Timothy Mitchell — Orientalism and the Exhibitionary Order
In this article, Mitchell focuses on Europe’s, particularly France’s, infatuation with the ‘Orient’ as well as the wider picture this infatuation leads to imply and portray to the general masses. He describes three fundamental features of the Orientalist reality: essentialism, otherness and absence. The Orient is described as cultural heritage that is in utter contrast to the ideologies of the West, where practicality or rationality does not exist, and is concocted on the basis of emotions and radical values. Mitchell says that this obsession with the Orient was not limited to romantic ideas or Oriental studies, but was rather something much more massive — the Orient garnered a pivotal place in Europe’s representation of the world.
He highlights how the representations of Orient in nineteenth century Europe were as close to the realist images of the Orient region, primarily Egypt, as possible. Exhibitions in France sold Egyptian merchandise and hand-made goods, vendors sold everything from perfumes to clothes who were natives dressed in classic Egyptian attire, and you sales were carried out in Egyptian currency rather than in Francs. The primary focus of these exhibitions was to present to the visitors an idea of how the Orients lived and a peek into their life — special attention was paid to have donkeys brought in from Egypt, for the streets to resemble the exact chaotic everyday life of Cairo, and for the representation of Sultans in elaborate dresses stationed in royal courts. Furthermore, the overall structures of the exhibitions were laid out as cobbled streets of Egyptian bazaars to present a more realistic picture. Also, a paradox was created between the real aspects of society/everyday life and the simulated exhibitions, as because of their expansions from exhibits to markets and local shops, it was hard to distinguish where one ended and the other began. The Egyptians were mystified as to how real these exhibits were. However, this representational technique had some flaws, as not all aspects of the Egyptian society were portrayed as realistically as it was claimed those were for e.g. mosques, where traditionally music and dance is haram, were adorned with vibrant interior decors and Egyptian dancers were made to dance inside. Egyptian visitors to the area claimed it to resemble more to a coffee shop. Furthermore, such representations led to the Egyptian visitors being seen as a part of the exhibit because as they narrated in their experiences (pg 503), the French and other visitors were intrigued and mystified by them as they loved to stare at them. These exhibitions, thus, served not only as an educative platform of Orientalism but rather developed a sense of otherness to the subject of the Orient itself.
To what extent has your vision of the ‘Orient’ or the Middle East been formed by reinforcement of European ideologies through both text and media? What, in your opinion, are the downsides of such representations or misrepresentations? Also, how is your country represented or misrepresented on the other side of the world (whatever that may be for you)?
Dipesh Chakrabarty — Museums in Late Democracies
In this article, Chakrabarty focuses on explaining two modules of democracy that in his opinion sometimes coexist and sometimes conflict horribly in contemporary democratic politics — the nineteenth century idea of the political and early-twentieth century idea of the political. His primary focus is on the role museums play in both of these contrastive ideologies. Nineteenth century’s idea of political authority was based on the idea of acquiring knowledge and then attaining the licence to be considered political — museums, universities, and libraries assumed this role of teaching; however, self-eduction was also implied. The book came the focal point, and the comprehension of abstract realities and reasoning was learned, taught and practised. The twentieth century idea of the political was entirely different — it was argued that individuals were born political and that to be human was to be political. Education and experience gained a backseat in this shift of perspectives on democratic politics. Arguments such as ‘everything is political’ or ‘the personal is political’ became famous and widely accepted. However, the pedagogic approach to politics has not been left behind in books of history and museums and universities across the globe are not unaware of this rising conflict between the pedagogic and the performative approach to the subject of contemporary political systems. These institutions have devoured the perspectives brought around by post colonial and post modern critics and thinkers and have absorbed the new insights brought — according to Chakrabarty, it can be rightfully said that no museum or university would like to dwell back to the nineteenth century idea of democracy or society/education in general. However, Chakrabarty believes that museums have been affected more by this shift and the authority of museums worldwide has been questioned — what can be exhibited and to whom. This is the conflict that Chakrabarty was talking about in his introduction. The two ideologies can, however, coexist according to him. The nineteenth century perception was based on education and thus made vital use of text, visuals and images. The twentieth century perception was based on authority and experience. The tie between the two would (and does), according to Chakrabarty, produce a whole new level of understanding and exploration where education and enlightenment won’t be tied down to boundaries or borders, but exceed and present themselves to people of all racial, lingual, or national origins.
How significant was the role of museums in your education or enlightenment? Do you think the idea and exploration of museums should be implemented in schools’ syllabi throughout the world to educate children?
yuheepehlumaibethayraho 