Kreps. Decolonizing anthropology museums: The Dutch example. 1988

This paper was born out of a concern for liberating present-day museums from their colonial heritage and transforming them into institutions that can not only serve as storehouses of history, but also help create it. I believe one of the fundamental goals of contemporary anthropology museums is to promote cultural and international awareness. Anthroplogy museums can use their collections and facilities to help bridge cultural gaps between groups by educating their publics about the world's peoples and their various ways of life. By examining the kinds of forces that shape museums we may learn to decode presentation methods for their biases and limitations and thereby enhance their potential for fostering cross-cultural and international awareness. (19)

One of the aims of this research has been to link the academic world of anthroplogy and that of the museum profession, to contribute to closing the gap that occurred between the two institutions some fifty years ago. Much of the research and literature being produced by anthropologists and historians today could be extremely helpful in decolonizing museums. (20)

Abstract:

Dutch anthropology museums, first established in the late 1800s, developed within the context of an expanding empire and subsequent colonialism. How and why non-Western cultures were represented in Dutch museums largely reflected colonial relations with non-Western peoples. As relations between Dutch society and non-Westerners have changed over the years, museums have mirrored these changes. Dutch anthropology musuems have been tranformed from products and tools of colonialism into institutions dedicated to encouraging international understanding and cooperation. Dutch anthropology museums have been undergoing decolonization since World War II. This study has attempted to show how museum methods are shaped by historical and cultural factors. Museums have been viewed as products of history and culture. Anthropological approaches to the study of cultural phenomena have been applied to Dutch museums. Thus, the study has been an anthropology of anthropology museums.
Chapter I Introduction

Dutch anthropology museums can basically be seen as products, and in several cases, tools of Dutch colonialism. As relations between the Dutch and non-Western peoples have changed over the years due to historical, political, economic, and social processes, these changes have been reflected in the museums. Over the years, Dutch anthropology museums have been transformed from products and tools of the Dutch colonial enterprise into institutions dedicated to promoting greater cross-cultural and international awareness. Since World War II, Dutch museums have been undergoing a process of decolonization. Decolonization can been seen as a means of revealing the 'inherent ideologies lodged in any collection or exhibition'. It is a way of recognizing how historical and sociocultural factors have shaped museum practices and how these practices have and can reflect the relations between Westerners and (2)non-Westerners. Furthermore, decolonization also involves a reorientation or restructuring of the museums' purpose and functions, or who it serves and for what reasons.

Museums as social institutions do not exist as isolated entities in society, but evolve in accordance with other social conventions. As cultural products, they embody the ideas, customs, values, and beliefs of the societis in which they exist. Physically and conceptually, museums can represent the consciousness of a society at particular points in time. (3)

Museums of anthropology can play a significant role in encouraging cultural and international awareness in society. However, in many cases, anthropology museums are still informed with the kind of thinking that went into their creation. (...) These practices tend to reinforce the 'us' and 'them' syndrome, or ideas of 'otherness'.

To be relevant in today's society, many museums need to undergo decolonization. (4)

In writing the social history of museums, writers are illuminating the ways in which Western values and perceptions of non-Western peoples are reflected in museums. The way in which non-Western cultures are represented in museums may exhibit 'our' view of social reality more than 'theirs'. (11)

The way in which anthropologists have studied other cultures, become experts and authorities on them, and objectified and represented them in museums and texts can be seen as an intellectual possession of 'others'. This intellectual or conceptual control is inherently based on a sense of superiority. Many of these notions have been translated either directly or indirectly into museum practices and presentations. (12)

Europeans have been collecting objects from non-Western people since their first contacts. Trade or exchange of objects has been part of contact history. However, contact history has involved more than just an exchange of material goods; contact history has also resulted in cultural exchange. Museums and museum collections can represent the conceptual control over non-Western people, as well as the material possession of a culture. (14)

Museums, since their establishment in the late nineteenth century, have contributed to the creation of Westerners' perceptions of non-Western peoples. Often considered respectable scientific institutions, museums (15) have been seen by many as places that only represent the truth. What a visitor sees in a museum must be authentic or true, otherwise it would not be in the museum. But museums embody, relfect, and in many cases serve to affirm prevailing social values. 'Museums are products of the establishment and represent the assumptions and definitions of that establishment'. (16)

Chapter II The historical development of Dutch anthroplogy museums and the presentation of culture

Ethnology and ethnography, the sciences that underpinned early anthropology museums, were the offspring of 18th century history and philosophy influenced by such figures as Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesguieu. In simplest terms, these sciences were concerned wih the study of humankind in all its varied ways and means of survival. (26) (...) Difference observed between cultures were interpreted as different stages in the unilinear development of mankind, or rather, progressive evolution. Antropologists focused on so-called primitive man because they were thought to represent earlier phases in cultural evolution. (27) The concept of the primitive referred to an earlier stage in human development, one that was presumed fixed and unchanging. (...) Following the tradition of the Cabinet of Curiosities, primitive peoples were considered part of nature. (28)

A number of colonial museums were founded in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.