their flights possible. In other words, aviation is not only an individual
accomplishment; its heroic status is also accorded to groups, teams,
50
organizations, communities, and, most importantly, America. During the interwar
years, for instance, Germany was reputed for its excellence in industrial production
and technological advancement. In this historical context, as Bilstein (2003) notes,
the image of aviation as a unique American accomplishment made a subtle
alteration: American mass production was seen as the avenger to the German
Kraftwerk. Mass production was, after all, a fundamental principle of Americas
industrial strength (p. 19). It was this industrial principle that enabled American
military and economic dominance to persist all through the 20th century. From this
perspective, American air heroes were not only ace fighter pilots. In American
culture airplane designers, engineers, mechanics and maintenance workers, and
even those who worked at a factorys production lines at home became a part of
the aeronautical mythology (Bilstein, 2003, p. 19). John Steinbecks Bombs Away,
a novel about an American bomber team, perhaps best captures this unique
American idea:
This is a kind of organization that Americans above all others are bestcapable of maintaining. The bomber team is truly a democraticorganization. No single man can give all the others to make a bombereffective. . . Not everyone on a football team insists on being quarterback.He plays the position he is best fitted to play. The best football team is onewhere every member plays his own particular game as a part of the team.The best bomber team is the one where each man plays for the success ofthe mission. (quoted in Goldstein, 2003, p. 240)
The symbolic significance attached to aviation in American c