CHAPTER 4. MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS OF TRANSFORMATION
4.3 Towards transformed museums
In the end only three of the Niemand Report´s 34 recommendations were approved or implemented (Pauw 1994: Annexure, Oberholzer 1994: 27-30).30 No White Papers were published on this report because of what Oberholzer (1994: 27) describes as ill-considered recommendations. He goes on to state that the reception of the report by the Department of National Education was unknown because the department’s records were confidential.
The museum has been emphasised as static and enforcing colonial and apartheid ideals. I have shown that museums were never static and underwent several changes. There was not one version of White heritage and it was a problem to define it. Museums were only partial repositories of White nationalistic ideologies because of the fact that museums and the government had problems defining White heritage. It was not until the late 1970s and 1980s that such ideals were properly consolidated in the museums at a time when apartheid was drawing to its end.
importance in a democratic society (Odendaal 1994: 3). During the 1980s there was an immense focus on Zulu history. The focus was to be expected because it complied with the ideals that Whites had about Africans and the ‘homelands’ (Nuttall et al 1998: 96-97, 114).
African traditional heritage was used as a means of resistance just as it had been used by the government to oppress Africans. The focus on African traditional heritage used and promoted during Transformation is therefore in a complex position of acting like apartheid structures and at the same time being a means of resistance.
The protests of the late 1970s and early 1980s gave rise to a tricameral parliament (1983) that was a way of dividing the government´s opponents (MacDonald 2006: 70). The system attempted to co-opt Coloured and Indian groups into government, but not Africans. Coloured and Indian participation was in the subordinated houses of parliament. The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act 110 of 1983 focused on differentiating cultures and specifically set out to respect, further and protect the self-determination of population groups. The 1983 constitution defines ‘own affairs’ as ‘Matters which specially or differentially affect a population group in remaintenance of its identity and the upholding and furtherance of its way of life, traditions and customs’. Legally the apartheid policy concerning culture was here clearly spelled out. I agree with Owen and Holleman (1989: 12) who argue that the constitution showed an obsession with race and group identity and thus indirectly confirmed the wish in the state for museums as part of the ideological state apparatuses. Dominy (1991- 05-05) held that generations of implicit racism now became explicit in a system which ruined museums and that the themes and policies of museums became the hegemony of militaristic Whites. The constitution, although it somehow opened up the community, still enforced separate identities, cultural uniqueness and overall segregation. Previous constitutions did not explain cultural heritage or identity in this way. This shows that during the end of apartheid there was a need to define what White heritage was and what it was not. The constitution, by acknowledging the uniqueness of all different heritages, retained the supremacy of White heritage and ensured that heritage did not intermingle.
The concept of ‘own affairs’ (White) and ‘general affairs’ (black) museums was announced and published in the Cultural Institutions Amendment Act 25 of 1983. Oberholzer (1993: 33) and Pauw (1994: Annexure) observe that the act took effect in 1984 and that seven of the 18 national museums under the Department of National Education (in terms of the Cultural Institution Act 29 of 1969) became ‘own affairs’ and transferred to the Department of
Education and Culture (House of Assembly). Webb (1994: 23-24) argues that these represented White history. The other eleven museums remained with the Department of National Education as general affairs museums. Webb (1994: 23-24) asserts that these were natural history museums. This is wrong, however, as I will discuss below.
According to Oberholzer (1993: 33) and Pauw (1994: Annexure) the Educational Advisory Committee for museums was never consulted about the changes. Museums were only informed in 1985. The Natal Museum, however, seemed to be aware of the act before it was amended. They defined it as far-reaching and significant. Natal Museum held that the act would enable the museum to function better and that it had come at a crucial time. After the act was amended the museum was dissatisfied that it was the minister that elected the chairperson of the Board of Trustees and not the board itself (NMAR 1980/1981, 1984/1985, 1985/1986).
The reasons for the ‘own affairs’ and ’general affairs’ division was the breakdown of the provincial system. It had become necessary for the government to decide what would fall under whose control (Broughton 1988-08-09). The museum community was not pleased with this development. Margaretha Ambler said to The Natal Mercury that ‘when something is
“own affairs” it means it belongs to a particular race group’ (Broughton 1988-08-09) and Christopher Till, chairperson of SAMA, said to The Sunday Times that the situation for the museums had worsened in 1983 and that:
Before, there were museums on the national, provincial and local level. The new constitution further divided museums into own and general affairs. This led to a greater division and disintegration among museums in general … As a result of this uncertainty, development ceased to a large extent – these museums became nobody’s responsibility (Jansen 1991-01-20).
