The Construction of a Museum

This chapter investigates on a general level, the construction and forces which affect the form and shape of knowledge in museums. Several key theoretical references are applied for the understanding and analysing how a museums function as knowledge-shaping arenas. This information will further help the reader understand what influences the learning experience, discussed in the data chapter.

When researching the museums, (without trying to create a binary separation), it is interesting to examine who they actually tell most about. As Löytty O. explains according to Said (1991), western research and their image of the East or the” orient” as it is known in Europe and United States, actually tells more about the west than the east. (Löytty, O., 2006, p 48) When starting the discussion about museums as constructions, it is likewise important to remember that a museum is in fact, a western creation. In addition, in this research context, museums should be considered as environments of self-directed learning based on experience, focusing on how context determines the interpretation of objects. (Hooper, Greenhill, 1992, p.i) Museums have also played their own part in colonizing processes and recently attempts have emerged to decolonize these institutions. In her work Decolonizing Museums: Representing Native

37

America in National and Tribal Museums (2012) Amy Lonetree

brings forth an important question from native American people: “How can we begin to decolonize a very Western institution that has been so intimately linked to the colonization process?”. This thesis is not interested in creating decolonization in the case study museums per se, but it is important to note that they do not stand as neutral outsiders, and when approaching them as learning platforms, their colonial role should be considered.

Certain structures of knowledge and even rules for the production of truth have been a part of museums, all the way from the period of the Renaissance episteme, the classical age, and the modern age. (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992, p.191) It is also important to note that even as a western construction and with a history of having a rigid form, museums have evolved in different ways and taken varieties of different shapes. In fact, as Hooper-Greenhill (1992, p.191) has argued, “There is no essential museum. The museum is not a pre-constituted entity that is produced in the same way at all times”. She continue by stating and referencing Foucault how in addition, “such identities as are constituted are subject to constant change as the play of dominations shifts and new relations of advantage and disadvantage emerge. ‘Truth is of the world: it is produced by virtue of multiple constraints’

38

(Foucault, 1977b:13).”13 One of the most important questions

behind this thesis has been influenced by above realization and alike the authors’ question: “But if museums are places in which we may come to know new things, and where our perceptions may radically change, what is the nature of this knowing, and how are these changes brought about?” (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992, p.2)

It is undeniable that the interaction between Finnish missionaries and local communities has left a significant cultural fingerprint in Namibia. Following the thought of museums as places of changing perception, an interesting question would be about the role of the museums in the nature of knowing about the interaction between Finnish missionaries and local communities. More-over, how are these changes brought about in relation to the museums established by Finnish people? It can be assumed that a new cultural fingerprint is left by these museums, which albeit done with good intentions, cannot be considered as neutral in their cultural and knowledge creating influence. For example, as a result of the missionary work “many Christian converts adopted Finnish names whilst the missionaries also influenced the development of a new forms and fashions of clothing in

13 _{See: Foucault, M. (1977) ‘The political function of the intellectual’, Radical} Philosophy, 17, pp.12– 14.

39

northern Namibia (Shigwedha, 2006: 196-198)” (Silvester, Tjizezenga, Kaanante, 2015, p. 5). Sharing this history in the museums also creates new culture and discussion around the names and fashion and in its own way, performs them into existence.

Perhaps there is an assumption that material things cannot be understood in different ways or even misunderstood and that museums are objective and do not have a manipulative influence on the material. Hooper and Greenhill argue otherwise:

“Although we are familiar with the way in which advertisements, for example, select and manipulate images of material objects in relation to their associative and relational potentials, it is not understood that the ways in which museums ‘manipulate’ material things also set up relationships and associations, and in fact create identities (Barthes, 1977).” (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992, p.6)

They argue that material things can be understood in a multitude of different ways, meaning can be manipulated as

40

required and many different meanings can be read from things. (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992, p.6)

One way of influencing the meaning, is the actual decision of what is to be showcased. Perhaps the exclusions, inclusions, and priorities determining whether objects become part of collections create systems of knowledge? It is, interesting how in Namibian museums the number of possessed artifacts is so small, that what is being exhibited is mostly a result of what is available. Silvester, Tjizezenga and Kaanante, mention this in comparison to larger museums of the world:

“Indeed, many of our regional museums show all the objects in their collection in what might be called ‘open shelf’ displays. Our museums contrast with the larger museums of the world which are like icebergs with most of their volume hidden from view”. (2015, p. 4)

Another question is how the objects in display are classified, and whether it favours certain ways of knowing? Problems might arise if there is a failure to analyse, understand the practices of the present such as classifications, or accommodating a plurality of histories. Both the Nakambale and Onandjokwe Medical Museums showed attempts of crossing over strong public/private division meaning the

41

division into either ‘members of the public’ or ‘museum curators’. (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992, p. 7) According Silvester (2018), the Nakambale Museums exhibits photographs taken by missionaries, but for which comments were collected from the local community today. Onandjokwe Medical Museum even exhibited a poem from a local community member, Rev. Julius Mtuleni. These practices, as well as addressing the agency over these museums over to the local authorities, is argued in this thesis, can be classifies as decolonialization and creation of spaces of empowerment. Lonetree (2012, p.164) argues that “museums have the potential— through both their exhibits and their programming— to promote healing, revitalization, and nation building for Indigenous peoples”. Even if this thesis does not take part in those practices exactly, it is crucial to remember when researching the museums at hand, that such processes are happening by the influence of Namibian Museums Association, and the institutions do not in the present time belong to Finland or represent Finnish administration. Another question is whether the exhibition layout might have traces of Finnish or other Western ideology and knowledge classification. For this auto- criticism and self-reflection is needed in Finland, but agency remains within the museum’s current staff.

42