perspective noiembrie2012.pdf Wo6umur'q fzn2 q'erspecthe po€itice /67 Identities under Construction: Towards a Museum of Roma People in Romania Abstract. This alticte is a rejection upon the timeliness and possibiiityofestabtishing a Museum afRoma People, more spec$catly. a museum able to(re)present the Roma cultural identity in contemporary Romania. Having in mind Bauman's rejections on identity. the aim of this study is to provide arguments injavour of the idea that the purpose of a Museum o$Roma People should be to bring to life and gMe voice to various Roma identities, as lived and negotiated nowadays within compact Roma communities. as welt as outside Keywords: cultural identity, dialogue. museum. Roma We no conger believe that there are people without history. The contemporary ethnographic chaitenge +s to enter into and understand those ongoing h+storiesjrom the vantage point of everyday life'. Richard Jenkins if the modern problem o$identity is how to construct an identity and keep it solid and stable, the postmodern problem ofidentity is primarily how to avoidjixatian and keep the options open. Zygmunt Bauman At the time of Romanian nationalist ideology. the central muse- ums have focused their discourse on the peasant, as "represen- tative of the whole people, which thus becomes, in an identitary declarative way, a peasant-people"'. The purpose of this process of heritagization carried out in the institutional sphere was "thereby to enhance the image of a unitary national culture, closer to a generic rural people"s The use of the peasant's figure as repre- sentative image for the Romanian people and its heritagization "is part of the gene- ral approach of the time when the States in search of new forms of legitimacy, find their roots in the popular culture"e. What about the national minorities, such as Roma peo- ple? What is the relevance of a Museum focusing its discourse on Roma? How could Roma identity be approached by professionals of culture? In my opinion, the arguments in support of the necessity of such a museum can be diverse and even conflicting, depending on per spective. An ethnographic position confining itself to the old ideo- logy of the need for an "encyclopaedic museum", even if advocated in the name of a "generous humanism"7, may regret the absence of such a museum. According to this perspective, not to put into Ciprian Tudor drd. SNSPA (ciprian.tudor@yahoo.com) /68 CuCturnflide?tut heritage a traditional material culture that belongs to Roma people would be a loss for universal cultural heritage. An argument of this kind would be unlikely to enter the agenda of the Roma civic activists, as they would probably conceive the museum in a completely different way, namely as a moral and social need to support the identity of a historically oppressed and currently discriminated population; moreover, it might even be considered However, the purpose of this paper is not to militate in favour of any one argument. Considering that the necessity of a Roma museum is underpinned by historical, cultural and political reasons, we try to find "forms of expression" for Roma identity that could enter such a museum. How could Roma identity be represented through the institutional logics of heritagization? This question is not solely directed at the professional community that normally undertakes the task of creating a museum, i.e. at museologists and muse- ographers. This is primarily because the project of a museum of Roma people requires a prior discussion on identity. In other words, before considering the museological strate- gies, collection policies and display techniques, a museum of Roma identity set up in the 21" century should have a consistent view on the major theoretical debates (and open social conflicts) that involve the idea of identity nowadays, as approached by sociology, anthropology, political sciences, etc. That said, this article does not intend to take a stand in the debates on identity as if speaking on behalf of an official institution - a Museum, as such, should be assumed by the government or by the formal and informal representati- ves of Roma people in Romania. Rather, this article aims at emphasizing what a museum of this kind should NOT be and how it could be designed to avoid some of the pitfalls identified during the last century by the practice and scientific literature concerning the representation of cultural identity in a museum The theoretical approach takes into account the constructivist idea of identity, which is placed at the opposite side of the essentialist one. Having in mind Bauman's reflection about identity this research is not interested in picking up an identity that is considered frozen in time, but rather consider identity opened to numerous voices that, in this case, correspond