Chapt_15_Registers_of_engagement.pdf

8/14/2019 Chapt_15_Registers_of_engagement.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapt15registersofengagementpdf 1/55

1

Draft chapter from:

Representing Enslavement and Abolition in Museums: Ambiguous Engagements Edited by Laurajane Smith , Geoff Cubitt, Ross Wilson , Kalliopi Fouseki

Routledge – see http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415885041/

Publication date 15 June 2011.

Chapter 15

Affect and registers of engagement: navigating emotional responses to dissonant

heritages

Laurajane Smith

Introduction

Education and learning are central issues in the museological literature, and are often

assumed to be one of the main, if not the key, underlying reason that people visit

museums. This chapter suggests that the debates on education and learning often

neglect the way museums are used to navigate social debate and, in particular, social

controversy. It is suggested that one of the key things that visitors seek to do is to use

museums to reinforce their emotional and intellectual commitment to certain forms of

knowledge and the values that they underpin. These may include such things as

nationalism, class solidarity, ethnic identities, political ideologies and so forth. To

develop this argument, the chapter explores the role emotion plays when visitors

engage with difficult museum exhibitions, and how emotional responses influence the

ways in which visitors engage with, or disengage from, exhibition content, and thus

the way they use their visits to negotiate social and historical issues.

http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/laurajane_smith/


http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/geoff_cubitt/

http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/ross_wilson/

http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/kalliopi_fouseki/


http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415885041/





http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/ross_wilson/

http://www.routledge.com/books/search/author/geoff_cubitt/




2

As research by Yaniv Poria reminds us, people go to heritage sites to feel (2007). The

emotional responses that people have to heritage and history have tended to be

overlooked, and are not well understood (Byrne 2009). Traditionally, museums can be

characterised as so called ‘safe’ places of celebration and affirmation. However, what

happens when museums begin to engage with contentious and traumatic hidden

histories? Bonnell and Simon (2007: 67-8) warn that museums that attempt to

confront and explore hidden histories in ways that are emotionally engaging, and that

work to elicit empathy for others, may make too much of a claim on visitors’

attentiveness and capabilities, and thus be pedagogically problematic. As they note,

negative feelings generated by histories of trauma and loss are ‘often associated with a

sapping of energy … a negation of life rather than affirmation of it’ (2007:67). This

may, perhaps misjudge the emotional capabilities of some visitors, but it certainly

raises the issue of what may be at stake emotionally for visitors engaging with such

exhibitions.

This chapter explores the affective responses visitors had in reaction to exhibitions

dealing with the history of British enslavement of African peoples at seven museums

and one country house museum whose exhibitions opened during 2007, the year of

the bicentenary of the British abolition of the slave trade. The chapter will map the

various ways people engaged, or did not engage, with exhibition content, and the

ways in which emotion was used in both passive and active ways to frame their

responses, and the social meanings and messages people subsequently took from the

exhibitions. In mapping the range of responses the chapter ultimately questions the

roles museums are assumed to play in learning, and suggests that emotional



3

affirmation and reinforcement of ‘known knowns’ plays an important factor in the

way visits are undertaken.

Background and context of the exhibitions

Before exploring the data from the visitor interviews, it is important to note that the

history of the predatory relationship of Britain with Africa is one that has been hidden

in general public debate and consciousness. Indeed, Oldfield (2007:7) describes this

history as occupying a void in collective British memory, and it was not until 2009

that this aspect of British history was made a compulsory subject in the school

curriculum (Paton and Webster 2009:166). As a commemorative event, the

bicentenary provided Britain with an opportunity to remember this forgotten or

silenced history, and in doing so to renegotiate recalled knowledge about this history

and what it may mean for contemporary society (Connerton 2001). Certainly, for

many African-Caribbean communities the bicentenary represented an opportunity for

an acknowledgement and recognition of trauma that continues to have implications

for racism and multicultural issues in modern Britain (see Agbetu, Waterton this

volume). Recognition like this can form vital steps in the development of equitable

public debate and policy negotiations over the re-distribution of social and economic

resources to disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and work towards

restoring a sense of social justice over these issues (see Fraser 2000; Lovell 2007).

However, such remembering requires not only a significant intellectual, but also an

emotional remaking of British self-identity. The forgetting of this history is an

example of what Connerton defines as humiliated silence, an attempt ‘to bury things

beyond expression and the reach of memory’ (2008: 68). Humiliated silence is a form



4

of forgetting that is vital in maintaining the survival of an important aspect of British

post-imperial self-identity: a belief in, and a confidence about, British historical and

contemporary morality. Indeed the bicentenary was, according to Government policy

in 2006 and 2007, to be a celebration of the ‘moral victory’ of Britain in being ‘the

first’ nation, or one of the first (as it had to be admitted), to end the slave trade

(Waterton 2010, this volume; see also Agbetu 2007; Paton 2009). The idea that

Britain was the ‘first’ nation to do so – even if not historically accurate – appears

obsessively in writing about slavery (Waterton 2010, this volume). Abolition was to

be the focus of the bicentenary, and this drew on and reinforced collective knowledge

about the moral leadership of abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and Thomas

Clarkson, and to a lesser extent figures such as Olaudah Equiano. The bicentenary

was a commemorative occasion that was framed by tensions and dissonance. On one

hand, it celebrated Britain’s moral leadership in Europe by abolishing its trade, and

the importance of British morality as an aspect of national identity. On the other hand,

it offered opportunities to recollect Britain’s history of enslavement, a recollection

that contradicts moral certainty, and contextualises contemporary debates about

racism, immigration and multiculturalism.

Britain is by no means alone in attempts to silence and forget this history (see for

instance Dann and Seaton 2001; Butler 2001; Shackel 2003; Buzinde and Santos

2008). Santos (2008:165-6) observes that in the context of Brazilian collective

memory slavery has become ‘merely a historical phase that had to be overcome’, and

that enslavement has becomes a ‘natural catastrophe’ with no perpetrators, just

victims of a historical ‘law or process’. Similarly, within Britain, this tendency to

sidestep trauma (Santos 2008:165) is identified by Waterton and Wilson (2009) who



5

argue that in much of the discourse associated with navigating the tensions of the

bicentenary ‘slavery’ becomes the active agent in this history, rather than Britain or

British merchants and politicians. This tendency only reinforces the tensions between

those sectors of British society looking for recognition, and those seeking to

remember the moral value of British identity.

