Vestiges of a Static Past: The Pitt Rivers Museum and the Construction of the "Other"
The Pitt Rivers Museum was founded in 1884 when General Augustus Pitt Rivers donated more than 18,000 ethnographic and archaeological items to the University of Oxford (BBC, 2013). Despite the huge growth of the museum’s collection since its founding, the design of the museum and the way in which the objects are displayed have remained largely the same. This unchanged museum provides us with a window into the past; a unique glimpse of Britain at the height of its colonial power; a snapshot of a world on the edge of modernity. The Pitt Rivers museum was born out of a historical context in which a dichotomous understanding of the world was emerging. The “Self” was pitted against the “Other”; “Occident” against “Orient”; and “Us” against “Them”. The discipline of Anthropology too was created in this context, and for many the museum represents an Imperialist past they wish to forget. Since decolonisation and the critique of eurocentrism it has become all the more important for academics to be reflexive; to acknowledge their past discrepancies and to seek to be objective in their work. As part of this it is important that we acknowledge the ways in which knowledge is constructed, and how our representation of something can create and uphold a damaging world view.
Through an examination of the Pitt Rivers Museum and the era in which it was created, this essay will explore the ways in which the museum and anthropology as a discipline contributed to the construction of the “Other”; a discourse which would remain hegemonic well into the Twentieth Century and whose offences we are still trying to amend today. |
The Pitt Rivers Museum is housed under the same roof as the light and spacious Oxford University Museum of Natural History, and is distinctly dark and crowded by comparison. Immediately as one walks through the building a relationship of power is established.
The columns which hold up the roof of the building are made with stone from the British Isles, and standing in front of each column are statues of historical figures such as Isaac Newton, Prince Albert, and, placed directly in front of the entrance to the Ethnographic section, Charles Darwin. This architectural design creates an “aesthetics of visual domination” (Kriegel, 2006, p. 700). Visitors of the museum are invited to see Britain and the West as “the Brain of the Earth’s body” (Ibid., p.687), dominators of the old colonies and forerunners in humanity’s march of progress.
This conception of European domination, which is reflected in the museum, was established from the moment that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492. The exotic was set up as a field to be observed and plundered, and voyages of discovery explored the colonies in new depths (Driver, 2004). This age of exploration was at its peak during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Accompanying, and as a result of, this exploration, new ideas were emerging in both history and science. A new Whig historiography glorified the present, constructing a teleological view of history. These historians saw England as exceptional and made moral judgements of other nations who were seen as less advanced. A similar development was taking place in the world of science, propelled by Charles Darwin with the publication of On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection in 1859. Darwin’s ideas of natural selection were adapted by many, and his evolutionist framework was seen as observable in the objects, technologies and mental capacities of peoples around the world.
The new Victorian obsession with the idea of progress had encouraged people to look back in history at the development of humanity. The inherited traits of the modern European man were thought to be observable in contemporary “primitive peoples” (Kuper, 1998). This pitted the West against the “Rest” and a dichotomous discourse conceptualising the “Other” as the antithesis of the modern European emerged and became hegemonic.
The positioning of the statue of Darwin in the museum, and displays of evolution in nature, remind visitors of Darwin’s principles and prepare them to visualise the ethnographic objects as also corresponding to evolutionary form.
This conception of European domination, which is reflected in the museum, was established from the moment that Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492. The exotic was set up as a field to be observed and plundered, and voyages of discovery explored the colonies in new depths (Driver, 2004). This age of exploration was at its peak during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Accompanying, and as a result of, this exploration, new ideas were emerging in both history and science. A new Whig historiography glorified the present, constructing a teleological view of history. These historians saw England as exceptional and made moral judgements of other nations who were seen as less advanced. A similar development was taking place in the world of science, propelled by Charles Darwin with the publication of On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection in 1859. Darwin’s ideas of natural selection were adapted by many, and his evolutionist framework was seen as observable in the objects, technologies and mental capacities of peoples around the world.
The new Victorian obsession with the idea of progress had encouraged people to look back in history at the development of humanity. The inherited traits of the modern European man were thought to be observable in contemporary “primitive peoples” (Kuper, 1998). This pitted the West against the “Rest” and a dichotomous discourse conceptualising the “Other” as the antithesis of the modern European emerged and became hegemonic.
The positioning of the statue of Darwin in the museum, and displays of evolution in nature, remind visitors of Darwin’s principles and prepare them to visualise the ethnographic objects as also corresponding to evolutionary form.
Once in the Pitt Rivers museum the layout resembles a giant cabinet of curiosity, which was typical for Nineteenth Century museums as previous personal collections of worldly objects became public galleries, allowing the masses to be schooled in the majesty of Empire.
