CHAPTER 3. A POLITICAL BACKDROP TO TRANSFORMATION OF SOUTH
3.1 Transformation in museums
At the opening of the Robben Island Museum in 1997 Nelson Mandela said that during apartheid, museums in South Africa reflected the political ideals of a minority and the exclusion of others (Mandela 1997: 3). Mandela expressed what Stuckenberg (1987)13 had said earlier; that museums in South Africa were essentially eurocentric. There is no doubt that eurocentrism is important in the understanding of Transformation, but I would like to stress that it is also a ‘lazy signifier’ that needs to be contextualised. In a South African museological context the concept has a negative connotation because it associates museums with what Shohat and Stam (1994: 2, 57, 100) and Serequeberhan (2002: 64) describe as the oppressive colonial conquest, the imaginary superiority of European heritage that systematically degraded Africans as incomplete beings, positioning them into arbitrary European hierarchal classification systems. Since colonialism introduced eurocentrism to
13 See also Dominy (1992), Wilmot (1987), Hofmeyer (1987), Wright and Mazel (1987), Odendaal (1995), Owen and Holleman (1989), Keene and Wanless (2002), Dlamuka and Ndlovu (2002), Wakashe (2001), Abungu (2004), Dlamuka (2003) and Hall (1999). All are contemporary discussions.
South Africa, museums could at worst be regarded as armed ethnocentrism in institutionalised form. As I discuss later, eurocentrism normalised colonial values and made them invisible and undisputed. Eurocentrism has to be deconstructed so that different themes hidden in the overall concept can be exposed. Europe is and was a vastly diverse cultural continent as were the people that lived eurocentrism in South Africa.
Transformation is an attempt to rid the museum of eurocentrism. Given that eurocentrism is multifaced and has different expressions, the critique of eurocentric museums is a political construct. It is based on a critique against White South African heritage that was incorporated into the apartheid agenda with the aim of unifying Whites against blacks. The concept of eurocentrism cannot be separated from Transformation because it shapes part of its discourse, e.g., the Natal Museum and the Msunduzi Museum had two very different expressions of eurocentrism, which must be addressed when analysing Transformation. The concept of eurocentrism in South African museological writings, especially during the 1980s, was used as a discursive rhetorical tool to express an apologetic reaction, because it was seen as equal to racism. After 1994, eurocentrism became an instrument to find new discursive identities in a transforming museum sector. Eurocentrism was articulated as that which the museum sector did not want to be, and was juxtaposed to disclose values that could be identified as South African. This was an effort to find new models on which the museum structure might find a transformed shape.
In his speech at Robben Island Mandela (1997) clarified what museums should move away from and change into. Transformation in museums means change – a change of museums and change of values. For my informant Gert (2006-04-28), it meant having an institution that reflected the changes in broader society. Transformation objectives do not only include museums, but entail a process of changing society at large that started around the 1990s to make South Africa inclusive and democratic. Transformation of the socio-political, economic and cultural sectors in South Africa can be defined as a moral struggle against racial divisions (Johnson-Hill 1998: 2); the termination of conflict between dominant groups and subservient groups (Mbeki 1998: 43); and the reconstruction of society and alienation of marginalising (Makgoba 1997: 182). Furthermore, it is a movement away from elitist control (Togni 1996:
109) and is ridding South Africa of the apartheid system and fundamentally changing its social landscape (Tondi 2005: 135).
The writers referenced above argue that Transformation is a fundamental break with colonial and apartheid values, structures and ideologies. They express a political attempt of social and cultural political discourse that aspires to break with the past and be different. In this sense the break has furthered the interpretation of Transformation as an event. Museum Transformation is dependent on the fundamental restructuring of society at large which works on multiple levels. It will take time for the museums to find new forms because the larger social context has not yet resituated itself in its new framework. Transformation is at present still in the making. It constitutes cultural change, but culture continues to be a weapon as used during apartheid and it is still an integral political platform where the government and other actors reshape social life. The danger of using culture as a weapon was pointed out by Sachs (1991) as long as a decade ago, who argued for its annihilation.
Museum Transformation is associated with other reconstructive guidelines for society, all of which have in common the attempt to rid museums and cultural political discourse of eurocentrism. Mathers (2000: 46) and Dondolo (2005: 68) suggest that Transformation has been proposed as a complete reconstruction of the museum sector, an argument that this thesis deconstructs and refines. Transformation advances more ideological factors as presented by Mathers (2000: 46), Ngubane (1996) and Dubin (2006: 5-6), who argue for principles of justice, democracy, non-racism, non-sexism, inclusion, assimilation, participation, collaboration and eradication. Transformation for these writers is a way of addressing what Ngubane (1996: 2) regarded as the maldistribution of culture during the apartheid era amid the absence of freedom of expression and critical thought. These explanations follow general restructuring guidelines and are somewhat broad and formless for adoption in a museological context.
Transformation is about changing who has the right to work in cultural institutions and who has the right to represent and be represented. These rights were strictly reserved for Whites.
Dlamuka and Ndlovu (2002: 46), Corsane (2004: 7), Layne (2004: 19), Grootboom (2004: 43- 44), Dubin (2006: 5-6), Keene and Wanless (2002: 43), Dondolo (2005: 68), Mosala (2003:
2), Mpumlwana, Corsane, Makhurane and Rassool (2002: 246) regard Transformation as a community-centred approach where the community members act as specialists in museums.
The community-centre approach is a reaction and an attempt to void the previous representations made by White academics and to reclaim the right to represent the self in the museums. This approach has in some cases actualised itself in the museums, but also requires
a self-reflective community active in the creation of heritage. This view of Transformation deals with ownership of the museums and my informant Mpho (2006-10-30) argued that the most important factor in Transformation was to see all ‘cultural groups’ use the museum.
What he suggested was a democratisation of the museum as a place and an attempt to break the previously segregated heritage environment. I shall elaborate these points later.
Corsane (2004: 7) holds that Transformation is broadening the understanding of what heritage constitutes and understanding that heritage resources need to be managed in an integrated way. Others argue that it is about transforming collection policies, exhibition policies and audiences (Dubin 2006: 5-6, Keene & Wanless 2002: 43). The ideological approach to Transformation is applied by these writers in a structural manner, but they give no practical suggestion as to how the museums should achieve their goals.
The Natal Museum was the only one that defined what Transformation was to them:
‘Transformation in itself is not an objective, but describes a process and the manner in which an organisation sets its objectives and goals and strives towards them’ (Natal Museum 2002).
The museum shows a different understanding of Transformation and a realisation that Transformation implies ideological objectives that the museum must react to and implement.
The museum also indicated that there was not one but multiple definitions of Transformation with one real agenda: to be different from before and different from apartheid in particular.
My informant Bill (2006-04-18) regarded Transformation as hidden in a welter of political and social confusion that the governing people did not seem to be able to separate.
Transformation includes all aspects of changing the perception of society, its culture and institutions and it is not merely about changing displays and collections. The same demands are placed on reconstructing society as are placed on transforming museums. Transformation is in the making and is the negotiation of legal and structural changes.