No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Crossing the line: Restitution and cultural equity
... Several scholars have sought to unpack types of state apologies ( Weyeneth 2001 ;Kampf and Löwenheim 2012 ) and justifications for their (non)emergence ( Brooks 1999 ;Gibney et al. 2007 ;Nobles 2008 ;Löwenheim 2009 ;Lind 2010 ;Adams and Kampf 2020 ). Restitution, in contrast, represents the material act of giving back objects to their morally and (often) legally rightful owners ( O'Donnell 2011 ;Besterman 2014 ;Tythacott and Arvanitis 2014 ;Gaudenzi and Swenson 2017 ), which can have powerful effects on the communities to which (sometimes sacred) objects are returned. This makes restitution's justice potential even more powerful since "museums are in a unique position of being custodians of the material manifestations of appropriation that opens up practical avenues to 'make it good'" ( Besterman 2014 , 24). ...
I argue that the field of transitional justice is a useful lens to explore the politics surrounding apology and restitution between former colonizers and the formerly colonized. While existing scholarship has so far treated apologies and restitution of looted art restitution as separate ways of atonement, this paper investigates both as indicators of a country's norm change toward postcolonial reconciliation and justice. The paper analyzes the political debates in France and Germany surrounding apologies and art restitution as instances of belated “coming to terms” with their colonial past. I argue that both form part of a broader societal change surrounding a state's history and its current identity. In response to increasing demands for apologies and restitution from African states, changing international norms of addressing colonial violence, and domestic mobilization, both states have made slow and incomplete progress toward postcolonial reconciliation and justice. They have agreed to return certain objects and apologized for specific colonial atrocities, albeit not for colonialism writ large. Ultimately, the debates highlight how these transitional justice forms each come with their own political, legal, and cultural challenges that complicate and delay engagement with the past. It was ultimately various social pressures from within and outside, in the form of lawsuits by victim groups and official demands for apology and restitution, that led to domestic mobilization toward more open engagement with colonial pasts.
How should political scientists navigate the ethical and methodological quandaries associated with analyzing leaked classified documents and other nonconsensually acquired sources? Massive unauthorized disclosures may excite qualitative scholars with policy revelations and quantitative researchers with big-data suitability, but they are fraught with dilemmas that the discipline has yet to resolve. This paper critiques underspecified research designs and opaque references in the proliferation of scholarship with leaked materials, as well as incomplete and inconsistent guidance from leading journals. It identifies provenance as the primary concept for improved standards and reviews other disciplines’ approaches to this problem. It elaborates eight normative and evidentiary criteria for scholars by which to assess source legitimacy and four recommendations for balancing their trade-offs. Fundamentally, it contends that scholars need deeper reflection on source provenance and its consequences, more humility about whether to access new materials and what inferences to draw, and more transparency in citation and research strategies.
What is dissent and what does it look like in museums? The Museum of Dissent - a concept devised by Lisa Kennedy, Donata Miller and Emma MacNicol, a collective of curators explores the role of dissent in the museum sector, drawing from
their experiences as People of Colour (POC) museum professionals and visitors. This article describes the case study of the Museum of Dissent’s intervention at the Museums Association Annual Conference, Festival of Change in 2018, Changeover, and
the discussions and reflections that emerged from that intervention.
In Changeover, the Museum of Dissent sought to expose delegates to the power relations working in museums through role play in a polarised ‘reverse museum’ gallery setting. This article aims to think further about the implications of dissent, specifically in a gallery setting, through the example of Changeover and the subsequent responses and discussions from delegates and Museum of Dissent members.