The exhibitions

Museums and the wider heritage and cultural sector were caught within these

tensions. Most museums attempted to address the full history of British involvement

in the trade, and to downplay the wider public celebration of abolition and of

abolitionists, while also acknowledging the ongoing consequences of this trade for

contemporary Britain and Africa (Cubitt 2009; Paton 2009). The new museology, and

the following debate this sparked, has stressed the responsibility that museums have in

reflecting on current social issues, and in facilitating public debate about them (see for

instance Vergo 1989; Witcomb 2003; Sandell 2002, 2007; Macdonald 2007, 2009;

Message 2009). Indeed, some commentators have suggested that museums are ‘safe’

places that provide the security for visitors to confront and engage with risky or

dissonant topics (Gurian 1995; Janes 2007). However, others have argued that this

sense of ‘safeness’ is based on the assumption that museums are institutions of

authority, that offer ‘unbiased’ and ‘balanced’ accounts of that past (see Cameron

2007, Bonnell and Simon 2007; Ashton and Hamilton 2003). In surveys that

discussed museum visitation, both Cameron (2006, 2007) and Ashton and Hamilton

(2003) report a visitor discourse that stressed the need for balanced, neutral and

authoritative accounts of topics. This was particularly the case, as Cameron’s (2007)

findings reveal, when topics were controversial or dissonant. To what extent this



6

discourse of ‘balanced’ and ‘unbiased’ expertise is a discourse of insecurity, when

museums turn out not to be ‘safe’, by the simple act of providing confronting or

challenging exhibitions, is an issue worth considering. However, museum exhibitions

developed during the 2007 bicentenary, and that downplayed abolition while drawing

attention to the wider history of British involvement in enslavement, were always

going to be challenging for audiences unfamiliar with public debate and recognition

of this history. As Bonnell and Simon (2007:67) observe, any exhibition that deals

with unredeemed histories will invoke unpleasant feelings of ‘grief, anger, shame, or

horror’, particularly if those histories, such as that of the slave trade, ‘raise the

possibility of complicity of one’s country, culture, or family in systematic violence’.

The fact that there had been little public debate in the lead up to the bicentenary about

this history meant, as Oldfield (2007:7) points out, that there was no ‘tradition’ of

recollection for people to draw on in navigating the emotions raised by exhibitions.

Indeed, Seaton suggests that the lack of public awareness or emphasis of this history

in standard historical texts, and the subsequent lack of understanding in the heritage

sector, may be because acknowledgement of this history was seen to have the

potential of being ‘socially and politically divisive’ (2001:120-1). A popular statement

that occurred again and again during the bicentenary, and which Seaton also records

(2001:117), was that there is a lack of physical evidence documenting the slave trade

and an absence of sites of enslavement within Britain. Evidence of this kind is

perceived not to exist within Britain, as enslavement occurred outside of Britain in the

Americans, the Caribbean and Africa. Britain does have, however, many artefacts and

physical evidence of this history – those places, buildings, archives and art and

artefact collections built and collected on the proceeds of the slave trade, which tell

the story of how economically important the trade was to British social, cultural and



7

economic prosperity. Country houses, which are so symbolic of British heritage and

prestige, and are a significant resource in the tourist trade, are heavily implicated in

this (Walvin 2000; Seaton 2001:121). However, looking at these as ‘artefacts of the

slave trade’ requires not only a risk to their tourism potential, as Seaton notes, but

more significantly a risk to British national identity and the significant sense of pride

that the country house and their art collections engenders in collective British

imagination (see Mandler 1997; Palmer 2005; Smith 2006:115f for fuller discussion

of the place of country houses in British identity).

The lack of a popular meta-narrative, and the so-called ‘lack’ of physical ‘evidence’

about this history, meant that not only were museum staff themselves often

encountering this history for the first time, they had few publicly comprehensible

narratives to draw upon (Wilson this volume; Cubitt 2009; Paton 2009). Thus,

although many activities occurred in the cultural sector around the bicentenary, there

are firm similarities across exhibitions in the themes and narratives they developed

(see Cubitt 2009; Paton 2009). At the museums at which audience interviews were

undertaken, exhibitions tended to communicate the history and legacy of the

transatlantic slave trade through five stages. These stages were African art and

culture, the triangular trade, the middle passage, plantation life, abolition and

resistance and modern day slavery (see Cubitt et al ., this volume #).

1807 Audience Interviews

Methodology

At each of the institutions listed in Table 1, interviews using a structured schedule 1

were undertaken during the summer and autumn of 2007 to record visitor responses to



8

both the exhibitions and the bicentenary. The museums at which interviews were

undertaken all come from different regions around England and all had exhibitions

had all opened in 2007 and, as noted above, followed similar themes and narratives #.

A number of standard demographic questions recording age, gender, ethnicity,

educational attainment, occupation and etc were asked followed by 18 open-ended

questions. The aims of the interview were, firstly, to identify the affective memory

and identity work visitors were engaged in during their visit, and, secondly, to

determine the degree of engagement visitors had with both the exhibition and the

social and political issues raised by acknowledging the history of enslavement. A

particular focus of the study was ways in which visitors used their visit to navigate

and then engage, or not engage, with issues of racism and multiculturalism.

Those interviewed were approached at the exits to exhibitions/museums creating a

convenience sample. In the main, one-to-one interviews were conducted, however,

group interviews were taken where couples, family groups or visitor groups desired to

be interviewed collectively. Each individual in these cases were counted as a separate

interview, and it is important to note that separate points of views, and indeed

discussions, did occur in group interviews. In general, group interviews occurred

between couples, whilst the largest group interviewed consisted of four people. All

interviews were recorded, unless the person interviewed requested otherwise, in

which case the interviewer took detailed notes.

Table 1: Visitor interviews per Museum

MUSEUM NUMBER OF VISITORS



9

British Museum 206

National Maritime Museum 205

British Empire and CommonwealthMuseum

162

International Slavery Museum, Liverpool 339

Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery 165

Museum in Docklands 182

Wilberforce House, Hull 148

Harewood House 91

Total 1498

All recordings were transcribed. A random sample of 250 transcripts was read through

to define thematic responses to each of the open-ended questions, and codes were

devised for each theme. All transcripts were then read through and coded collectively

by the author and a group of research assistants involved in the collection of the

interviews. During the coding process codes were altered slightly as new themes

emerged that were not covered by the sample, and some codes were collapsed. During

coding, the demographic variables were blinded so as not to influence the coding

process. Each individual interview was also coded in its entirety on three registers,

and it is these that are the focus of the chapter:

a) Emotional engagement with exhibition content;

b) Awareness and engagement with racial and multicultural issues; and

c) How active/passive engagement with the exhibition was.



10

Within both the museological and wider heritage literature, various debates have

tended to characterise visitor interaction with heritage as either an issue of education

or learning or as touristic trivialisation (see Hewison 1987; Hooper-Greenhill 1991;

Falk and Derking 2000 amoungst others; cf. Moscardo 1996; Poria et al 2003).

However, arguments that visitors may be more ‘mindful’ than is often assumed

suggest that it may be fruitful to look at what I am referring to as ‘registers of

engagement’. The purpose of distinguishing the three registers was to explore the

extent to which people do or do not deal with contemporary issues when ‘visiting the

past’, and the extent to which they may be doing so in reactionary, conservative or

progressive ways. Further, the aim is to look at the intensity with which people

engage with exhibitions and the affective responses they elicit. Within these three

registers, interviews were coded on their engagement/reactions relative to each other.