These museums were organised according to evolutionary principles which “fed the belief that Europe was, indeed, the very apex of civilisation” (Kriegel, 2006, p. 689). Objects from other cultures were represented as “vestiges of a static past”, a past which was beyond the memory of the intelligent European (Ibid., p.687).
Pitt Rivers was no exception; organising his collection in a typological manner; taking objects from alternative sources and displaying them according to form and in order of how they might alter over time. Objects taken from the colonial present were seen to bear equivalence to those from the metropolitan past (Ibid.).
These museums were organised according to evolutionary principles which “fed the belief that Europe was, indeed, the very apex of civilisation” (Kriegel, 2006, p. 689). Objects from other cultures were represented as “vestiges of a static past”, a past which was beyond the memory of the intelligent European (Ibid., p.687).
Pitt Rivers was no exception; organising his collection in a typological manner; taking objects from alternative sources and displaying them according to form and in order of how they might alter over time. Objects taken from the colonial present were seen to bear equivalence to those from the metropolitan past (Ibid.).
The labels accompanying each object or each display case give little or no description of the place from which they came or what the objects are used for in those places. Rather the label may include the region from which the object was taken, and the name of the person or organisation who donated the object. This system of labelling divides the world according to Europe’s colonies and creates the illusion of a monolithic “primitive” culture that stands in opposition to the Western world. By giving a description of who donated the item instead of a description of who the object represents, the artefacts lose their cultural meaning; and are instead presented as collectables to be used to educate the masses on the evolution of mankind. The way in which the objects were represented not only corresponded to the intellectual beliefs of the time but also helped to reinforce them. The lack of provision of cultural context gave power to the Europeans to construct an image of the “Other” that bolstered their own image of prestige. In this way the colonies were created as much as they were discovered; manipulated in order to construct a discriminatory view of the “Other” (Driver, 2004).
The colonial power structure made it possible for anthropologists to access “primitive” communities, yet it also affected the uses to which the knowledge gathered was put. Whilst anthropologists helped preserve the cultural heritage of the societies they studied, they “also contributed, sometimes indirectly, towards maintaining the structure of power represented by the colonial system” (Asad, 1973, p. 17).
By representing objects in a specific way, the way in which visitors perceive them is restricted; this applies not only to the objects in each case but also to the general layout of the museum which directs the visitor to see the exhibits in a certain way. Sharp lines and separate cabinets do not allow the visitors’ imagination to roam freely but instead directs their thinking, focusing on exaggerating the difference between “modern” and “traditional” societies. Many of the displays also seemed to privilege Western design, by displaying European objects in a more aesthetically pleasing way.
An example of this can be seen in the images below. Several displays were designated to showing “evolution” in ship building design. Boats from around the world were displayed in crowded cabinets, presenting a distorted image of the uses of boats by focusing on the growth in size. “Primitive” designs were all displayed together in two cabinets whilst several large models of ships from Britain were given a cabinet of their own. This classification and display of objects privileges the British design and creates an image of superiority which distorts the way that the other objects are understood. By representing specific objects as inferior, the museum goer attaches these negative connotations to the culture these objects represent.
The colonial power structure made it possible for anthropologists to access “primitive” communities, yet it also affected the uses to which the knowledge gathered was put. Whilst anthropologists helped preserve the cultural heritage of the societies they studied, they “also contributed, sometimes indirectly, towards maintaining the structure of power represented by the colonial system” (Asad, 1973, p. 17).
By representing objects in a specific way, the way in which visitors perceive them is restricted; this applies not only to the objects in each case but also to the general layout of the museum which directs the visitor to see the exhibits in a certain way. Sharp lines and separate cabinets do not allow the visitors’ imagination to roam freely but instead directs their thinking, focusing on exaggerating the difference between “modern” and “traditional” societies. Many of the displays also seemed to privilege Western design, by displaying European objects in a more aesthetically pleasing way.
An example of this can be seen in the images below. Several displays were designated to showing “evolution” in ship building design. Boats from around the world were displayed in crowded cabinets, presenting a distorted image of the uses of boats by focusing on the growth in size. “Primitive” designs were all displayed together in two cabinets whilst several large models of ships from Britain were given a cabinet of their own. This classification and display of objects privileges the British design and creates an image of superiority which distorts the way that the other objects are understood. By representing specific objects as inferior, the museum goer attaches these negative connotations to the culture these objects represent.
The classifications of objects in museums has an effect on the way in which those who are represented by the objects are classified in society. For Foucault, classifications are more than just conceptual structures, but have the power “to shape intellectual and social reality” (Snyder, 1984, p. 210). By classifying some objects as modern and some objects as primitive, power relations and inaccurate representations are established which contribute to a discourse of “Othering”.