to various Roma identities. In trying to "avoid fixation and keep the options open ', as Baumann claimed, one must consider Roma identity as an ongoing process of construction. On the other hand, given that "we no longer believe that there are pear/e w/fhouf h/sto/y'9. it can be considered that "the contemporary ethnographic challenge is to enter into and understand those ongoing histories from the vantage point of everyday life"'o. Therefore, the Roma identity is considered here in non-essentialist terms (i.e. this is not about discovering and reifying once and for all, in a museum, the "true Roma Identity"). but rather in terms of a plurality of discourses on Roma, inside and outside the Roma community. Given that the historical context in which a museum of Roma people would arise and the multiple identities experienced every day by each person in the 21 " century, we con- sider that a museum of Roma identity needs to be a platform of dialogue and mutual un- derstanding of difference. Nevertheless, the analysis will make reference to the cultural, political and social conditions of the building of a Roma identity, in an attempt to suggest several solutions from the perspective of new museum studies. This study is divided into three sections. The first section of the analysis concerns the contexts in which the Roma identity is being built today, contexts which produce different identitary claims. The second section presents arguments for a museum that could represent Roma identity noiem6de 20] 2 perspective po£itice 769 from the inside. Finally, the third section concerns Roma identity as constructed from the outside, as reflexion of the others' discourses about Roma identity. [+'hat does Jketing Ronda mean in today's Romania? Considering there are at least two major but diverging self-identification discourses of the Roma people, i.e. the one of the "traditionalists" and the one promoted by Roma NGO activists, it should be distinguished. first of all, between the contexts in which the Roma Identity is being built today: on one hand, a context of cultural difference, of ethnicity assumed as a right to cultural differences and on the other hand, a context of social and political claims concerned with the right to equality rather than the right to difference, that is, with individual rather than community rights. The inherent tension between the two current approaches to building the Roma identity based on claiming rights is particularly problematic, as it entails all the issues confronting the ethnic entities that have not expe- rienced the historical moment of incorporation into a nation state and, consequently, al the dilemmas generated by the idea of building an "extraterritorial nation". Moreover, the particularities of Roma history in Eastern Europe encumber the approaches of identity that proved effective in other cases (see, for instance, the political history of and solutions for building the identity of "primary nations', "natives", etc. in the 20th century). How can one represent a polyntorphously acperienced identity? Whether from the perspective of the right to cultural differences or from the position of political claims and citizenship, the fact of living one's own Roma identity nowadays looks like a continuous and difficult negotiation. In any case, this assumption of a lived identity can be studied in terms of dynamics of the relationship between traditional culture and the impact of modernity. Therefore, any project for a Museum of Roma People should take into account both contexts, without essentializing either of them. However, an initi- al pitfall into which the good intentions could lead the Museum project is that of forcing consensus in a place where it is actually absent. Regarding Roma identity, the position of the leaders of the main traditionalist communities and that of certain leaders of the major Roma NGOs may prove irreconcilable. Obviously. it would be a mistake for the museum discourse to ignore the fact that feeling, for instance, "corfurar" (i.e. nomadic Roma living n tents). is not the same thing as feeling Roma (of any subgroup), more specifically as a discriminated citizen and member of a national minority that needs recognition of lts civil rights and equality before the law. With regard to this dynamic, no one, much less a museum, is entitled to decide without consultation what being or feeling Roma should mean today. By ignoring, muffling or misrepresenting various discourses on Roma iden- tity, a museum would assume a role and a right that nobody has. Admitting this fact could already outline an idea of what a Museum of Roma People could be: an open platform. responsive to the plurality of voices, even when they are not in tune. It would be less of an institution collecting objects, traces, signs