While the overall patterns that emerged from analysing each of the 18 open-ended

questions are quickly summarised here, the focus of the chapter will be on using entire

interviews to illustrate the general patterns that have emerged. To create descriptive

statistics the demographic data and the coded open-ended questions were entered into

the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15. Cross-tabulations

were then made with the demographic (independent) categorical variables and chi-

square significance tests undertaken to measure statistical significance. The variables

used for cross-tabulation included: gender, age, socio-economic category; 2 ethnicity;

educational attainment; intention of visit (i.e. if the visit was planned or unplanned);

and the museum at which the interview was undertaken.



11

The question requesting information on ethnic background/identity required self-

identification, that is, standard British ethnic descriptors were not used, and

respondents were simply asked to define their ethnic identity as they saw it. However,

the majority of British respondents tended to use generic standard definitions such as

‘White British’, ‘White English’ or ‘Asian British’. ‘Black British’ was less

frequently used in preference to African British, African-Caribbean or Caribbean

British, amongst others. For the purposes of this chapter, ‘African-Caribbean British’

is used. Tourists, ex-pats, etc, from overseas countries were grouped as ‘non-British’.

Overall Results

The interview sample tends to confirm to the traditional profile of museum visitors in

that they were predominantly white, well educated and middle class. Table 2 gives a

breakdown of ethnicity, using descriptors nominated by respondents with 58%

identifying themselves as white British. Many of the individual museums in the

survey attracted relatively high numbers of African-Caribbean visitors to the

exhibitions, well beyond the frequencies usually recorded at general exhibitions, and

thus 12% of the sample is composed of those who identified as African, Caribbean or

Black British. Just over half (51%) of respondents held a university degree or higher,

and 74% came from socio-economic categories (1-3) traditionally associated with the

middle classes. The sample was evenly divided between men and women (50% each),

while 51% of the sample were aged 45 and over, and 49% were aged 44 and under.

Table 2: Ethnicity

Frequency Valid Percent



12

‘White’ British/English 867 58.4 Non-British 348 23.4‘Black’ /African-Caribbean/African British 182 12.3

‘Mixed Race’ British40 2.7‘Asian’ British 34 2.3

Other 14 .9Total 1485 100.0

In analysing each of the open-ended questions, and correlating them to the

demographic or independent variables, a number of general patterns emerged from the

data. These patterns, along with a more detailed analysis of some of the individual

open-ended questions, are discussed elsewhere (Smith 2010). While I do not want to

repeat this discussion, it is useful to provide a brief summary of the overall findings

here, as the aim of this chapter is to explore these patterns using entire interviews to

map in detail the ways in which people engaged or disengaged from the exhibitions.

Ethnicity and gender correlated to the patterns that emerged from the data, with the

majority of white British either passively or actively disengaging with the exhibitions,

while African-Caribbean British were more likely to engage. Women, and in

particularly African-Caribbean women, were more likely to actively engage and to

express empathy. Educational attainment and socio-economic status produced no

statistically significant patterning in the responses. The location of the interview (that

is, the exhibition that was being visited) proved to have limited impact on the

distribution of responses. Age, in the main, also did not influence responses (see

Smith 2010 for more details).



13

Feelings of guilt and shame emerge as significant issues for many of those

interviewed, particularly those who identified as white British. None of the museum

exhibitions referred to or aimed to generate feelings of guilt, although many used a

range of devices to illicit empathy, and to encourage reflection on the legacies of the

history of enslavement. The interview schedule also did not ask questions about guilt,

but these feelings were often talked about, entirely unprompted, by white British

respondents. As previously argued (Smith 2010), the white British response was

dominated by attempts to negotiate these feelings, negotiations that met with varying

degrees of success or failure. Indeed, most white British respondents tended to

insulate or disengage themselves from the exhibitions, and more particularly from

negative feelings that undermined their sense of national identity and sense of self. A

range of discursive strategies, and five self-sufficient arguments, were used by many

of those interviewed to deflect the negative emotions they encountered at the

exhibitions, or that were generated during their visit. These self-sufficient arguments

are similar to those identified in studies of ‘race talk’, and refer to statements that are

perceived by the speaker to be based on ‘common sense’, and are thus beyond

question (Wetherell and Potter 1992: 91; Augostinous et al 2002:110). A range of

pervasive rhetorical devices have been documented to have arisen in a number of

Western liberal democracies as overt racism becomes increasingly unacceptable

(Augostinous and Every 2010). These devices, or self-sufficient arguments, are

statements whose internal logic is seen as ‘clinching’, but as also ‘justified, warranted

and rational’ (Augostinous and Every 2010:252). The speakers are protected against

charges of prejudice as the statements appeal to a sense of rationality, but are

nonetheless used to justify negative assessments of minority groups (Augostinous and

Every 2010), or in the case of this study to defuse negative feelings of collective guilt



14

and national responsibility. The five arguments identified in the 1807 interviews were,

in order of frequency of use:

1. ‘it was a long time ago, you cannot turn back the hands of time’;

2. ‘the morals of the time were different then’;

3. ‘it wasn’t just Britain, other countries were involved too’;

4. ‘the Africans were party to it’; and

5. ‘we are just working-class people, the elites were the ones who benefited’.

The inability of many to constructively negotiate or handle negative feelings often

worked to generate anger, frustration and ultimately, a distancing or disengagement

from the exhibition content (see Smith 2010 for fuller discussion). As will be

illustrated below, even when visitors attempted to positively engage with exhibition

content, the above self-sufficient arguments or other strategies of avoidance would

come into play to defuse negative feelings. For Bonnell and Simon (2007:68-9), the

tendency for white British to distance and emotionally insulate themselves may be an

example of a ‘self-protective ego’ defence elicited by an exhibition that has called for

an empathetic link to be made, but which has proved too destabilizing to handle. They

observe that:

one may identify with the other to the extent of losing oneself, and, as a result,

fail to grasp the implications of one’s difference from others. At the other

extreme, one may seek to distance oneself from those who have experienced

violence by belittling the significance of their experiences.

(2007:69)



15

As illustrated below, both of these responses, in both active and passive ways,

occurred within the white British sample. Those who identified as ‘Non-British’, were

unsurprising, quite mixed in their responses, with some utilising similar strategies of

disengagement and avoidance of the histories and the emotions this generated to those

who identified as white British.

Those who identified as African-Caribbean British, overall, actively engaged with the

content of the exhibitions they were visiting. That is, active politicised assessments of

the exhibitions and their contents tended to be undertaken by African-Caribbean

British respondents. The exhibitions were judged on the degree to which they had

effectively acknowledged hidden histories, and the ongoing consequences of that

history for British society. Many African-Caribbean British interviewed tended also

to engage in active and self-conscious expressions of remembering, commemoration

and social commentary. Asian British responses, on the other hand, like some white

British responses, tended to be emotionally neutral. However, like African-Caribbean

responses, they also tended to assess the political meaning and consequence of the

exhibitions for contemporary Britain (Smith 2010).