This construction of the “Other” is part of a wider discourse of Orientalism and “tropicality” which functioned as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient”, and in this case all of Europe’s colonies (Said, 1995, p. 3). Power and domination were, and are, achieved through misrepresentation; and the displays of the Pitt Rivers museum provide a perfect example of such misrepresentation.
This construction of the “Other” is part of a wider discourse of Orientalism and “tropicality” which functioned as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient”, and in this case all of Europe’s colonies (Said, 1995, p. 3). Power and domination were, and are, achieved through misrepresentation; and the displays of the Pitt Rivers museum provide a perfect example of such misrepresentation.
To conclude, the Pitt Rivers Museum is a perfect exemplar of a museum which embodies the Victorian understandings of the world. The objects it contains, the way they are presented and classified, and the architecture of the building all represent the Victorian national narrative of “modernity, efficiency and progress” (Kriegel, 2006, p. 694); a narrative which sought to dominate through a misrepresentation of non-Western societies. These misrepresentations served to construct the “Other” by conceptualising any society that did things differently as less advanced, and therefore “primitive” in comparison to the West. By adopting a broad evolutionary framework Europeans could order the world in a way that suited them. The colonial power structure made it impossible for the colonised to speak for themselves; therefore the representation of “Other” was in the hands of the coloniser. This representation was never questioned, as Said has said, as “the exteriority of the representation is always governed by some version of the truism that if the Orient could represent itself, it would; since it cannot, the representation does the job, for the West, and… for the poor Orient” (Said, 1995, p. 21).
The Pitt Rivers museum is a part of anthropology’s, and Britain’s, colonial legacy. It is a reminder that “Anthropology does not merely apprehend the world in which it is located, but that the world also determines how anthropology will apprehend it” (Asad, 1973, p. 12).
Whilst this essay has critiqued the style of the Pitt rivers museum, this is certainly not to say that the museum should be reformed. The ways in which the museum reinforces the colonial legacy makes it all the more important that the museum should in fact be preserved in its original form; not as a pedagogical institute but instead as a critique, and a reminder, of our colonial past.
The Pitt Rivers museum is a part of anthropology’s, and Britain’s, colonial legacy. It is a reminder that “Anthropology does not merely apprehend the world in which it is located, but that the world also determines how anthropology will apprehend it” (Asad, 1973, p. 12).
Whilst this essay has critiqued the style of the Pitt rivers museum, this is certainly not to say that the museum should be reformed. The ways in which the museum reinforces the colonial legacy makes it all the more important that the museum should in fact be preserved in its original form; not as a pedagogical institute but instead as a critique, and a reminder, of our colonial past.
Bibliography
Asad, T. (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.
Driver, F. (2004) ‘Imagining the Tropics: Views and Visions of the Tropical World’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(1), pp. 1-17. [Online] DOI: 10.1111/j.0129-7619.2004.00167.x (Accessed: 20 May 2015)
Kriegel, L. (2006) ‘After the Exhibitionary Complex: Museum Histories and the Future of the Victorian Past’, Victorian Studies, 48(4), pp. 681-704, JSTOR [Online] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4618911 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Kuper, A. (1998) The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London: Routledge.
Pitt Rivers (2013) In Our Time, BBC Radio 4, 28 February. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwgxx (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Pels, P. (1997) ‘The Anthropology of Colonialism: Culture, History, and the Emergence of Western Governmentality’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, pp. 163-183, JSTOR [Online] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952519 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Said, E. W. (1995) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. 4th edn. London: Penguin Books.
Snyder, C. (1984) ‘Analysing Classifications: Foucault for Advanced Writing’, College Composition and Communication 35(2), pp. 209-216. [Online] DOI: 10.2307/358097 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
All photos taken by the author
Asad, T. (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.
Driver, F. (2004) ‘Imagining the Tropics: Views and Visions of the Tropical World’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(1), pp. 1-17. [Online] DOI: 10.1111/j.0129-7619.2004.00167.x (Accessed: 20 May 2015)
Kriegel, L. (2006) ‘After the Exhibitionary Complex: Museum Histories and the Future of the Victorian Past’, Victorian Studies, 48(4), pp. 681-704, JSTOR [Online] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4618911 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Kuper, A. (1998) The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London: Routledge.
Pitt Rivers (2013) In Our Time, BBC Radio 4, 28 February. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwgxx (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Pels, P. (1997) ‘The Anthropology of Colonialism: Culture, History, and the Emergence of Western Governmentality’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, pp. 163-183, JSTOR [Online] Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952519 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
Said, E. W. (1995) Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. 4th edn. London: Penguin Books.
Snyder, C. (1984) ‘Analysing Classifications: Foucault for Advanced Writing’, College Composition and Communication 35(2), pp. 209-216. [Online] DOI: 10.2307/358097 (Accessed: 20 May 2015).
All photos taken by the author