Censorship and self- censorship in museums

“Define censorship, self-censorship and the relationship between them. How have censorship and self-censorship shaped museums in the past and/or present? Can censorship in museums be ethical, and, if so, under what circumstances?”

Censorship and self-censorship in museums can, and have,

caused a plethora of problems historically and for museum

professionals today. This paper will analyse what both of

these terms mean, for general society and museums, and how

they have been enforced in recent history. It will then

examine censorship on a national scale and its use as an

instrument of political propaganda to shape national

identities. This will include collective forgetting and

remembering, and memory distortion, so an attempt to define

the terms memory and identity will also be made. It will then

be considered if this practice is ever ethical, and if so, why

and for what purposes. The paper will conclude by summarising

that the practice of national censorship through museums can

be used as a propagandistic tool by governments to formulate

feelings of unity and national identity within its citizens.

This can lead to self-censorship in order to comply with the

Charlotte Morgan Page 1 of 39

government’s proposed national identity. However, before

analysing the nature of censorship, we must attempt to define

the terms used in this paper, censorship, self-censorship,

memory and identity.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines censorship as “the

office or function of a censor1” and “control of dramatic

production and film2”. This is echoed in many official

definitions, which describe censorship as an office of

responsibility rather than an action taken by an individual.3

Scholars take a different approach to defining the term,

relating to its use in daily life, as “opinion about opinion4”,

or as Christopher Steiner describes, to “make invisible to the

public images/ideas that were deemed subversive, illegal,

pornographic, blasphemous, unpatriotic or corrupting5”, a

definition followed in academia.6 Steiner’s definition

highlights the religious links censorship has, particularly in

1 OED online (2014a).2 OED online (2014a).3 This is due to the etymological origin of the word, Roman censorswere “magistrates responsible for the census, then eventually publicmorals” (Moore (2013) 46.). 4 Tribe (1973) 19. 5 Steiner (2011) 397. 6 Moore (2013) 46.


Britain.7 This is exemplified in the language now used to

describe censorship, whose origins lie within religion,8 and

have since been applied to secular activities.9

From here, we can track the historical development of

censorship, from control of speech and behaviour to control

over what was written, a development of the 18th century.10

Prior to this, censorship occurred in the most basic form,

through oral censorship11 of stories and folklore.12 Moving

into the 19th and 20th centuries, technology meant the audience

for these new ideas and philosophies grew immeasurably,13 and

that almost anyone could record and preserve their ideas for

prosperity.14 This development led to the definition of libel

to change, from previously a solely literary term, to include

broadcasting.15 These developments are inextricably linked with

7 Lewis (1975) 50; Tribe (1973) 47. 8 Gillis (1994) 6; Tribe (1973) 19. 9 For example, profane and obscene. Profane can be split into pro(in front of) and fanum (temple). Obscene can be split in a similarway, into ob (in the way of) and scaena (stage for religious rites).Both terms were originally used to describe inappropriate behavioursin front of sacred spaces and temples in Ancient Greece (Tribe(1973) 19.). 10 Tribe (1973) 20. 11 Tribe (1973) 48.12 Cressy (1994) 61.13 Tribe (1973) 70. 14 Gillis (1994) 6; Tribe (1973) 21. 15 Tribe (1973) 21.


the development of society;16 censorship has always reflected

the ideological and practical needs of communities, as we can

see in the way it changes from a religious concept through to

an issue of much a much broader audience. Censorship, in

essence, is the control of ideas. In a community without new

thinkers and inventors, censorship is redundant as nothing

threatens the control the current regime exercises.17

Self-censorship is an integral part of wider censorship,

such as controlling what is told onto the next person,18 or not

sharing ideas due to a controlling regime. Cook and Heilmann

define self-censorship in terms of the relationship one has

with the censor, i.e. oneself, and argue that this nature

means that it cannot be a type of censorship, but another

practice altogether.19 Self-censorship is defined as

“exercising of control over what one says and does, especially

to avoid criticism20”. The important part of this definition,

in terms of museum practice is “especially to avoid

criticism”. Often museums can be become more restrictive and

16 Tribe (1973) 47. 17 Tribe (1973) 47. 18 O’Higgins (1972) 12.19 Cook and Heilmann (2013) 178-196. 20 Oxford Dictionaries online (2014).


prone to censorship and self-censorship for fear of

controversy.21 This is particularly common after a large-scale

censorship ‘scandal’, such as the Mapplethorpe exhibition,22

which can cause other museums to think twice about what they

exhibit. However, it can also have the opposite effect, kick-

starting museums to exhibit what may be classed as ‘obscene’

material in their galleries, in attempts to prove they are not

censoring their collections.23 Additionally, museums can also

take it upon themselves to make their visitors aware of self-

censorship, and highlight it using an exhibition. This was

done in America with the 2007 exhibition “Exposing the Censor

Within”.24 The exhibit highlighted and uncovered people’s

prejudices and self-censorship through the displays (figure

1).