These overall patterns emerge clearly when the three affective registers that were used

to analyse the entire interviews are considered. Table 3 summarises the emotional

engagement of visitors with the exhibition. Just over 49% of respondents were

emotionally neutral, with 7% confronted and actively disengaged, and 10.8%

exhibiting deep empathy 3. White British respondents were far more likely to be

neutral, confronted or negotiating feelings of guilt/shame than African-Caribbean

respondents, who were more likely to be engaged in empathising or expressing pride.



16

Those who identified as Asian British, or who were overseas visitors, were likely to

be neutral, but, overall, not confronted or disengaged. Women, and in particular

African-Caribbean women, were more likely to express empathy then men.

Table 3: Affective/Emotions Register


Unable to code 51 3.5

Neutral 718 49.1

Empathy 159 10.8

Confronted/Angry/Disengaged 105 7.1Proud 86 5.8

Sadness (bland) 75 5.1

Discomfort 63 4.3

Guilt/Shame - acceptance 59 4.0

Guilt/Shame - avoidance 57 3.9

Confused/Conflicted 47 3.2

Distressed 22 1.5Voyeuristic 22 1.5

Total 1462 100.0

Table 4 summarises the degree to which issues about racism and/or multiculturalism

were of concern or considered by the interviewee. The acknowledgement of the

ongoing consequences of enslavement and colonialism was a significant public and

professional debate that developed around the bicentenary (see Agbetu; Waterton this

volume), and several of the exhibitions considered in this study dedicated sections of

the exhibition to these issues. A relative coding was undertaking of the entire

interview, with over 50% of those interviewed unaware or uninterested in these

issues. A further 20% were aware but not engaged with these issues, while 10% were

active in considering them. A very strong correlation occurred with ethnic identity,



17

with white British more likely to be unaware or confronted, while Asian and African-

Caribbean British were more likely to be positively engaged and assessing social

consequences, while women were likely to be more aware and engaged than men.

Table 4: Negotiating Racial and Multicultural Issues



Unaware/uninterested 739 50.4

Acknowledged, but not engaged 292 19.9

Assessing social consequences 151 10.4

Confronted but engaged 69 4.7

African Pride 54 3.7

Active avoidance of issues 51 3.5

Not an issue we have moved on 33 2.3

Racial commentary (racist) 18 1.2

Confronted and negative 18 1.2

Total 1465 100.0

Table 5 summarises the degree to which people were active or passive in their

engagement with the exhibition. Passive engagement, followed by neutral or

uncommitted engagement 4, was the most frequent response, with 23% being quite or

fully engaged with the exhibition content. White British were most likely to be neutral

or passive, and were more likely to be active if engaged negatively. This does not

mean to say that there were not actively engaged in progressive responses 5 to the

exhibitions (see below), but that many white British spent more emotional energy in

disengaging or reacting against the exhibitions than they did in exploring them in



18

constructive and progressive ways. However, those white British who were

progressive, were most likely to be progressive in passive rather than in active ways.

As noted above, when negativity occurred it often displayed itself in strategies, such

as the use of self-sufficient arguments that distanced individuals from the exhibition

and its content (Smith 2010). Those that engaged with this distancing activity were

also less likely to register as engaged with legacy issues. Asian British were almost

universally neutral, while African-Caribbean British were most likely to be quite or

fully engaged, in both positive and negative ways. In the case of African-Caribbean

British respondents, negative engagement tended to manifest itself in criticisms of the

exhibitions/museums they were visiting for failing to offer fuller recognition, or

offering what were considered sanitised views of the history, rather than with any

negativity to the topic or its display.

Table 5: Active/Passive engagement



Neutral/uncommitted 465 31.9

Passive 617 42.4

Quite engaged 210 14.4

Very/fully engaged 130 8.9

Epiphany 3 .2

Total 1456 100.0



19

In exploring these issues further, and to draw out the way emotion facilitated or

hindered engagement with exhibitions, I want to turn to an examination of some of the

interviews themselves to map the emotional journeys that were elicited. In doing so I

want to identify both emotionally passive and active responses to the exhibitions, and

illustrate that both progressive and conservative responses could be either passive or

active. I also want to illustrate the extent to which visitors to the museums were

looking for affirmation of both what they knew, and the emotions tied to that

knowledge, and how, when that was not found, the various ways people responded to

that pedagogical challenge.

Recognition and acknowledgment of this history and its legacies was a key issue for

many African-Caribbean visitors. As one visitor noted in response to the question

were there any messages they took away from the exhibition:

Erm, the only message I'd say is the fact that [of] putting up this exhibition, I

feel that British society has accepted what has been done in the past and

they're now coming out in the open and making it clear they understand that

they've done wrong and this is a way of making it clear that they know what's

happened and this is a way of apology.

(DB17(63): female, 35-44, fashion design, black British)

While others noted the importance of raising public debate about the issues, for

instance:



20

I think [the exhibition] signals part of the process of beginning to understand

erm... 6 English or British involvement in slavery as well as giving us a signal

that there is some acknowledgment of the suffering that we’ve been through. It

remains to be seen whether it’s integrated into the life and history and

education of Britain. I often feel that it is easier for people to talk about

modern day slavery than it is to talk about what happened on the plantations, I

think there is a sadness, there seems to be reluctance to talk about the legacies

of slavery and racism within the UK, its easier to talk about asylum seekers

and modern day slavery in terms of sex trafficking. And sometimes I think we

need to be open and just talk about it, and I think when people aren’t prepared

to talk about it it’s slightly offensive and more painful.

(DA18(18): female, 55-64, minister, English-Jamaican)

The need for recognition and the development of public debate had both a political

and personal dimension. The following interview at the Museum of Docklands with

an African-Caribbean woman, university lecturer, 35-44 years of age, illustrates the

personal immediacy that such recognition had for some visitors:

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?DA12(12): Yes, yeah absolutely.

Why?DA12(12): Erm...I think I've been studying slavery and literature which camewith the slaves in the 18th century and it still seems as if it’s quite [a] silentthing, quite a silent episode in British history, I think in America it’s become

part of the public consciousness of it’s sort of, you know celebration ofsurvival, here it’s quite, it’s not quite taboo, but it’s pretty close.

Does the marking of 1807 have a personal significance for you?DA12(12): Erm...yeah, yeah of course, it’s important, erm...my dad died lastweek.Oh I'm sorry!DA12(12): Yeah he lived a long time and his will was in a deposit box in a

bank and we went two days ago to open it and there was a certificate from hismother and it stated quite clearly that she was a descendant of a liberated slave



21

in Freetown in Sierra Leone so I think nationally it’s important, so I think tosee this it’s wonderful.What for you is this exhibition about?DA12(12): About Britain and about London and it’s inhabitants really, and thehistory of migration which I think is incredibly important yeah.

Whose history is being represented here?DA12(12): Erm...well I think a nice balance has been achieved, erm, slaves aswell as abolitionists as well as slave owners, I like the bit about the bank ofEngland I think that’s yeah. There could have been more on like the Quakers

but yeah... Are you part of the history represented here?DA12(12): Yeah absolutely, yeah.[…]What aspects of the exhibition were least successful (and why)?DA12(12): Erm...not so far no, possibly just to a few details left out, er, thereis a couple of Blake paintings, I think they're attributed to Blake though hisname wasn’t on it, I think it’s great it’s really friendly.