Although the concepts in the act were only implemented in 1985 and only existed for about ten years, the act was made into a symbol of museums in apartheid South Africa by museologists such as Dominy (2004), Webb (1994) and Gore (2004). The fact that few museologists were pleased with the division is seldom taken into consideration. Nor is the opposition to it. Both the Natal Museum and the Msunduzi Museum (VM) were considered
‘own affairs’. The Natal Museum was a natural history museum and had been classified as such, but owing to its collection and display of White material culture it became classified under ‘own affairs’. This shows the inconsistency in the structure and the arbitrary norms of
apartheid classifications. Although apartheid is usually narrated as having rigid norms from which power was executed, my field research has shown that the system was highly inconsistent. The positioning of apartheid as a rigid framework served a political purpose during Transformation in order to point out what museums should not be.
According to the Msunduzi Museum´s (VM) director, Ivor Pols, the concepts of ‘own affairs’
and ’general affairs’ hampered the idea of the museum to develop into a multicultural museum (Von Klemperer 2002-02-21). The director made this statement after the museum had undergone serious Transformation in 2002. His claim may be an after-construction and could be subservient to the socio-political climate, but Pols went on to assert that when the museum moved to a new building32 he had approached the government to allow him one wing to display Indian heritage. According to Pols, his plan could not proceed when the museum became an ‘own affairs’ museum. He said that it was only after 1994 that it was able to become a multicultural museum (Von Klemperer 2002-02-21). I have not found any archival material that supports Pols´ statement. The new building was acquired in 1987, three years after the ‘own affairs’ concept was implemented, and there is no formal legislation that would have hindered his plans. The Natal Museum was also classified as ‘own affairs’ and displayed both Indian and African heritage. So there was nothing that hindered the Msunduzi Museum (VM) from doing so. I suggest that the director in his statement was trying to correct the past and the institution´s connection to White dominance. My informants claim that there was some resistance from the director towards change. Pols´ statements express what could be called the amnesia of apartheid.
In 1986 the pass laws were repealed, South Africa declared a state of emergency, and internecine war33 broke out in KwaZulu and Natal. At the same time the international community intensified its critique against South Africa with sanctions and boycotts (Davenport & Saunders 2000: 692). The museum community started to discuss how to be more relevant to black communities. The 1987 SAMA conference in Pietermaritzburg, hosted by the Natal Museum, aimed to examine how the museum could adapt to the changing social environment because ‘We do not know, for we have never seriously attempted to find out’
32 Longmarket Street Girls´ School building, see Appendix: Genealogy of the Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex.
33 Also referred to as Udlame, the violence.
(The Natal Witness 1987-05-06a). John Kinard34 stated that the museologists of South Africa knew more about African animals than they did about African people, and he meant that museums were places where the visitors could be helped to understand themselves, their past, present and future (The Natal Witness 1987-05-06a, b, c, d 1987-05-08, The Natal Mercery 1987-05-09, The Daily News 1987-05-06, 1987-05-11). I found that although the Natal Museum had developed more community-friendly programmes before this conference, the active approach of challenging old structures became more visible after the conference. The Msunduzi Museum (VM) seemed to be unaffected by the conference message.
During the conference director Brian Stuckenberg35 of the Natal Museum predicted the future and said ‘to exhibit African cultural goods in the context of academic studies to which white and other ethnic groups are not equally subjected, will soon be seen as discriminatory’ (The Natal Witness 1987-05-06a). The conference led to the adoption of the important
‘Pietermaritzburg declaration’ stating that museums should be open to all, no matter race or creed. The conference came to be known as a ‘watershed conference’ involving several controversies (Nigel 2006-04-11). Stuckenberg said in opening the conference that:
‘Museums must begin to plan for the different South Africa on the threshold of which we now stand’ (The Natal Witness 1987-05-06a). The week of the conference was also the week of the election and Dominy (1991-05-05) held that the words spoken at the conference had some impact on how society and the museum were seen.