of an ossified cultural identity and more of a place for meeting and consultation with representatives of communities for a continu- ous negotiation of identity. Last, but not least, it would be a space that, like a sound box, would amplify the muffled voices of discriminated communities and a platform of memory restored by the accounts of all those who have never had the right or chance to continuo- /70 Cu£tura I delttit) usly repeat and interpret their identity story. From this point of view. it is not the state, the museum or the curators appointed by the government that should tell the story of Roma people, but Roma people themselves. in a space of dialogue. even though affected by the lack of homogeneity. The Museum of Roma People should belong to the Roma people. On the other hand. it is obvious that museums were, in the 1 9l" and 20o ' centuries. an essential identity factor and an ideological instrument for political construction, a tool held by the political elites and used in forging the nation. The feeling of historical injustice that an ethnic group may experience in the 21" century due to the impossibility of forming a nation state based on the model and means of the 19t' century cannot justify, in any case, a return to the museum practices and policies that were used to "invent" nations. f it is to belong to Roma people, however, the Museum of Roma should not look like the national museums have looked until recently. While it is a difficult situation, liable to ge- nerate confusion and frustration. it could nevertheless be considered an opportunity for the Roma people. This is because a space that inherently pursues the free building of an identity and attempts to recover the memory as a living thing would offer them a chance to understand their own culture in the context of today's increasingly globalized but also more and more localized world }defttity in the mirror ofthe Other? Besides this approach that considers the plurality of self-identification voices and dis- courses, moving upwards. from communities to the public space, the project of a museum should take into account another factor that affects the building of an identity: hetero-iden- tification. the discourse of the others about what and who Roma people 8r9. This massive discourse of the majority is to be analyzed in terms of discrimination. negative cliches and the persistence of a historical demonization of the Roma people. The analysis of this de- monization brings to light the suffering and difficulty of so many people in living their own Roma identity in relation to the others. in compact communities, as well as in society in a broader sense. To the extent that cultural identity is in most cases built through cultural re- presentations. and as these representations are created and re-created by the prejudices of the majority about the 'gypsy' - this dangerous 'other' - a Museum of Roma identity could also be conceived as a Museum of the Other. The image of the Alien, of a threate- ning, dangerous or impure Other, has been cast on the Roma with consequences that we all know: exclusion, condemnation to isolation, silence, social and political oppression. Considering these obvious facts, a Museum of Roma People should also have a specular dimension of an identity mirrored by the negative stereotypes that plague the history and self-concept of Roma communities. Besides the task of collecting historic evidence on the demonization of the gypsy. besides the necessary repertory of atrocities committed against the Roma population, besides the reckoning, no matter how comprehensive, of the representations and practices of the majority with regard to and against a minority. the mission of a 21 :t century museum would be to challenge and destabilize such representa- tions and practices. Such a museum would do this directly. bluntly, with unusual means or in spaces and on occasions that do not warn the audience that they are going to witness an act related to the sad history of the Roma. The two following approaches as to how a political and anthropological view on re- presenting identity can be converted into a museum strategy could destabilize the latent ltoiem67 e 2012 eerspectiwe poCitice prejudices of the public: Let's imagine that one day, in Bucharest, on the sidewalk in front of the /Vafiona/ yl//a- ge Museum, a caravan of poor Rudad Roma would appear, with their horses, wagons and collected scrap iron, camping there symbolically, in a kind of mobile pavilion placed outs/de the village represented by the Museum, at the periphery of the idealized Image of the Romanian village. The pavilion could be entitled fhe Naf/ona/ Museum of VI//age Pe/zphe/y. Various strategies to advertise an exhibition placed in a different location. at the Museum of Roma People, could