Has anything that you think could be relevant been left out of the exhibition?DA12(12): No! (laughs) It needs to get bigger. I’d also like to see a databasesomething like the Gutenberg project, something that people can access.

Did the exhibition meet your expectations?DA12(12): Erm...actually it er it exceeded the really. Erm...I didn't expect it to

be this comprehensive and it's free! (laughs) I don't no how long [it will befree] for! Well it should travel I think.

How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?DA12(12): Erm well it’s quite cathartic, erm, it’s also quite a communal event

because I'm here, it’s not just me, but there are other people you really sensean audience which is in some ways joined, yeah, I think that’s reallyimportant.

Are there any messages about the history or heritage of Britain that you’ll takeaway from the exhibition?DA12(12): Yeah, the, erm, the history it only works if it’s articulate and inorder to do that you have to be quite creative and I think this exhibition hassucceeded in that respect. Absolutely.What meaning (or importance) does an exhibition like this have for modern

Britain?DA12(12): Er, I think if you, it’s a classic thing, if you don't know your past

you can't go into your future in a thoroughly developed prepared way andthat’s really important I think. Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?DA12(12): Well apart from erm, a clarification about Britain’s role, erm, yeahit’s nice to be here, yeah, it’s, it’s always [her voice increases tempo andvolume]. We always lacked a venue and a space and there have been little

pockets of events, but what needs to happen is something very unified andvery clear in the public forum that it exists, yeah, yeah, I think that needs to be

balanced even more, this is a great start, you can't go from big without thesmall, hopefully this will continue.You were saying before you would like it to be expanded in terms of having net

resources?



22

DA12(12): I'm an 18th centurist and I've just been using e-texts with students,I live in [name of place] so er, to see them, being able to go online and just

browse for people's works, erm, it's, that is a freedom you know, this is afreedom and we’re talking about those two freedoms might coincide and Ithink that would be wonderful having a database a collection of resources,

maybe I could trace my family history, maybe we could see other texts thatother people might have in their attic, yeah I think it’s really important and noteverybody can come to London and the Gutenberg is quite a good example ofthat, and the E-18th century collection online which I believe is free, yeah...

Is there anything you’ve seen or read today that has changed your views onthe past or present?DA12(12): Well actually I knew about erm, some families who erm wereinvolved in you know, banking, erm and the Quaker families like the Barclaysand the Lloyds but I didn't realise that the Directors of the Bank of Englandwas a key proponent of the trade. So that has kind of adjusted things also thekind of anti, the women’s, er, role in taking up some of the demands [talkingabout women abolitions in Britain] I think it’s been really nicely recorded [inthe exhibition] I think it’s been a bit fuzzy on it. I tended to concentrate onslaves in Britain who published, but this is nice to see how agitators wereworking alongside them.

Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this exhibition speaks toor links?DA12(12): Yeah, erm, my Dad, as I said, was from Freetown Sierra Leone.Slaves were sent back there from Britain, or via Britain after the abolition ofthe slave trade. My mother was from Ireland and when they got together inLondon erm, they were you know they received abuse and racist erm, remarksetcetera and erm, they you know, they got through, and yeah I just feel like I'm

part of that yeah.The issue of ‘apology’ has been raised in this public debate over thebicentenary what is your opinion on this issue?DA12(12): Erm...I actually, I find, I think you need, I don't think it’s so clearcut as to who, you need to know who...is going to make the apology on behalfof whom, and I'd say erm, that's not the a pertinent an issue as erm...makingthe ideas of the past known. I would much more prefer to see energy andenthusiasm put into projects such as these than public apology. Erm, thatmight seem quite controversial but I think one looks back and one looksforward and I think I would prefer the latter.

[…]

The history depicted by the exhibition is very personal, not only does she have close

family connection to this history, it has recently been reinforced by the documents

unearthed after her father’s death. Moreover, the exhibition spoke to her personal

identity, not only as a descendent of enslaved Africans, but because of the racism that

her parents experienced. While there appears some hesitancy to talk about those



23

experiences, and a hesitancy to push for an explicit apology, there is considerable

positive emotional energy expressed in the interview. Despite recent distressing

events, she stresses the ‘friendly’ nature of the exhibition, its creativity, how

‘wonderful’ it is to be there, and that an exhibition as a communal experience

reinforces the sense of acknowledgement of her identity, and breaks the silence

surrounding this history that she identifies. In effect, she finds the experience of

visiting cathartic. This cathartic experience was one that was felt by other African-

Caribbean visitors, and was often used as a platform from which to make critical

social commentary about Britain’s past and present response to migration, racism and

multiculturalism.

The political issues associated with the acknowledgement of the history and legacies

of enslavement were clearly demonstrated in the criticism that many of the exhibitions

received from many African-Caribbean British respondents for not providing

sufficient recognition. A very active and frequent African-Caribbean response was to

offer a forthright critical assessment of whether or not the exhibition really did mark a

break in the silence, or was simply a sanitising gesture. This interview, also

undertaken at the museum of Docklands, with a man who identified as Caribbean-

British 45-54, service manager, is very assertive in the critical commentary that is

being made about both the exhibition and British society:

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?DE46(115): Erm, there is some, because I think in this country, in Britain inEngland it’s raising awareness, however, it’s not been acknowledged by the

people that need to acknowledge it and the comments that are coming out bythe individuals like the government and so, statements of regret rather than anapology things like that are very disappointing but to be expected.

Does the marking of 1807 have a personal significance for you?DE46(115): Yes.



24

What for you is this exhibition about?DE46(115): Well, I think for me it’s a bit, it’s about educating the community.[…] I think this actually [is about] marking the role that this particular area,the docklands, had with the trade. But on a personal note it is more abouthighlighting, raising awareness around the slave trade in general, the

exploitation and the oppression and really about the vast profits that thecountry gained from it over 400 years and even when the slave tradeended...the country still continued to benefit for many years later, so yeah, it’sabout education.Whose history is being represented here?DE46(115): Well I think it’s still very much weighed on the side of the British,the oppressors not the oppressed.

Are you part of the history represented here?DE46(115): How do you mean?