In order to think about censorship in terms of national

identity, we must also define two more terms, memory and21 Dubin (2007) 218. 22 The 1988 The Perfect Moment exhibition was a collection of work byMapplethorpe, mostly of gay subjects. This proved too controversialfor some, especially due to the large amount of funding coming fromgovernment projects. It caused controversy across the 150institutions it travelled but this culminated in Cincinnati, whereit resulted in a court case against the museum (Steiner (2011) 398-400.).23 Steiner (2011) 401. 24 Steiner (2011) 402.


identity. They are key in the role of museums nationally, and

are often used throughout museums without recognition from

visitors. These concepts are socially constructed and

politically managed in society and museums,25 making them

difficult to define. Sociologists have defined them in terms

of existing within our society, not outside of our political

systems, relationships or histories. Without people, there

would be no identities or memories. Both have been converted

into material objects in recent times; we now see them as

things which can be placed into museums or quantified in

objects or statistics.26 This is implied through the words we

use today; often memories are “retrieved” and an identity is

“found”.27 This also suggests that they are static and do not

change over time, and by placing them into museums we are

confirming this belief. However, they are fluid concepts; we

are “constantly reviving our memories to suit our current

identities28”.

25 Davies (1994) 90; Gillis (1994) 5; Kaplan (1994) 5.26 Chen (2007) 174; Gillis (1994) 3.27 Gillis (1994) 3.28 Gillis (1994) 5.


Memory is an integral part of museum practice; it is

directly linked to history and defined by some as “sorting the

past29”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines memory as “the

faculty of recalling to mind30”, but to many people it is much

more subjective than this. Memory can be split into various

categories, but this paper will focus on individual and

collective memory, both of which serve a purpose in museums.

These concepts are also interlinked with elite and popular

memory, which often tell similar stories in different ways.31

Elite memory and collective memory are parallel concepts, they

represent the memories of the ruling and dominant classes in

society.32 These memories are represented in museums, often

using popular and individual memories to complement the story,

or fill in gaps. Popular memory plays a more important role in

museums today, coinciding with increasing representation of

working class people, racial minorities, LGBT people and women

in the memories of the dominant classes.33 However, these

29 Kattago (2001) 1.30 OED online (2014b).31 Elite memory is a consecutive, chronological account limited bythe boundaries of time and space. In complete contrast, popularmemory is unlimited, does not fill in gaps and tends to dance aroundinstead of discussing memories chronologically (Gillis (1994) 6.).32 O’Higgins (1972) 12; Kaplan (1994) 2.33 McClellan (2007) 567; Gillis (1994) 10.


peoples’ stories are often used to show a different past, a

way for museums to differentiate the past and present. Gillis

also highlights how symbolic lives are remembered,34 while

actual lives are readily forgotten.35 It is through

commemorative activities that governments can co-ordinate

these various memory groups,36 and enforce a feeling of

identity onto a population.

The meaning of identity has changed immeasurably in

recent years. Historically identity has referred to an

aesthetic likeness,37 but since the 1960s, we have developed a

new self-consciousness of identity,38 reflected in the Oxford

English Dictionary definition: “being who or what a person or

thing is”. Definitions such as this have contributed vastly to

the growing awareness of identity, so much so that identity is

regularly demanded as a necessary tool for life.39 Often,

representation (or lack of) in a museum, can be used to

34 For example, Martin Luther King is remembered as a representativeof black Americans, but many “normal” black Americans are forgotten(Gillis (1994) 10.).35 Gillis (1994) 10.36 Lewis (1975) 43; Gillis (1994) 5. 37 Lowenthal (1994) 41.38 Gillis (1994) 16.39 Gillis (1994) 4.


substantiate the existence of an identity or cultural group.40

Contemporary life has complicated the concept of identity,

meaning that people do not hold a “singular, homogenous

identity41”; society demands that we are multi-faceted, which

can lead to multiphrenia.42 The nature of identity in society

means that, even though the word is definable, the concept

itself is abstract and multi-faceted.

It is undeniable that censorship is present in museums,

and equally undeniable that museums play an integral role in

forming national identity.43 However, before examining the

interrelationships between these factors, an understanding of

censorship within museums is required. Censorship has always

been a contested issue within art galleries, for either

presenting art deemed obscene by their audiences, such as the

Perfect Moment exhibition, or by their regimes, in order to

teach the audience, such as the Degenerate Art exhibition in

Nazi Germany.44 However, censorship within museums seems to be

40 Alpers (1991) 30. 41 Kattago (2001) 2.42 A term coined by Kenneth Gergen, which he uses to describe havingtoo many selves and conflicting, contradictory and competingidentities (Gergen (1991) 73; Kattago (2001) 2.).43 McClellan (2007) 569.44 Steiner (2011) 396.