be developed around this inopportune presence. Likewise, a temporary multimedia show on the dynamics of interethnic relations in the rural space can be organized at the Romanian Peasant Museum in cooperation with the Museum of Roma People. These ways of prompting a dialogue with the public, no matter how unlikely they may seem at this moment because of administrative and institutional reasons, are not impos- sible. This fact is confirmed by the recent history of a museology engaged in a critical dia- logue with anthropology, sociology and cultural theory, on one hand, and with the political establishment, on the other hand. Because these strategies are primarily concerned with ways of avoiding the pitfalls of essentialism and of an idealized presentation of a culture, they can help create a living museum that is much more than an ossuary or a cabinet of curiosities Before discussing the vision that underpins this type of attitude in museum studies, another imagined counterfactual way to represent the Roma identity as seen in the mirror of the Other could provide an opportunity to overcome the conflicting relationship asso- ciated with Roma people. In this instance, however, the perspective is reversed, i.e. from the perspective of representation of the danger-and-impurity-bearing Alien in traditional Roma culture. A Museum of fhe Gad#o could be the screen on which a culture projects its deepest identity features, everything that makes it a spec/#c culture, different from army other cu/fare. At first glance a Museum of the Gadjo may be seen as an impiety or a sacrilege by traditionalist Roma, as a collection of unveiled secrets and broken taboos. However, it need not be so. Rather, the Museum of the Gadjo could be a space that speaks of the interdict without violating it. Above all. it could be imagined as a space open to multiple logics, in which magical realism coexists with the modern principles of positi- ve reason, in a relationship that involves tension but not mutual exclusion. An example of a collection policy that makes it possible to exhibit certain objects that are subject to gender and touching restrictions would require the curatorial team be formed of men and women who would handle those objects as required by tradition. As Jeffrey E. Mauger and Janine Bowechop" point out, such practices are already usual in many "community museums" or "tribal museums'. In any case, a museum that presents the profound logic of a culture in relation to everything that differs from it would provide a good opportunity for such a culture to reconsider its own traditions, its own practices and representations. For both Roma and gadUos, a museum of this kind, focusing on the topic of mufua/ misun- derstand/ng, would be in fact an opportunity to understand each other and to negotiate the deepest meanings of cultural proximity and distance. While the public announcement of a project like this might stir strong reactions, ranging from anger to derision, the event would nevertheless generate an authentic debate in the public space over the identity of Roma people. If all the parties concerned participate in the negotiation, and if the project team includes both Roma and non-Roma people, activists and traditionalists, museology ]72 experts and sociologists. all with a transparent agenda of cultural policies, then this pro ject for a Museum of Roma People could prove a worthwhile endeavor. F:te Afuseltm ofRoma People -: Identities wilder ca ts€ructibr!, lace to Jbce Assuming that a Museum of Roma People is necessary and would be in itself an identity building factor (as it re-presents and makes manifest and visible a certain under- standing of identity), previous sections of this paper conceived of the Museum of Roma People as an open cultural institution that would avoid the pitfalls of reifying, ideologizing and ossifying an identity that undergoes continuous reformulation. When developed from a perspective of museum studies and of new debates around the idea of an anthropolo- gical museum, the argument is that an institution of this type should be more than a place for displaying a cultural heritage. It should rather be the place where both members and non-members of the respective ethnic community can relate to their own thinking habits. A museum of this kind could be conceived as an echo chamber. wherein the Roma iden- tity is prompted to rethink itself and the non-ethnics are challenged to see themselves in a diverse and inhomogeneous way from the perspective of those who live that Roma identity. Without going into details related to the design of such an institution of culture, several guidelines could nevertheless be taken into account: A museum "hears" various and sometimes diverging discourses coming from commu- nities and individuals that