Do you feel this exhibition reflects your own history or connects to yourhistory?DE46(115): Yeah it connects a bit but it’s still a bit wide of the mark becausea couple of things, an exhibition like this you're talking about the slave trade,slavery didn't just spring up. The continent of Africa, there has been continuedmis-education and misrepresentation of it before the slave trade happened. Thehistory of Africa didn’t happen with the slave trade, Mali, Timbuktu,Zimbabwe the list goes on. Something like this, anyone coming off the streetwho doesn’t have an awareness, […] in isolation it looks as if this history justhappened, so that’s one thing, and the other things is, I mean, 400 years inenslavement it does mention it here, slaves, the language you spoke, yourname, it was like 400 years of negative conditioning. African people weretaught to hate themselves, the loss of culture, the loss of history and identityand so on, so the enduring legacy of that is [that] white communities still[have] this elevated status of maybe superiority and for black people ofinferiority. All those things have shifted, but you know because history isn'trepresentative in schools, you got to schools in this country and you're nottaught anything of African history. The other thing is the vast super-profit thatwas made is missing, 400 years of free labour, the institutions, the bankingindustry, companies like the sugar, Tate and Lyle, you have all these placesand you could go on and name several things. I think that bit is missing aswell. I think there’s a huge chasm that is missing in the beginning and thelegacy part. I think there is a call now for reparations...the continued miss-

education, this only again scratches the surface it gives a flavour...What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you? DE46(115): Er...I found the very beginning [of the exhibition], that wasinteresting, seeing the list of the ships and I think that was good, because a lotof the material that’s here I'm kind of familiar with anyway. [He is referring toa list of ships and their cargo that sailed out of the nearby docks] But erm,yeah...and you know partly I'm a bit saddened in a way because in a way it’s aholocaust that occurred, conservative, I can't remember the figures, buthowever many millions actually were taken away and lost their lives and soon, and the removal of the fittest men, women and children from society overa prolonged period of time, and the middle passage and the continued rape and

exploitation, it doesn’t come anywhere it doesn’t touch that at all.What aspects of the exhibition were least successful?



25

DE46(115): I don't know really, I didn't know what to expect I suppose the bitI just said that was least successful, you know it doesn’t really show you that.It’s a holocaust. And this is a very sanitised lets have a fun day out, lets have alook at what happened.[…]

How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?DE46(115): Er, on the one hand it’s actually well laid out and so on but erm,as I go around and some of the things I've told you it does leave me feelinglike actually it’s going to take a very long time until museums you know,whoever the curators and so on, actually start to depict this kind of issue in theway it should be depicted, so, yeah, it leaves me a bit kind of like empty in away.

Are there any messages about the history or heritage of Britain that you’ll takeaway from the exhibition?DE46(115): Erm...I suppose the message is really that you know there is...agreat deal of hypocrisy, there’s a great deal of as I said of work still to do toreally come to terms you know with what one set of people did to another setof people and in a very subtle way continue to do so here because there is stillracism and discrimination like in the schools, like as I said in education, black

boys are failing, the education that’s taught doesn’t confirm there contribution,their forefathers contribution in history or whatever there is still thatimbalance. And reparations in a sense that's an issue that needs to beacknowledged, where is the money from these fantastic companies and banksthat were built, and coming back into the community to redress some of thesethings, because 400-odd years of oppression you need a vast and consistentinvestment into those individuals and communities and so on and enable themto come up and compete on the same level.What meaning, if any, does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?DE46(115): (pause) I'm not sure if I understand the question, but in a way it’sgood that it’s been acknowledged, however our expectations now coming fromthe black community is that we’ve known this for a long time, it's not aboutacknowledgement it’s about putting something down of something that hasmuch more weight to it. Take the example of the Jewish Holocaust, 6 million

people, the commemoration that happens, the weight that's given to that and soon, look at people of African descent it’s really, slavery was a long time ago,it's brushed aside, so I suppose this is a you know a step forward in that it’s

being acknowledged.

Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?DE46(115): Well, yeah, because it’s part of my history, in the sense I cameoriginally from the Caribbean. The reason why I'm from the Caribbean is thatslavery existed. So yeah of course. I have a personal interest in how ourhistory is interpreted and taught and exhibited.

Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past or present?DE46(115): No, not on the past, because there’s nothing new, but on the

present I suppose (inhales) I just repeat there's still a long way to go. As Isaid...yes, I think there was a statement of regret but no apology, if you look atsupport and funding for black groups and communities, it’s negligible.

[…]



26

The sense of frustration with both the exhibition and British society is very palpable

in this interview. The speaker is looking for deep acknowledgement of this history so

that social justice and the equitable redistribution of resources can be achieved. In

terms of the politics of recognition, as defined by Nancy Fraser (2000), this man is

assessing the degree to which the ‘weight’, as he terms it, is being placed on both the

history of the slave trade and its legacies. He is assessing the degree to which he

considers Africans and their culture, history and experiences have continued to be

‘misrecognized’, and thus misunderstood by, British society. He is concerned, for

instance, that given the previous silence that has greeted this history, the exhibition

will continue the misrepresentation that African history and culture begins with

enslavement, while he is also concerned that explicit links to present issues of racism

are not drawn clearly enough. He is worried about continuing misrecognition. This

frustration is not simply disappointment in the exhibition, it is a concern that British

public debate, as reflected by the exhibition, has not attained the self-recognition it

needs to understand the social justice issues that are at stake for African-Caribbean

British people. As Fraser (2000) argues, the politics of recognition is a new form of

political negotiation that has developed in the latter part of the twentieth century. It is

predicated on the recognition by dominant and powerful sectors of a society of the

legitimacy of the different histories and experiences of politically marginalised

groups. This recognition becomes vital in ensuring that all parties have parity of

participation in policy negotiations over the distribution of resources. As she also

notes, misrecognition will only help to maintain inequity (2000, see also Lovell 2007).

The politics of recognition also requires self- recognition by dominant groups. Self-

recognition becomes difficult when a person’s own sense of self is dependent on the

membership of a society that is imperfect, and responsible for historical acts of long-



27

term violence and exploitation. For self-recognition to be achieved, empathy towards

those who have had their rights violated is required, and with that comes the need to

navigate the emotional issues of shame, guilt and responsibility (Smith 2010). As the

interviewee states, he is left feeling ‘empty’ by the exhibition, and what he feels it

says to him about current and future public debate on the issues of racial equity in

Britain. He is not alone in his distress, as many African-Caribbean British respondents

reported similar emotions, which are most piquantly expressed by this woman:

Whose history is being represented here?BE11(140): I wonder. I mean somehow is it er, I think it too late for anger. Ithink it’s too late for us to feel angry about this or to show it. Like peoplesaying with Roots, that there was going to be a lot of unrest and black peoplewill be disappointed, I said no it’s not about that. Is it guilt that they believethat they feel that they must start making a token gesture by saying ‘oh we dorecognise that we had a part to play in slavery’?

Are you part of the history represented here?BE11(140): Of course, of course I am. I remember my great-grandmother shewas born in 1872 and I remember the stories in my family...

Did you want these stories to be reflected?BE11(140): Yes I think there could be a lot more, I feel this is diluted it’s atokenism of England's involvement, Britain's involvement in slavery to me.What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you?BE11(140): Er, (pause) A lot of it I've seen, so to me, I don't know, I feel verydisappointed, I'm very saddened, I feel like I'm crying inside, this is just a slapin the face really, if this is what the museum can present for our history.

(BE11(140) 45-54, social worker)

If the recognition of this silenced history requires a degree of self-recognition by

British in-groups before full recognition and public debate can commence, how then

were the difficult emotions raised by the exhibitions navigated by white British? That

these emotions were difficult for many, is illustrated by one woman in response to the

question about the message taken away from the exhibition when she noted, with

honesty:



28

That our influence spread very far and it wasn't good. You don't like to take it

personally because you don't want to think I was a part of this, on the bad side

of things. So obviously black people can be traced back to slaves wherever

they came from. When, as if, I traced back, it might be someone who was

actually crewing ships or putting people in the shackles and I, and I really

wouldn't want to think about it so much.