much more a covert operation. Exhibitions within museums are

often passively accepted as fact and visitors are reluctant to

contest the displays.45 Museums are perceived as neutral,

authoritative institutions by the public when in fact they are

often political instruments with intense social, cultural and

political influence.46

The nature of censorship in museums can be exemplified by

the way in which science and natural history museums choose to

display the theories behind their collections. The theory of

truth in museums is particularly true for these types of

institution.47 Science is accepted as indisputable across

society, so when presented within a museum, the exhibitions

are accepted as the only truth and rarely contested. However,

scientific theories can be contested and are often the results

of long debated negotiations and moral judgements.48 Judgements

also have to be made about which theories to present, and how

much research should be completed before exhibiting it in a

museum.49 This is exemplified by an exhibit in the Natural

45 Chen (2007) 175; Macdonald (2007) 177. 46 Cressy (1994) 90.47 Macdonald (2007) 177.48 Macdonald (2007) 177. 49 Macdonald (1998) 1.


History Museum in London. The Moa specimen50 is on display in a

traditional manner (figure 2), but current research suggests

that it may not have stood the way it is presented.51 However,

if this were true, the Moa would no longer be the tallest bird

to have existed. The Natural History Museum have made a

decision about this exhibit, based on wonder over science, to

not display the new research. By choosing to exhibit certain

theories, museums give their legitimising support to a

particular theory or scientific group.52 There are also

questions of bias for the research of that particular museum

over other more substantiated projects.53 These issues can

raise questions of censorship; these institutions have to

decide what is more or less worthy of exhibition in the

museum.

When you combine the theory of truth and the power

relations in museums,54 the impact of censorship can be50 Latin name Dinornis novaezealandiae (Natural History Museum online(2014).).51 Attenborough (2014). 52 Macdonald (2007) 177. 53 Macdonald (2007) 177. 54 The power of decision-makers is the construction of truth formuseum exhibitions, by deciding what should be exhibited and how(Macdonald (2007) 178; Hooper-Greenhill (1992) 7.). When a museumdecides to exhibit a certain piece, it is elevated above others inthe field. Someone, with “power”, has decided that it is worthy of


strongly felt across the museum community and wider public,

especially when the censorship is picked up through media or

by a strong voice in society, such as politicians or religious

groups. However, it can often do the opposite of its

intentions and bring more attention to the subject through

removing it. Additionally, it can often bring more exposure to

the museum, although this is often critical and leaves the

museum at a disadvantage.55 This can be seen in the aftermath

of the Perfect Moment exhibition in America, when it travelled

to the Contemporary Arts Centre in Cincinnati. The exhibition

was contested by a number of influential groups within

Cincinnati and the case was taken to court. The case

reinforced the view locally that the museum was out of touch

with the community, creating a larger gap between the so

called “experts of art” who worked for the museum and the

community. Additionally, more people in the locality felt

unable to access the museum, as if they were not worthy of

viewing the art.56

exhibiting, with enough cultural significance to be important to theaudience (Alpers (1991) 25-26.). 55 Steiner (2011) 397. 56 Steiner (2011) 398.


Censorship can also lead to self-censorship. Once museum

professionals and the wider public are aware of what is deemed

acceptable and unacceptable, they are more likely to control

what they display at a later date or express in public

spaces.57 Highlighted censorship cases58 can make professionals

nervous of controversy. For example, the Degenerate Art

Exhibition in Nazi Germany in 193759 exhibited a collection of

‘obscene’ art deemed inappropriate by the National Socialist

Party. This exhibition very clearly outlined what was now

unacceptable in society, as well as making examples of the

curators who had previously displayed these pieces.60 Further

to this, museums which had previously displayed the art were

mocked through the exhibition as it travelled across Germany.

In some cities, the exhibition was housed in derelict

warehouses,61 whilst in others it was held in the museums

which had displayed some of the confiscated art. This put

these institutions on a level with the decrepit warehouses,

57 Dubin (2007) 218; Steiner (2011) 399.58 Steiner (2011) 398. 59 Steiner (2011) 396. 60 The curator of Dresden Museum was held personally responsible andmocked when the exhibition travelled to Dresden (Steiner (2011)396.).61 In Berlin, the exhibition was held in a derelict warehouse justoutside the city (Steiner (2011) 396.).


removing the sacredness of the museum. This practice

encouraged self-censorship within the museum community and the

wider public by exemplifying what was deemed unacceptable

under the new regime.62

Censorship in museums does exist, and museums are used by

governments and regimes to control thoughts in the public as

well as to form a national identity.63 Museums can also be used

to form external images of a nation; as symbols of stability

and culture, and can be used by developing nations to prove

their worth as an ally or trading partner64 to more developed

countries. They can be used as a façade for a failing regime,

such as that of Iran. In 1977, a year before the collapse of

his regime, the Shah of Iran opened a new Museum of

Contemporary Art in Teheran, designed to project an image of

modernity and stability to the rest of world.65 The curator of

the museum at the time, Robert Hobbs later said that the royal

family saw the museum as one of the many “instruments of

political propaganda66” that they had at their disposal. In

62 Steiner (2011) 396. 63 Watson (2007) 160. 64 Duncan (1991) 88. 65 Alpers (1991) 89.66 Hobbs (1981) 21.


these circumstances we can see how the museum is used as

independent justification for the government’s values.