live their Roma identity in continuous negotiation. The museum would not establish itself as the sole and official voice that tells once and for all the story of Roma identity. The plurality of voices that compose the jigsaw puzzle of Roma identity should not be edulcorated ideologically to eliminate all harshness and to make it seem as though the different approaches mask internal tension. When the Roma identity faces a dilemma, the museum should not conceal it. but rather bring it to light in a space of negotiation. As Jette Sandahl said in a kind of retrospective manifesto regarding the policies of the institutions that she led (the Museum of World Culture), "the diversity we seek to articulate is less one of easy harmony than one of recognition of conflicts"'2 The museum should not be a sumptuous mausoleum of the Roma material and cultu- ral heritage, but rather a working platform that can be used to interpret the past through the present, as well as to interpret the present based on the current legitimate aspirations of Roma people. In other words, the museum could assume the mission of recovering the cultural memory, as well as the role of a civic and militant platform. The phrase used by Des Griffin when commenting on the situation of Australian museums is both accurate and vivid, as it shows how forward-thinking museums can play a fundamental political role: "In these contested and sometimes unsafe space-times, many museums are light- years ahead of political leadership"':. Far from the model of the ethnographic museums that "own collections" instead of tem- porarily hosting a heritage and inviting dialogue, a Museum of Roma People designed as a meeting space and as a "mirror museum of cultural differences" would be more effective as a point of social interaction, in a broader sense, for both Roma and non-Roma people. The more vivid, challenging and present it is within the social life, the more effective a museum of this kind would be. Apart from the imaginary experiments of museum guerrilla tk ' T , References sciprinary innovative doctoral on through the European Social 3 Bauman. !996. i8. 4 Mih511escu, 2008. 221 5 Mihiilescu, 2008. 220. 6 Catrina. 20u, i3i. 7 Cuny, 20ii 8 Bauman. i996, l8. 9 Jenkins, 2008. 5. ao ibid, s. u Maurer and Bowechop, 2006 i2 Sandahl, 2005, 37. i3 Des Griffin. zoos, 85. i4 Well, i999, 256 i5 Wallis, i994, 265 z6 Des Grif6n, zoos, 92. Bibtiography Bauman. Zygmunt. z996. From Pilgrim to Tourist - or a Short History of Identity. In Ouest/ons o#w/lyra/ fdentfty, ed. Stuart Halland PauIDu Gay, a8-36. London: Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Catrina. Sonia. 20zz. L'imaginaire paysan comme <€m6moire historiqua>. Patrimoine et construction de I'identity nationale par le biais des mus6es centraux. Stud/a po/utica vol. XI, nr. z: 121-136 Cano, James. zou. Musee/ms Matter: in Pra/se of the Encyc/opedfc Museum. Chicago: University of Chicago Grit:fln. Des. zoo5. Australian Museums and Indigenous Peoples; from Previous Possessions to Ongoing Responsibilities. In The A/atfve Un/verse and Museums in the Twenty.erst Century: the Signgcance af fhe Natfona/ Museum ofthe American /ndian, ed. National Museum of the American Indian, 8i-g6 Washington, D.C.: NationaIMuseum of the American Indian. Smithsonian Institution Jenkins. Richard. 2008. Rethfnkfng Ethnic/ty. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications MaugerJ Jeffrey E., and Janine Bowechop. zoom. TribalCollections Management at the Makah Cultural and Research Center. \r\ Living Homesjor Cultural Expression: North American Native Perspectives on Creatfrlg Community Museums, ed. Karen Caddy Cooper. Nicolasa I Sandoval, and National Museum of the American Indian(U.S.), 57-63. Washington. D.C.: NationaIMuseum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution Mihiilescu, Vinti15. zoo8. Quelle anthropologie pour quelle soci6t6? Soci6t6 postpaysanne et ethnologie postnationale en Roumanie. Anthropo/ogle et Socfdtds; /Wonder soc;al;stem et (post)-soclallstes vol. 3z, nr. a-z: zi7-z39, http://www.erudit.org/revue/as/2008/v32/nl-z/al88goar.html#reanoa6 (accessed on Sandahl. Jette. 2005. Living Entities. In The Nat/ve Un/verse and Museums in the 7wentyjrst Century: the Slur?Prance of the National Museum oi the American /nd/an. ed. National Museum of the American Indian (U.S.), z7-39. Washington. D.C.: NationaIMuseum of the American Indian. Smithsonian Institution. Wallis, Brian. 1994. Selling Nations: InternationaIExhibitions and CulturaIDiplomacy. In Museum Culture: H/stories, Dismunes, Spectac/es, ed. Daniel J. Sherman and Int Rogo#J z65--8a. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Weil, S. E. i999. From Being About Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum. Daedafus iz8 (3): 22g-258 Press 3o .oz. zola)