The conference challenged government ideals and members of the Department of National Education were present, so revealing White awareness and self-critique of heritage productions. The conference was the first at which the South African museum was critiqued as being eurocentric and Victorian. It also led to the production of many articles criticising museums. From here an epistemology of transformative museological writing developed.
Very few articles, however, have been innovative in their critique. Most of them repeat statements made by Stuckenberg (1987) and Wright and Mazel (1987) of museums being eurocentric, exclusive, not community friendly and unrepresentative. Writings on this topic were a way for White museologists to debate their concerns about change and their negotiations shaped Transformation. After 1994 multicultural researchers tried to come to terms with the past and continued to shape their perception of Transformation.
34 An African-American guest speaker from the Anacostia Neighbourhood Museum in Washington USA.
35 Director 1976-1994 and first appointed to the museum in 1953.
A significant event that contributed to understanding Natal Museum´s self-critique was the director’s travels to Germany in 1989. The visit to Germany was partly to investigate how museums there dealt with the period after World War II in relation to Nazi heritage (The Natal Mercury 1989-04-25).36 During my fieldwork I have come to understand that White South Africans tend to compare apartheid to Germany during the Nazi period. Relating themselves to the aftermath of World War II gives them a reference of how to deal with their own guilt of apartheid. Stuckenberg told The Daily News that museums could be an instrument of social change and reconciliation if they were able to reflect the segments of society honestly. He held that correcting past distortions and misconceptions was necessary and appealed to educated society to view cultural diversity as a source of pride not a potential conflict (The Daily News 1989-05-02, 1989-05-06). Stuckenberg said: ‘Through museums you can discover your own history and culture. Sometimes people oppose their pasts when they are confronted with them.’ (The Daily News 1989-05-02). The director´s comparison of apartheid with the Nazi era showed that people reacted similarly; the older generation wanted to forget and the younger generation wished to move on (Stuckenberg 1993-11-09, Nigel 2006-04-11). Stuckenberg said:
In South Africa, we see escape in the literal sense by emigration, and we can see also signs in the white community of the appearance of a collective amnesia suggestively like that in Germany. I believe we cannot pretend that apartheid never occurred, and I am convinced that our museums must be active champions of cross- cultural respect, sympathy, tolerance and equity. We must act now to help our society to confront that traumatic period as frankly and as quickly as possible (Stuckenberg 1993-11-09).
Stuckenberg had an interest in new museology that deeply influenced the self-critique carried out by the museum. Harrison (2005: 43-48), Meijers (1996: 8), Bal (1996b: 201-202) and Stam (2005: 55-60) have argued that new museology aims to place the message, not the object, in focus. I suggest that this became a political point from which apartheid could begin to be problematised in museums. The Natal Museum had already started a programme before Transformation to change in line with new museology. Despite these developments, few museologists have given any credit to the developments during apartheid and have described them as static, Victorian and racist. Mainly because it serves a point in post-apartheid cultural political debate, to include something positive about this period would weaken the position from which Transformation is argued.
36 He discovered in Germany that museums were going through a change and that focus was shifting away from the Victorian ideal to a more issue-orientated approach. He noted that South Africa had a historical approach while the German museums had a more contemporary approach.
At the same time that Stuckenberg visited Germany, the Cultural Institutions Act 66 of 1989 (House of Assembly), was promulgated to regulate the affairs of the seven ‘own affairs’
museums that had been transferred to the Department of Education and Culture (House of Assembly) (Pauw 1994: Annexure, Oberholzer 1993: 34, Dominy 2004: 136, Webb 1994:
20). The act gave the museum´s Board of Trustees autonomy in economic matters. This autonomy led to the Natal Museum appointing Mabongi Mtshali as an educational officer, making her the first African ever to be employed as such by a museum in South Africa. What remained for the Natal Museum was to repeal various regulations and amendments in order to give legal force to her appointment (NMAR 1987/1988). Mtshali was instrumental in establishing a museum club for African Township children. She brought the museum to the township schools, tried to encourage the children to stay in school, and implemented a means to enhance their learning. My informant Nigel (2006-04-11) describes the club as ‘a way to overcome the horrible apartheid legacy’. His view was shared by my informant Ada (2006- 03-21). The Cultural Institution Act 66 of 1989 (House of Assembly) was for the Natal Museum a way to proceed with Transformation and played an important role in how the museum altered its activities to accommodate all groups in society, especially Africans.