It is in this way which governments and regimes can use

museums to develop and enforce a national identity onto their

citizens. Before analysing museums’ role in the development of

a national identity, it must be defined. For many, a national

identity is a form of belonging. It is inextricably linked to

common memories and shared history; it is through these

mediums that people prove their worthiness of becoming part of

the identity. In his book Banal Nationalism Michael Billig coins

the term ‘banal nationalism’, defining it as the way in which

everyday representations of the nation can help to build an

imagined sense of national solidarity and human belonging.67

These representations can be as small as a flag hanging

outside a shop window, or the national anthem playing on a

news bulletin in the mornings.68 Due to the constant nature of

these representations, Billig argues that the remembering of

nationalism becomes forgotten.69

67 Billig (1995) 6. 68 Billig (1995) 38; Hobsbawn (1983) 11.69 Billig (1995) 8.


Memory is an integral concept to national identity,

ownership of national memories guarantee membership of the

group or groups within a state.70 As part of this, national

identity is also dependent on forgetting alongside collective

remembering. Certain memories are either displayed or stored

away through objects in museums.71 It can be argued that this

is a form of nation-wide censorship, albeit much more covert

than censorship in museums normally. Traditionally,

institutional memory was used by religions, royal families and

the aristocracy in the 18th and 19th centuries and was imposed

on the population through the social hierarchy before being

reinforced through annual commemoration locally.72 It therefore

reflects the needs of the higher classes and religious

authorities, linking into the early religious history of

censorship in Britain.73 A key part of institutional memory is

forced forgetting, an important concept within communist

countries,74 or any extreme regime. The forgetting within a

nation is a strictly organised and strategic process which

70 Billig (1995) 37. 71 Kaplan (1994) 2; Fraser (2007) 293. 72 Gillis (1994) 6; Cressy (1994) 71.73 Cressy (1994) 61.74 Misztal (2007) 386.


includes the rewriting of histories, destruction of places of

memory and censorship of memories.75 Two of these processes can

be taken on by museums, and they can also partake in the

elevation of new places of memory over the previous ones being

destroyed by the regime. By censoring their collection,

museums can give emphasis to the aspect of history favoured by

their government.76

This practice is exemplified in Ba’athist Iraq under

Saddam Hussain after 1968, explained by Eric Davies in his

chapter The Museum and the Politics of Social Control in Modern Iraq.77 The

museums in Iraq became highly politicised and were used as a

tool to enhance the regime’s power and authority. Museums

there developed in a very different way compared to European

and American museums. While those in the West developed

organically from individual societies, museums in Iraq were

born through direct state control to legitimise new money in

the country. Both have very strong nationalistic qualities,

although this is much more overtly expressed in Iraq than

75 Misztal (2007) 386-387. 76 Watson (2007) 170. 77 Davies (1994) 90-10.


Europe and America.78 Museums in Iraq were used to answer

questions of heritage in the country. As part of the British

Empire, Arab and Islamic origins of Iraq were overlooked in

favour of the classical civilisations of Mesopotamia and

Assyria. This caused alienation of the population, for many

modern Iraqis are of Arab descendants; a reflection of the

British opinion of Iraq as an inferior culture and nation

which needed controlling. To resolve this, Britain imposed a

monarchy in the 1920s which although had access to a

substantial resources, had little power in real terms. This

lead to a focus on culture and the royal family opened museums

focussing on folklore and the Arab origins of Iraq. In 1958

the Qasim regime took power and developed the Ministry of

Guidance which controlled heritage and culture. The

Mesopotamian past of Iraq became more strongly represented and

symbols of this feature on the national flag (figure 3).

However, in 1963 The Ba’athist and Nasirist groups overthrew

this communist regime. Few cultural developments took place

78 The conception of nationalism in the west is much different, it isassociated with extremism and although engrained deep in society(particularly in America), it is associated with “them”, beingforeign, often undeveloped countries with a tendency for extremism(Billig (1995) 38.).


until Saddam Hussain took control of the Ba’athist regime in

1968.

Between 1968 and 1977, Saddam Hussain developed 9 new

museums in Iraq and expanded those built under the royal

family. He also opened a huge funding project for culture and

extended exhibitions to travel out of Baghdad to share the

cultural heritage. These new museums focussed on folklore and

the common roots of all Iraqis, uniting the various religious

groups in modern Iraq. This was used to secure legitimacy and

demonstrate the character of the regime as one which was open

to all. The regime used the representations of the past to

diffuse the ideological ideas of the regime to the population.