Durante o período colonial, milhares de artefatos culturais foram levados do continente africano pelos europeus. Nos últimos anos, a restituição de bens culturais tem chamado atenção de teóricos, governos, órgãos internacionais e regulamentações jurídicas. Contudo, há pouca informação sobre a forma como essa realidade se apresenta e é discutida. Este ensaio é uma proposta de investigação sobre a restituição dos bens culturais retirados no contexto do colonialismo, considerando a relação de países europeus com países africanos. Trata-se de analisar a constituição do regime internacional de proteção e restituição do patrimônio cultural, seus princípios, limites e possibilidades, tendo em vista alguns casos de processos restitutivos realizados a partir da década de 1990 e suas narrativas. Em meio aos debates acerca da descolonização das relações entre ex-metrópoles e ex-colônias e os efeitos ainda presentes do colonialismo, este trabalho põe em marcha uma proposta teórico-metodológica que aposta no papel da memória e sua potência no que toca ao direito humano à cultura e à identidade.
Palavras-chave: Bens Culturais. Decolonialidade. Restituição.
The discourse of restitution often takes place within the framework of the `ethics of collecting’ with a focus on the return of objects obtained violently, but this has restricted the debate. The case study of the return of two sacred stones from Finland to Namibia reflects on the cultural impact of their return. Largely Christianised communities re-encountered objects that were sacred and central to earlier belief systems. We argue that the role of the sacred stones changed over time, before they went into exile, in a way that challenges any assumption of stasis that might be assumed when deploying the concept of `tradition’. The return of the two stones provoked renewed interest in pre-Christian rituals, but also related to efforts to strengthen the position of `traditional authorities’ in relation to the democratic system of governance in Namibia. The ripples of restitution illustrate the wider importance of the return of cultural artifacts to stimulating contemporary cultural and political debate.
The study and curation of human remains in the United Kingdom underwent a sea-change in response to the publication of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) guidance in 2005. Curatorial and research ethics and practice have improved, but these unique collections face new challenges – archives which are full and an increasing demand for samples for stable isotope and ancient DNA studies. This article reviews how holdings were and continue to be created and the ethical and practical issues that arise from these decisions. In contrast to much of the literature on this topic, it does not focus on the repatriation process and its consequences for UK museum practice. Instead, we address contemporary and future concerns regarding human remains excavated and curated in England, particularly issues of consent, permission and ancient DNA analysis.
Now, for the first time, a philosopher undertakes a systematic investigation of the moral and aesthetic issues to which cultural appropriation gives rise. Cultural appropriation is a pervasive feature of the contemporary world (the Parthenon Marbles remain in London; white musicians from Bix Beiderbeck to Eric Clapton have appropriated musical styles from African-American culture). Young offers the first systematic philosophical investigation of the moral and aesthetic issues to which cultural appropriation gives rise. Tackles head on the thorny issues arising from the clash and integration of cultures and their artifacts. Questions considered include: "Can cultural appropriation result in the production of aesthetically successful works of art?" and "Is cultural appropriation in the arts morally objectionable?". Part of the highly regarded New Directions in Aesthetics series.
The international controversy over who "owns" antiquities has pitted museums against archaeologists and source countries where ancient artifacts are found. In his book Who Owns Antiquity?, James Cuno argued that antiquities are the cultural property of humankind, not of the countries that lay exclusive claim to them. Now in Whose Culture?, Cuno assembles preeminent museum directors, curators, and scholars to explain for themselves what's at stake in this struggle--and why the museums' critics couldn't be more wrong. Source countries and archaeologists favor tough cultural property laws restricting the export of antiquities, have fought for the return of artifacts from museums worldwide, and claim the acquisition of undocumented antiquities encourages looting of archaeological sites. In Whose Culture?, leading figures from universities and museums in the United States and Britain argue that modern nation-states have at best a dubious connection with the ancient cultures they claim to represent, and that archaeology has been misused by nationalistic identity politics. They explain why exhibition is essential to responsible acquisitions, why our shared art heritage trumps nationalist agendas, why restrictive cultural property laws put antiquities at risk from unstable governments--and more. Defending the principles of art as the legacy of all humankind and museums as instruments of inquiry and tolerance, Whose Culture? brings reasoned argument to an issue that for too long has been distorted by politics and emotionalism.