CHAPTER 5. CONTESTED PLACE AND CONTESTED MUSEUMS
5.5 What was Transformation of place?
The eventual renaming ceremony was done in a spirit of multiculturalism. Entertainment from Indian, Afrikaner and Zulu communities was provided. Peter Nel (2007-10-03) called the renaming a very historic moment in the history of the museum. Thokozani Dlamini,100 representing Zanele Hlatshwayo,101 read the minister´s speech (Hlatshwayo 2007-10-03). It reconnected the re-naming to the struggle, IKS, multiculturalism and participation since the name-change opened the museum to whoever wished to visit it. While reading the speech the museum activated a power-point presentation flashing the sentence ‘The name can change but the history will remain’ – a sentence that I interpret as an assurance that the Voortrekker Complex would not be neglected and neither would the history of any other ‘cultural groups’.
Despite this assurance, Dlamini managed to forget that the museum was now called the Msunduzi Museum Incorporating the Voortrekker Complex and called it Msunduzi Museum, which caused some discontent among some of the staff-members. They continued to debate amongst themselves whether the Voortrekker Complex is part of the name and will not simply fade into insignificance.
museums were seen as White places for White people. This was regarded as necessary to alter during Transformation because it had negative associations.
The meaning of the place is not constructed by just one group, but also by people who do not use the place. Drawing on Massey (1994: 120, 147) and Tilley (1993: 82), I assert that the identity and group references of places are located in a socio-political dimension that constitutes meaning. People control and reproduce meaning according to group relations;
therefore Whites were not solely responsible for the association of the museums as contested and for exclusive places. The narrative of museums as belonging to Whites was upheld and furthered by other groups, who all acted on the meanings embraced by White dominance, and applied this narrative to the museums.
Since the two museums were constructed, controlled and predominantly used by Whites, they became White places and were experienced as inaccessible. Because Whites had through political power subjugated and controlled other groups, this subtext was applied to the museum. Place forms memory, memory forms place, and the urban landscape and the museum remind people of an oppressive past. The contested meaning the museum held during apartheid and at present was a constructed narrative of groups who were not White. The more positive meaning that Whites are associated with museums is at present not expressed in the dominant narrative. To acknowledge that museums have always had multicultural meanings makes the framing of place less statically associated with oppression, and a constructive multicultural museum discourse can be generated.
There is sometimes a discrepancy between museological and political discourses and ethnographic reality. It is therefore important to analyse how Transformation locates itself.
This can be unlocked if place is analysed in a temporal historical sequence, for this approach becomes a crucial discursive tool to clarify perceptions of museums. Museum Transformation was about altering and gives to museums new positive meanings which are visualised in museum activities. Political rhetoric, however, continues to lock the museum in a discourse of segregation.
Change is carried out practically by employing a multiracial work-force to initiate different decision processes and representations and to encourage new audiences to visit museums. En- racing museums make them seem more multicultural as the visitor can relate to the people
employed which will produce an experience of ownership of the museums. Transformation of place means changing the sense of ownership, going from a place experienced as exclusively belonging to Whites to a place belonging to a multicultural South Africa.
Museums are places dedicated to knowledge and are therefore symbolic of the culture in which that knowledge is produced (Cameron 2004: 76, Radley 1991: 71). I argue that the museum architecture manifests a symbiotic relationship with the group that produced it. Yates (1989: 249-262) argues that taxonomy and science underline the provision of culture, in this case eurocentric culture. The meaning of place is connected to how activities, collections and displays are related to architecture and how people act it out. The museum has produced eurocentric scientific knowledge and the building has become a symbol of control shaped by Whites. Radley (1991: 69) argues that the building is not just a container but a connective tissue of the display. I argue that the museum´s architecture and displays reflect a symbiotic relationship, where the architecture stipulates taxonomy, the order of displays and bodily movement through the museum.
When the eurocentric architecture is acted on, the classification is translated, understood and becomes part of the cultural identity of the visitor. Multiple versions of eurocentrism vary, depending on who experiences them and they become a lived experience. The architecture as seen in the Natal Museum bolsters the classification of objects and in the Msunduzi Museum the Church of Vow display hall amplifies the religious connection. My informant David (2006-04-24) explained that the building also stipulated the design of the display.102 For him the display would ideally imitate the architecture as it was necessary for building and artefact to work together in unity. The displays in this way of assessment become related to the building and add further meanings to the place.103
The museums, as a place, are in constant conflict because the meaning of colonialism, apartheid, and Transformation are narrated simultaneously. Political and museological discourses continuously emphasise the malevolence of colonial and apartheid time, making it difficult to communicate the museum as a democratic place. Since Whites attached an overall positive meaning to museums, it is predominantly Africans, Indians and Coloureds who need to reconcile with the place. The museum needs to be reconciled and meaning changed among
102 Which can be connected to Radley´s (1991: 69) argument.
103 This assessment was realised in the display ‘A river runs through it...Msunduzi’.
those groups to whom it is contested. If they reconcile, and as Transformation progresses, museums will appear as democratic places.
The two museums are doing exceptional work to change the contested meanings of the place.
This is most visible through the educational work of the two museums, as they are changing the younger generation´s association that has not been influenced by preconceived positioning and values. The two museum´s educational departments are reshaping the learners’ perception of the museum and making it their place.