Museums were used to glorify Iraq’s history, but to also

categorise what was and wasn’t acceptable in modern Iraq. Once

a practice was exhibited in a museum, it was categorically

‘the past’ and therefore not appropriate for modern life. This

resulted in the marginalisation of many groups in Iraqi

society, mainly from the traditional religious groups as well

as other minorities, the poor and political opponents of the

regime. These groups were forced to submit to the hegemonic


cultural ruling of the regime, an ideology reinforced by what

they saw in museums. This is another example, in addition to

the Degenerate Art Exhibition, of how exhibitions can enforce

censorship and self-censorship.

This enforcement of values is one way in which

governments and extreme regimes can use museums as tools in

collective remembering and forgetting. People are bound in

communities through their collective memories, but

inextricably linked with this is the process of collective

forgetting.79 Often, present or recent turmoil is forgotten in

favour of remembering the glorious past. This helps the

population to make sense of the past, present and future80 and

enables legitimisation of the present.81 New regimes often hark

back to golden times as a way of proving their understanding

of the country. Again, museums can play a role in this,

controlling how visitors interact with certain aspects of a

nation’s history, but also through selecting and

institutionalising the memories which are integral to the

national identity. An example of this can be seen in the

79 Gillis (1994) 7. 80 Bodnar (1992) 15; Urry (1996) 45; Chen (2007) 187. 81 Lewis (1975) 61-63.


Museum of London’s exhibition of WWII, in particular the Blitz

exhibition.82 Visitors walk through and experience the Blitz as

if they were living in London during the War. As well as

reinforcing the importance of the Blitz to British national

identity, the exhibition also helps to remind visitors how

safe they are, comparatively in modern Britain.

The spatial framework of a museum is an ideal location to

house memories,83 as they become more and more associated with

material culture in modern times.84 It is also the ideal place

to encourage forgetting, they are carriers of the past and can

promote and, equally, demote, distinctive aspects of national

identity. This can be seen in the way in which East and West

Germany dealt with the memories of WWII in the immediate

aftermath, outlined in detail in Siobhan Kattago’s Ambiguous

Memory.85 In the West, the government was forced to internalise

the National Socialist party and take responsibility for the

actions of the Nazi government before them. The Nazi past,

however, was viewed as a burden of the nation, instead of

82 Samuel (1994) 178; Calder (1991) 2.83 Chen (2007) 178; Halbwachs (1980) 211. 84 Gillis (1994) 3; Chen (2007) 174.85 Kattago (2001) 1-7; 52-57.


being worked through psychologically. This was completed

mainly through critical appraisal of the period in museums as

well as a concept of mastery; that modern Western Germans had

overcome their past. By the 1980s West Germany had reached a

state of normality with its recent history, but after two

other periods, of guilt in the 1950s and later what Kattago

calls a “therapy session86” in the rebellions of the 1960s and

70s. This normalisation was eventually achieved through a

process of confrontation and commemoration, in which museums

played an integral role. This period of normalisation

coincided with increased international interest in the period,

which forced West Germany to confront its past and find a

usable history, one which eventually formed the collective

German memory of the Holocaust.87

Eastern Germany externalised WWII as a foreign affair,

irrelevant to the new state. East Germans were portrayed as

the victims of the war and a heroic resistance group. This was

part of the governmental bid to promote a “myth of

antifascism” in the country. Fascism was abstracted in

86 Kattago (2001) 6.87 Gillis (1994) 12.


displays and exhibitions, as a foreign concept which was of no

relevance to the GDR. Any debate of the history of the nation

was blocked out, a characteristic of the communist state of

the GDR.88 In complete contrast to its western neighbour, the

GDR avoided confronting the stories of the war and did not

commemorate them at all. Coincidentally, they only began to

commemorate some aspects of the recent history when West

Germany began to normalise the period, for example

commemorations of Kristallnacht only began in 1988.

