This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/belong museum 2.jpg 2020-07-19T20:23:30-07:00 Universalism, Internationalism and Anti-repatriation 23 Definitions & discussion of universalism, internationalism and anti-repatriation image_header 1006538 2020-07-28T22:32:50-07:00

  Similar to the recent acknowledgement of the military complex being instilled in the majority of Hollywood, there has also been the acknowledgement by scholars of the influence of Hollywood towards the bias of universalism. Indiana Jones is the hero that we root for, and is a common trope now across historical/archeological Hollywood. One of his most famous lines comes from The Last Crusade when Indy is yelling at the villain and shouts, "It belongs in a museum!"
  
  Universalism, internationalism, or cosmopolitanism is the philosophical belief that the world is of one community, one global culture with equal access to that public culture. Museums and cultural institutions tend to embrace the idea, enshrined in the Hague Convention of 1954, that cultural products are contributions to the culture of all humankind. The arguments for this way of thinking is based on the values of knowledge over all else, and that a specific Western enlightened form of knowledge is the only form of truth.In Kwame Anthony Appiah arguments for universal culture, Appiah privileges knowledge over alternative priorities. He assumes that objects might contribute to a universal understanding and that pursuit of such knowledge takes prior claim to different value systems (Gorman, 2011). In general, universalism is based on what objects in museums provide, as according to the Declaration of the Importance and Value of Universal Museum, the privileged position of non-Western objects and cultures within contemporary knowledge systems would not have been achieved were it not for the position of acquired objects within the great museum. Insofar as the declaration describes the ways in which knowledge about museum objects is created, only by being surrounded by a universal depiction of difference and cross-cultural influence can the individual object be recognized for its brilliance and contribution to human culture. Moreover, it is within this context that the object finds value through the acquisition and application of knowledge (Gorman, 2011). This is seen through the statement about Greek art, 

  Indeed, the sculpture of classical Greece, to take but one example, is an excellent illustration of this point and of the importance of public collecting. The centuries long-history of appreciation of Greek art began in antiquity, was renewed in Renaissance Italy, and subsequently spread through the rest of Europe and to the Americas. It’s accession into the collection of public museums throughout the world marked the significance of Greek sculpture for mankind as a whole and it’s enduring value for the contemporary world.

  This sentiment is echoed in a 1982 UNESCO convention addressing artifacts and sites that are considered part of world heritage: “Their value cannot be confined to one nation or to one people, but is there to be shared by every man, woman and child of the globe” (cf. Matthes, E. H. (2017); As quoted in Omland 2006: 247). This is the beginning of the trend for cultural property to be defined as something other, (as noted by Geismar, 2008 cf. Gorman, 2011) where there is no ownership, or nationalistic, soverign interests at play. Ironically, this cosmopolitan position is in juxtaposition with the property laws constructed by Western colonial nations (and subsequently as a feature of the nation state) in which universal museums reside. By inventing a new category of cultural heritage that is somehow immune from legislation and seeking to apply strict market forces to objects (that they themselves would only be able to afford), the grand universal museums seek to inoculate themselves to repatriation pressures many local spaces are obliged to, and increasingly eager to, engage (Gorman, 2011).
  
  It is clear that the major art museums of the West view themselves less as owners of private goods than as stewards of public goods. Moreover, it is also clear that these museums consider the public good of their collections in a cosmopolitan, as opposed to nationalist, light (Matthes, 2017). Museums of all kinds have long been involved with separating material objects from their original owners, thereby transforming personal possessions into the collective property of states, cities and local authorities. This effect can be thought of as 'musealizing' objects, taking away their human identity, culture and context to becoming purely visual interesting objects (Bouquet, 2012). 
  
  From universalists there is a fear that if encyclopedic museums accept the mindset/philosophy of repatriation at large, museums would lose all purpose and would largely be empty. They forget they have already grudgingly agreed to the repatriation of human remains for the last 30 years, presently, the new internationalists write and act as though human bodies never figured into these discussions (Gorman, 2011). As noted in the TED talk by Chip Colwell, his own museum who has participated in repatriations still have their hands on 99.9% of their collections after repatriating materials, the shelves aren't empty. So what is this 'dangerous precedent' that is so largely feared in the museum community, it sounds much more like equitable justice.
  
  What is interesting though is that in the declaration, the directors spoke as if they were the defining voices of the 'museum community' but according to Gorman, there is generally no support and largely criticism for the letter that was published. So which community are they representing? 
  
  References:

  • Bouquet, M. (2012). Museums : A visual anthropology (English ed., Key texts in the anthropology of visual and material culture). London ; New York: Berg.
  • Gorman, J. (2011). Universalism and the new museology: impacts on the ethics of authority and ownership, Museum Management and Curatorship, 26:2, 149-162, Retrieved from: DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2011.566714
  • Matthes, E. H. (2017). Repatriation and the Radical Redistribution of Art. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 4(32), 931-953. Retrieved from: doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.032