(BHA24: female, 25-34, administrator)

In the following interview a white British couple, 45-54, who identified as a joiner

(LD51(136)) and a housewife (LD52(137)), discuss in a very active and positive sense

what the exhibition at the International Slavery Museum, Liverpool meant to them:

What for you is this exhibition about?LD51(136): It’s to make people aware, you know, of the independence theAfricans [had] before the introduction of the slave trade, as well as,unfortunately the later and er, and er...you know erm...What do you think? It’sthe shame of it...I look at it, and what's the mentality, and it’s, and it's, it’s all

political wasn't it? Who could make the most out this commodity if you like?And they thingyed their own backs, they covered their own backs by getting

parliament to cover them [slave traders].LD52(137): And they've got the cheek to name Liverpool roads after them[slave traders]. It makes you ashamed.LD51(136): It make you want to walk up to some of the black peoplewondering around and apologise. You feel like going up to them and saying it

wasn't my fault it was the ancestors. I don't know where it all came from. I feel passionately about the ancestors, about all that.LD52(137): We come from a multicultural family, we've got sisters who aremarried to Romanians to Caribbeans they're just people, that's all we are, andI've wrote it on the board, one people, one word that's it I can't say anymorethan that.Whose history is being represented here?LD52(137): Well hopefully, from when you first go in [to the exhibition] it’sAfrican history it’s their history, what their proud of what they've made, theirlives. Then as you go further in, it becomes our history, what we've done, whatour ancestors have done, how cruel we've been, and it’s like they're proud of

something and somebody has come along and completely wiped the whole ofit out.



29

LD51(136): Definitely, my wife has said it. Are you part of the history represented here?LD52(137): I have to because I'm white, because I don't know what myancestors have done. And I feel as if When you come here you are part of the

problem. Not now because we see everybody as the same.

LD51(136): But you feel some form of responsibility for it.LD52(137): You can't run away from it.What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you?LD52(137): We've just been looking at the plantation round there, and we

pressed every one of the buttons, and we've listened to the horrors and that tome I would see it stemming from. The plantations were hidden and they musthave been horrific places to live, they starved them, they raped them they soldtheir babies.LD51(136): It’s easy to read something and look at something, but it’s so hardto take something in, in just a short spate of time. It’s like the shackles andthat. I'm a materialist. So I'm looking at the shackles and I can look atsomething so, so...LD52(137): ...barbaric.LD51(136): Yeah...and real. And you're looking at, it takes a long time and Idon't know whether people take it all in, I think ordinary, I think reallysomebody who is sympathetic to the likes of this, they're already in, they'resympathetic, they're the type of people who'll visit the exhibition. But the typeof people who we want to impress upon and make them aware of it and racismand the rest of it like that, well how would you get through to them, well thereare racists walking about out there [points outside] but they won't come into anexhibition like this.LD52(137): But how do you them make the draw them in and make themrealise?LD51(136): It’s a long learning thing, it’s education as well, I mean your

parents educate you, your parents, parents educate and it goes down the line,and if you're parents are racist, then nine times out of ten your children will beracist. It’s bad...it’s, it’s a disease. And to be honest the majority of them youask, why are you racist, they haven't got a clue, well [they say] he's ‘effin

black isn't he?LD52(137): ...He's different to me...What aspects of the exhibition were least successful?LD51(136): Not really, it’s all positive in our view because we take in what

we see.LD52(137): We want the truth to come out and to make people realise.LD51(136): Unfortunately with an exhibition like this you're looking for theworse because you want to see, you wanted to be impressed on you, about theseverity of what went on, because that's what went on, and unfortunately Idon't think people were taking enough interest in the devastation, in theAfrican history before the slavery. Including ourselves, because if we hadmore time I'd love to read more about the true histories of the Africancivilisations. You know what they had going for them, the things they did, thecraftsmanship, you know...[…]

How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?LD51(136): Anger.



30

LD52(137): Anger. And bitter. And I feel frustrated because I'm not anintellectual in anyway and I wouldn't know how to convey someone'sopinions, I don't know the percentage, truthfully, me and you, going outlocally in the town area and all that, you'd say that 20-30% of people areracist. Not to a point where they're going to attack somebody, but the true

feelings of them. […] Are there any messages about the heritage or the history of Britain that youwill take away from this exhibition?LD51(136): I'd take away...as I'd say I'm not what you'd call intelligent. It’slike the people, these issues, it’s all political, but it went through the ship, theysent the ships out, they covered their own backs, it was a higher, it wasn't justthe average Joe Bloggs who organised it, it was people who were in high

places, it was people who have money and it went from there to thegovernment...LD52(137): It doesn't take away from the idea that it wasn't the normaleveryday person who brought all this about, it was people in positions whoshould have known better.what meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?LD51(136): What meaning? Exactly what it says isn't it? It’s trying to say...LD52(137): It's trying to say everybody’s equal, everybody's got the right tolive the way they want to live and be who they want to be. Without people

pointing the finger or making them standout in the crowd. Because we're allthe same. All the same,

Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?LD51(136): I've also always felt like that, I was in the militants years, years,years, ago. I learnt a lot then about racism and people, I met a lot of people inconferences and a lot of people in the street, and observing them, and some ofthe responses you got to questions and that. […]

Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past?LD51(136): No.LD52(137): I'm just shocked, I'd like to come back and have a slow walkaround. […]

Do you think this will change your views about the present?LD52(137): I don't know if it’s any better. The problem today is the way it’srepresented on the television. It’s in these games. These PC [computer] gamesI mean I watched me nephew playing a game and the majority of people whohave guns and shooting the police are black, there are a lot of people still out

there who are portraying the idea that black is bad, white is good, black is bad.And that has to be changed it really has. Is there any national significance in marking 1807?LD52(137): It is important as it should be remembered it should be made veryimportant.[…]The issue of ‘apology’ has been raised in public debate over slavery, if youdon’t mind my asking, what is your opinion on this issue?LD52(137): It’s not enough to be honest. In the newspaper -LD51(136): I don't think anybody knows how to apologise.LD52(137): And what happens to the newspapers the next day, recycled,

forgotten...We don't know how things are going to turn out. But an apology inthe newspaper about what these people have suffered is not enough.



31

In this response shame is acknowledged, as is an empathetic anger (that is they are

angry on behalf of those wronged in the past), as well as anger toward those that are

identified as ancestors and who had engaged in the trade, ‘covered their backs’ and

had streets in Liverpool named after them. These feelings are acknowledged, but they

also make the speakers uncomfortable; LD51(136) for instance, wants to apologise

but also wants it to be known that it was his ancestors and not him, personally, who

were ultimately responsible. In this instance, there is a gesture to the temporal self-

sufficient argument identified above, but this is not an active use of this argument.