One way in which West Germany began to confront their

history was through the temporary exhibition and planning of

permanent museums to display and discuss the difficult history

of Germany in WWII. These developments begin in the 1970s with

temporary exhibitions such as the “Questions for German

History” in the Reichstag in 1971. From here, discussions

about a permanent exhibition developed, leading to a

suggestion of such by President Scheel in 1979. His successors

proposed the opening of two new museums, the House of History,

based in Bonn, focussing on the previous 40 years of West

German history, and the German Historical Museum, to be built

88 Moore (2013) 52.


in Berlin, covering all of German history. Both museums were

agreed but limitations were placed on the German Historical

Museum, in terms of space89 and the way in which it displayed

National Socialism. This opened up a new debate on how

National Socialism should (or shouldn’t) have been displayed

in West Germany. This debate was not however, re-hashed in

this so called ‘Museum Controversy’ of the 1980s. As far back

as 1956, the difficult history of Germany was alluded to

politically, such as this speech by Theodor Huess on the 100th

anniversary of the German National Museum in Nuremburg: “our

history is not the history of the Federal Republic, it doesn’t

only begin in 194590”, suggesting that museums were not

discussing the war in an attempt to internalise and forget

about the atrocities. The aims of the German Historical

Museums demonstrate how it was used by the government to

normalise the history of Germany, both geographically and

historically: to Europeanise German history; unburden the

past, and delink New Germany from National Socialism. These

demonstrate the need West Germany had to both accept but

89 The German Historical Museum was promised 35,000m2 but in realityreceived 10,000m2 (Kattago (2001) 57.). 90 Heuss (1956).


dissociate itself from Nazi Germany, but the third in

particular shows how it used the German Historical Museum to

produce a new identity for West Germans as part of “New

Germany”. In part, this echoes the externalisation process

seen in East Germany but paired with the other aims, shows how

the country was desperately trying to accept and normalise its

history. From this case study we can see how museums can use

memory distortion to legitimise, empower and reduce stigma.91

This process is often seen as a side effect of nationalism,

and is a common after-effect of colonialism92 or civil war.93

It is clear that museums can be used by governments as

political tools to shape the national identity of a

community.94 In this sense objects in museums encompass

91 Lewis (1975) 61-63; Kammen (1995) 340. 92 Detailed case studies on post-colonial museums can be read inAlissandra Cummins’ articles Exhibiting Culture: museums and national identity inthe Caribbean and Caribbean Museums and National Identity, both of whichdescribe the ways in which museums in this part of the world havedeveloped to form national identity in their recent, post-colonialhistory (Cummins 1992; Cummins 2004.).93 A prime example of this is the way in which America recovered fromthe civil war; almost instantaneously both sides (at leastexternally) forget the fighting and return to normal life (Gillis(1994) 10.). Additionally, language and modern day displays show howamnesia has been used politically to reunite the opposing sides. Inhis Gettysburg address after the war, Lincoln avoided the use of theword ‘enemy’ and this has been reflected in modern exhibitions whichdiscuss the Civil War (Kammen (1995) 330-335.).94 Cressy (1994) 90.


national identity and become the heritage of the nation.95

Lowenthal describes national identity as requiring a shared

heritage and considering it to be unique in the world. For

those who invest in one national identity foreign national

identities become an alien concept, and those of foreign

national identity professing an opinion become irrelevant.96

Heritage is increasingly seen as a right, but also as a way

for a nation to control its cultural identity. When contrasted

with the concept of history it is easy to see how heritage can

be manipulated for political ends. History is scientific,

accepted through a process of reason and open to all.

Heritage, on the other hand, is widely accepted by insiders

but inaccessible to outsiders, accepted by faith and based on

subjective, social data.97 How these factors are presented to

the community through museums can reflect the ideology which

underpins the government or dominant regime in the nation at

the time.

It is not questionable that museums can be used to

manipulate the heritage of a nation, and the suggestion that

95 Urry (1996) 51; Lowenthal (1994) 43.96 Lowenthal (1994) 45-48.97 Lowenthal (1994) 49.


they are neutral spaces without political bias is unacceptable

in the literature this paper is based on. It is also clear

that this manipulation is a form of censorship in museums, and

can encourage self-censorship on a personal level within the

public sphere in effect producing “censorship without

censors98”. Museums are used to suggest ideas of national

identity, which are subconsciously accepted due to the nature

of their presentation. Censorship within museums has been a

long contested topic, with some, such as Graham Beal

suggesting that museums selecting, or not selecting items for

exhibition should not be classed as censorship, and that it is

well within a museum’s remit to choose objects.99 Just because

they are considered potentially controversial does not change

the fact that they must be selected.100 Increasingly, museum

professionals disagree on this topic, further complicating the

sensitivity of the issue.101

98 Moore (2013) 53.99 Steiner (2011) 399; Moore (2013) 48.100 It should be noted that Beal made these comments after the shockcancellation of Van Gogh’s Ear under his jurisdiction as the directorat the Detroit Institute of Arts in 1999 (Steiner (2001) 399.).101 Marstine, Bauer and Haines (2011) 91.


