CHAPTER 4. MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS OF TRANSFORMATION
4.6 What was Transformation?
Transformation is a complex multivocal process that entails freedom of speech and the right to express a self in culture, heritage and history expression and representation. It is about relocating the power of heritage expression from a segregated to a democratic environment.
Transformation is, by law, policy and document, officially trying to rid society of segregation and to find aspects of history and heritage that can unite, empower and visualise democratisation. Transformation therefore entails changing the racial outlook of society and is thus perceived as difficult by those previously in power. They express an apprehension that norms and values in society will be completely overthrown. The process is therefore not a simple one but entails several conflicting views. Museologists such as Sulivan (1994: 101), San Roman (1992: 25-31) and Stam (2005: 61) argue that the museum is a reflection of what society regards as important – a source of understanding society and an exploration of identity and fostering social justice. Museums can be regarded as a reflection visualising what society considered as important, what changed and what remained during Transformation. The ideological shift emphasised a multicultural agenda, but has strong African overtones that polarise themselves against a White agenda presented as nationalistic. Nationalism prevails in democracy in various forms and is similar to apartheid in its emphasis on nation-building and the exploration of heritage.
Early Transformation started to break ground in South African society with an inclusive and democratic outlook on social development. The eco-museum built up a new museum structure, and new museology deconstructed and renegotiated the presentation of heritage.
57 I have added concluding discussions after each chapter because, due to the complexity of the material, such summaries clarify and bring forth key aspects of content.
Both contributed to the theoretical framework of museum Transformation. Transformation helped the museums to find ways of addressing the other, but not ways of addressing the self in a changing climate. After 1994 Transformation positioned change from a different angle.
Previously Transformation had approached change from an academic view, but after 1994 addressed the issue from a political perspective. The new political dispensation wanted to know how the museum could be a resource in the larger Transformation of society. A political shift can be noted in the museums from a stance that represented and strengthened White society to connect holistically with society and work towards a non-discriminatory, non-racial museum where a correction of history and heritage was emphasised. Museums, if they were going to survive, had to be relevant to a democratic social structure.
The eco-museum provided a tool for museums to be in contact with communities, to represent themselves and to deal with socio-political and economic issues. It further promotes skills and beliefs and engenders cultural pride and identity. Omar (2005: 53) argues that South African museums must either accept the premises of the eco-museum or, alternatively, reinvent themselves. The eco-museum concept works well for Transformation, since it aims to integrate economic and social growth as stipulated by the transformation budget guidelines, but continues to rest on a eurocentric museum structure that is a familiar basis to build on. It also works well with African Renaissance which restores, as Snail (1993: 245) argues, the loss of self-confidence instilled by the inferiority complex colonialism created. Transformed museums aim to empower people and the economy by being a part of society at large. As museums were trying to reinvent themselves they had to deconstruct the past and find objectives for Transformation in past and present.
Transformation aims to depart from apartheid and therefore the past and the present have been polarised. It reuses many of the structures, however, like the Cultural Institution Act 119 of 1998 which was similar to previous legislation. ACTAG and the White Papers showed many similarities to MUSA and the flagship institutions which were constituted in the Cultural Institution Act 66 of 1989. The 1996 constitution, however, shows that citizens were officially equal by law. The ideological perspective had also changed, but nationalism prevailed in various forms, and Afrikaner and African nationalism revealed many similarities.
It is therefore not a question of a clear-cut paradigm shift from apartheid, but after 1994 museums were expected to contribute to social, economic and democratic developments.
Multiculturalism is one of the most important aspects of museum change, and according to my informant Gustav (2006-11-07), it was when the Board of Trustees was multicultural that Transformation in the Natal Museum was initiated. In 1998 the Msunduzi Museum (VM) Board of Trustees became multicultural. Moreover, it was not dominated by men and started to develop an inclusive museum (Anna 2006-04-13). But my field research has shown that staff-members have explained that they found the Board of Trustees uninterested, that they demanded change for the sake of change, and that they were politically connected and even corrupt – although nothing has been proved nor anyone brought to account. The view of the Board of Trustees could reflect misgivings about the socio-political shift in society at large and dissatisfaction with Transformation in general.
Transformation means changing human resources and, symbolically, the museum director.
My informants Bill (2006-04-18) and Charlotte (2006-04-21) at the Natal Museum have argued that the appointment of the recent director was highly political and that the DAC appoints people according to its agenda of Africanising society. At present it is politically correct to have an African male director and a White female assistant director, which covers gender and race equity. My field research has shown that although the institutions are supposed to be gender-equal, African men have a tendency to mistrust and dominate female colleagues, especially African females.
My field research has shown that for any person appointed at the museums, not being White was a challenge during Transformation. My informant Lindiwe (2006-04-21) explained that she suddenly found herself representing all Africans in South Africa before very curious White staff-members. Among other staff-members there was a feeling of not being trusted or competent enough (Thabang 2006-04-04). One of my informants told me that his biggest challenge was to make staff understand that ‘I am black I am professional and would treat them equally regardless of their racial background’ (letter from Mlondi 2006-09-14). The apprehension of Transformation, as I interpret it, was that it would overthrow what the museums had over a long time achieved and built up, especially in the Msunduzi Museum (VM), because it had been run like a family for a long time (letter from Mlondi 2006-09-14).
Director Mkhize said to The Echo: ‘I’m not to destroy [sic] what foundation has already been laid, but to consolidate what’s there’ (Olifant 2003-09-23).
There were no objections to the appointment of an African director in the Msunduzi Museum (VM), not even by the Afrikaans media (letter from Mlondi 2006-09-14), nor to a similar appointment at the Natal Museum. Although the appointment of multicultural staff was expected and believed to be necessary there was growing dissatisfaction in the Natal Museum with BEE. My field research has indicated that there is a common assumption that it is not the person with the right qualifications that is appointed to a position, but the person of the right race. I have also come across the assumption that a person has to be politically connected to receive higher positions in the museums, such as a directorship. Other informants have expressed that the multicultural working environment has brought new perspectives and understanding of the presentation of heritage and of society at large (Margareta 2006-10-11).
There are discrepancies in what Transformation meant for the working environment. For one of my informants the multicultural working environment entailed that ‘The museum was no longer a foreign space in the eyes of many African people in Pietermaritzburg’ (letter from Mlondi 2006-09-14). The multicultural staff en-raced the Msunduzi Museum and made it a heritage embassy for a united South Africa rather than a diverse and segregated place.
Transformation aimed to protect previous heritage expressions, ‘correct’ them and promote new using methods such as amasiko and IKS. This was facilitated by the transformation budget, the NHC and SAHRA to ensure a holistic, non-racial and democratic outlook on heritage.
I have shown in this chapter that it is necessary to investigate museum structures over time to achieve a holistic understanding of past development that led up to Transformation in the museum. When analysing museums in a long temporal sequence, it is possible to compare differences and similarities in structure. Transformation wishes to present itself as a paradigm shift from apartheid, but the ideological approach uses similar concepts to manifest national unity. The similarities are crucial to acknowledge because they facilitate the realisation that constant diversification and polarisation between past and present and between groups cannot continue in the building of a strong and united heritage in South Africa.