This ethical debate raises questions of context, but also

of choice. Should the public always be allowed to choose?102

And how does censorship of ‘obscene’ material differ from the

careful selection of heritage objects?103 Is the development of

national identity a form of censorship? The case studies we

have analysed in this paper suggest so. We can see how museums

were strongly manipulated in Iraq to promote new ideals of

modern life, and how different attitudes were represented in

post-WWII Germany. Controversy surrounds censorship of art and

ideas, especially within the museum and art gallery sector. We

can also see the negative effect of governmental censorship,

such as bias in courts or the undermining of legitimacy for

personal reasons.104

However, the influence of censorship isn’t always

negative. As discussed earlier, it can often bring more

attention to the issues trying to be covered up. Some museums

can use this to their advantage, both to prove their morality,

but also to promote their institutions and attract visitors.105

102 Steiner (2011) 398. 103 Steiner (2011) 399.104 Kaiser and Moreno (2012) 346. 105 Steiner (2011) 397.


One exhibition which managed this was the Sensation exhibition

in the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999, which displayed British

art from the Saatchi collection and survived solely on its own

sensationalism.106 Censorship can also provide social markers

for museums. Exhibition of potentially controversial works can

identify the standards of the community, as well as providing

limits for the national ideal of morality.107 Museums can also

take on a role as “community irritant108”, constantly making

citizens question themselves. This can also play a part in the

development of national identity, as a reminder of people’s

morals or a way for governments to introduce new, liberal

ideas into society.

Censorship on a national scale is often less

controversial. Censorship of ‘obscene’ art or objects is often

acceptable at least within some spheres of society, but

government selection and censorship of history is welcomed by

all. This is due to its covert nature, but also to the

suggestion of censorship for the ‘greater good’. Kammen even

goes as far as suggesting that while artists and authors can

106 Steiner (2011) 401. 107 Moore (2013) 61.108 Steiner (2011) 401.


consciously alter memory and history, politicians do so

through museums, subconsciously for the best of the

population.109 This paper, while acknowledging that this

happens on a wide scale, would disagree that it is through

subconscious practices that museums can shape histories,

especially within developing nations and case studies

discussed earlier.

This paper has discussed the concepts of censorship,

self-censorship, memory and identity and how these can be used

together in museums to develop national identities. The

concept of collective remembering and forgetting is integral

to this practice110 and a common feature of exhibitions. It is

accepted that to become part of a national identity, you must

share in this collective remembering. However for this paper,

it is perhaps the collective forgetting that is most

important. Parts of histories can easily be forgotten through

ignorance in museums, or refusal to discuss periods, seen

clearly in East Germany’s reaction to WWII. The war was

externalised as a foreign problem and wiped from pubic memory.

109 Kammen (1995) 341. 110 Urry (1996) 45.


In contrast, we see in Iraq the historicalisation of practices

and traditions in a bid to move forward into a modern nation.

These two case studies have demonstrated how museums can be

manipulated depending on governmental control, and used to

encourage self-censorship. The museums influenced daily life,

either through the forgetting and refusal to discuss the war,

or through the elimination of traditional practices. This is

not an ethical process, as it removes the museums’ ability to

be a neutral space for discussion, but censorship on this

scale does exist. It is through national identity, among other

personal factors, which leads citizens to self-censorship for

fear of controversy in their communities. The relationship

between these factors is one of cause and effect; the

censorship causes a development of national identity, the

effect of this being increased self-censorship by the public.


Figures

Figure 1: Posters used during the “Exposing the censor within”exhibition to highlight visitors’ prejudices (NCAC (2014).).

“Seeks to expose the extent to which we censor ourselves”

Figure 2: display of the Moa specimen at the Natural History Museum, London as the tallest bird to ever exist (Natural History Museum online (2014).).


Figure 3: flag of Iraq under the Qasim regime emphasising the Mesopotamian history of the country (the red star of Ishtar represented their ancient history) (Arabic media (2014).).


Bibliography

Alpers, S. (1991) “The Museum as a Way of Seeing” in Exhibiting

Cultures: the poetics of museum display Karp, I. and S. D. Lavine (eds.)

Smithsonian Institution Press: 25-32.

Arabic media (2014) Flags of modern Iraq available from:

http://arabic-media.com/Iq_flags.htm Accessed 9th November

2014.

Attenborough, D. (2014) Natural History Museum Alive first aired in

Sky1.

Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism SAGE.


http://arabic-media.com/Iq_flags.htm

Bodnar, J. (1992) Remaking America: public memory, commemoration and

patriotism in the 20th century Princeton University Press.

Calder, A. (1991) The myth of the Blitz Pimlico.

Chen, C. (2007) “Museums and the shaping of cultural

identities- visitor’s recollections in local museums in

Taiwan” in Museum Revolutions: how museums change and are changed

Knell, S., S. MacLeod and S. Watson (eds.) Routledge: 173-

188.

Cook, P. and C. Heilmann (2013) Two Types of Self-Censorship:

public and private” Political Studies 61: 178-196.

Cressy, D. (1994) “National memory in early modern England” in

Commemorations: the politics of national identity Gillis, J. Princeton

University Press: 61-73.

Cummins, A. (2004) “Caribbean Museums and National Identity”

History Workshop Journal 59: 224-245.

Cummins, A. (1992) “Exhibiting Culture: Museums and national

identity in the Caribbean” Caribbean Quarterly 38, 2: 33-53.

Davies, E. (1994) “The museum and the politics of social

control in modern Iraq” in Commemorations: the politics of national

identity Gillis, J. Princeton University Press: 90-104.

Dubin, S. (2007) “The postmodern exhibition” in Museums and their

communities Watson, S. (ed.) Routledge: 213-227.


Duncan, C. (1991) “Art museums and the ritual of citizenship”

in Exhibiting Cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display Karp, I.

and S. Lavine (eds.) Smithsonian Institution Press: 88-103.

Fraser, J. (2007) “Museums- drama, ritual and power” in Museum

Revolutions: how museums change and are changed Knell, S., S.

MacLeod and S. Watson (eds.) Routledge: 291-302.

Gergen, K. The Saturated Self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary life Basic

Books.

Gillis, J. (1994) “Memory and identity: the history of a

relationship” in Commemorations: the politics of national identity

Gillis, J. Princeton University Press: 3-24.

Halbswachs, M. (1980) The Collective Memory trans. Ditter, F. and

V. Ditter Harper Colophon Books.

Hobbs, R. (1981) “Museums under Siege” Art in America 69, 10: 17-

25.

Hobsbawn, E. (1983) “Introduction: inventing traditions” in The

Invention of Tradition Hobsbawn, E. and T. Ranger (eds.)

Cambridge University Press: 1-14.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992) Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge

Routledge.

Kaiser, D and J. Moreno (2012) “Self-censorship is not enough”

Nature 492: 345-347.

Kammen, M. (1995) “Some patterns and meanings of memory

distortion in American history” in Memory Distortion- how minds,


brains and societies reconstruct the past Schacter, D. (ed.) Harvard


Kaplan, F. “Introduction” in Museums and the making of “ourselves”: the

role of objects in national identity Kaplan, F. (ed.) Leicester


Kattago, S. (2001) Ambiguous Memory: the Nazi past and German national

identity Praeger Publishers.

Lewis, B. (1975) History- remembered, recovered, invented Princeton

University Press.

Lowenthal, D. (1994) “Identity, heritage and history” in

Commemorations: the politics of national identity Gillis, J. Princeton


Macdonald, S. (2007) “Exhibitions of power and powers of

exhibition: an introduction into the politics of display”

in Museums and their Communities Watson, S. (ed.) Routledge:

176-196.

Macdonald, S. (1998) “Exhibitions of power and powers of

exhibition: an introduction” in The Politics of Display: museums,

science and culture Macdonald, S. (ed.) Routledge: 1-24.

Marstine, J., A. Bauer and C. Haines (2011) “New directions in

museum ethics” Museum Management and Curatorship 26, 2: 91-95.

McClellan, A. (2007) “Museum studies now” Art History 30: 566-

570.


Mitsztal, B. (2007) “Memory experience” in Museums and their

communities Watson, S. (ed.) Routledge: 379-396.

Moore, N. (2013) “Censorship is” Australia Humanities Review 54: 45-

65.

Natural History Museum online (2014) Moa bone fragment available

from http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-

museum/museum-treasures/moa-bone-fragment/index.html

Accessed 7th November 2014.

NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship (2014) Exposing the

censor within available from:

http://ncac.org/wp-content/uploads/import2/exposing_censor.

jpg. Accessed 22nd October 2014.

O’Higgins, P. (1972) Censorship in Britain Nelson and Sons Ltd.

Oxford Dictionaries online (2014) Self-censorship available from:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-

censorship Accessed 20th October 2014.

Oxford English Dictionary online (2014a) Censorship (n.) available

from www.oed.com Accessed 19th October 2014.

Oxford English Dictionary online (2014b) Memory (n.) available

from www.oed.com Accessed 4th November 2014.

Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory Verso.

Steiner, C. (2011) “Museum Censorship” in The Routledge Companion

to Museum Ethics Marstine, J. (ed.) Routledge: 393-413.


http://www.oed.com/

http://www.oed.com/

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-censorship

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-censorship

http://ncac.org/wp-content/uploads/import2/exposing_censor.jpg

http://ncac.org/wp-content/uploads/import2/exposing_censor.jpg

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/moa-bone-fragment/index.html

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/moa-bone-fragment/index.html

Tribe, D. (1973) Questions of Censorship George Allen and Unwin

Ltd.

Urry, J. (1996) “How societies remember the past” in Theorizing

Museums: representing identity and diversity Macdonald, S. and G. Fyfe

(eds.) Blackwell Publishers: 45-68.

Watson, S. (2007) “History, museums, community and identities

and a sense of place” in Museum Revolutions: how museums change

and are changed Knell, S., S. MacLeod and S. Watson (eds.)

Routledge: 160-172.


Censorship and self- censorship in museums

Documents