The temporal argument ‘it was my ancestors, it was a long time ago’ was often used

by white British to insulate themselves from feelings of responsibility and guilt (see

also Smith 2010). However, unlike the many who do actively use this argument, both

respondents work beyond their shame, see the importance of acknowledging this

history, and make a number of acute social commentaries about racism in wider

society. In this interview LD51(136) makes reference to the training he has got ‘in the

militants’ about racism and LD53(137) notes they have a sister married to a Caribbean

man. Many of those white British who did acknowledge, and then constructively

navigated feelings of shame or guilt, tended to do so through active feelings of

empathy. By active empathy, I mean more than vague expressions of ‘I feel sad’, but

rather instances of deeper emotion that facilitated imaginative and cognitive insights.

Empathy was used to imagine not only what it was like in the past, but also what that

history of experience may mean for contemporary Britain. This empathy tended to be

triggered in two ways, firstly through the visitors’ reactions to the personal stories and



32

accounts of enslaved people provided in exhibitions and/or, as is the case here, were

triggered by personal experience or familial links (see Smith 2010).

As noted above, cross tabulation with the independent variables tended to identify

ethnicity and gender as the most significant correlations. However, on the

active/passive register, class was also statistically significant, with working-class

white British respondents more likely to be active in their responses than middle-class

white British were. Middle-class respondents tended to use more platitudes, and to

make fewer self-reflective observations. This observation is also supported by

comparative research with visitors at social history museums dealing with working-

class history, and visitors to English country houses. In this study working-class

visitors to museums were, overall, more actively engaged and critical, using their

visits to make active social commentary, than middle-class visitors to house museums

(Smith 2006). While not statistically significant, there was also an observable

tendency in the 1807 interviews for working-class respondents to empathize more,

and to do so by drawing on their own experiences of injustice, than were middle-class

respondents.

Recognition by white British visitors was not always active, and was more frequently

done in quite passive ways. The next interview, again at Liverpool, is an example of a

passive, but still positive, response. This is a joint interview with a white British

couple, both were aged between 25-34, LA44 (male) identified as a teacher and LA45

(female) as a manager of a radio station.

What for you is this exhibition about?



33

LA44(78): It’s basically the role Britain played in the slave trade and how it’sled on to institutional racism in today’s age and raising awareness of that andalso homage.LA45(79): Yeah, similar. Finding out about what they endured and how it all

began, it’s really quite educational and I didn’t realise how we benefited and

how we underdeveloped Africa, I hadn't thought about that much. But yeahtakes it right back to the beginning and up to the present day.Whose history is being represented here?LA44(78): I think er...I think everyone involved in the slave trade I think it’svery well balanced the information it’s being presented, obviously the reasonswhy the slave trade was there and they are communicating in a fair light andthere’s no bias or whatever...LA45(79): It’s factual...LA44(78): Yeah it’s factual for everybody.

Are you part of the history represented here?LA45(79): Yeah, we're British.LA45(79): Yeah, I think there's always a legacy and you are a product of yourculture really of your history and your past and so on.What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you?LA45(79): Looking at the passages how long it took, and how it affectedmodern day all of it really, I found all of it interesting.LA44(78): I think for me the historical perspective of it, there was so muchnaivety amongst the Western Europeans and things like that and they saw the

black people as completely different and how they didn't feel pain as muchand that’s it really.[…]

How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?LA45(79): A little bit emotional really, a little bit sad about what the peoplewent through and how our country played a big part in that it’s actually quiteupsetting, and thinking about Africa today and the legacy that they're left withand thinking how we played a part in that...it’s quite emotional.LA44(78): I think it’s a mix, shame is one of them but also in a way a sense ofrelief that it’s not being brushed under the carpet it’s actually saying this is it,this is it, we're actually going to represent it in an unbiased way. I think that’sreally excellent.

Are there any messages about the heritage or the history of Britain that youwill take away from this exhibition?

LA44(78): I think it’s difficult because I think history is there not to inform usof how valiant we were I think my personal appreciation of what I didn’t know previously I think it helps me have a appreciation of the past.LA45(79): Yeah I agree.What meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?LA44(78): I think it goes back to the whole idea just the think that we're notgoing to brush it under the carpet. I think it was Blair who gave an apology forBritain's role...LA45(79): It wasn't an apology...LA44(78): No, but just having that kind ‘of look this is here, this is theinternational museum for it lets take it on the chin’.

LA45(79): And people can take what they will from it, and how they want tomove forward with it, yeah just informs them a bit more.



34

Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?LA45(79): Yeah, I don't really want to talk about it.LA44(78): Not really, not personally for me to be honest.

Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past?LA44(78): I think for me it’s giving a bit more detail to it, I knew things and

the people involved and the sort of GCSE sort of things [referent to Englishhigh school curriculum] and this is just working it out, and a lot of the

personal stories and the legacies and that sort of thing.LA45(79): I think it has change my views, well not changed, but just informedme better, that whole the underdevelopment of Africa was due to us, I knowthe whole Live Aid thing sort of raised awareness but I still don't think I'dmade a proper connection about that so that was ...it changed my views.

Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this exhibition speaks toor links?LA44(78): I think, there's not necessarily a personal identity, but part of aBritish culture which can be quite arrogant sometimes about how much betterwe are and I think that’s reminiscent of some of that exhibition. And at pointsit’s very cringe worthy for me as a British citizen and part of this country and

putting yourself head and shoulders above anybody else.LA45(79): Yeah, I agree with him (laughs)

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?LA44(78): In what sorry? It’s difficult I think because who is it for, I think is itfor the British to get it off their shoulders to say look we feel really guiltyabout it sorry. One of the video clips down there is a black guy saying I've gotno interest in celebrating the abolition of slavery because it shouldn’t havehappened in the first place. It’s there to serve a purpose and I think it’ll

probably show a reasonable amount of goodwill but whether it’s effective ornot I would argue against that to be honest.LA45(79): Yeah I got mixed feelings I’m not sure, the celebration as such. Ithink something like this is great because it’s marking a date in history whichis significant as for celebrating yeah I'm not sure how people would feel aboutthat.[…]The issue of ‘apology’ has been raised in public debate over slavery, if youdon’t mind my asking, what is your opinion on this issue?LA45(79): Before today I would have said I don't see what an apology wouldachieve I'm not sure who it would be aimed at today, is that what people want

I don't know, but then like I was saying earlier the underdevelopment of Africaand things like that but maybe we do owe them an apology because we stillhave benefited from that so maybe an apology is very relevant I don’t knowwho should make it and how it should be made and who it should be made to.LA44(78): I think that’s the key thing how should an apology be made it’sworthless I think if a politician stands up and apologises. If they’re willing tostand up apologise and say we’re now funding x, y, and z and continue tosupport it, I mean a lot of people are in slavery today what are we going to doabout that, if we are truly repentant about our past then what are we going todo about it. Actions are louder than words.



35

A number of insightful social commentaries were made in this interview, alongside an

acknowledgement that the exhibition had had some impact on their understanding of

the legacies of the slave trade, and why it may be important to acknowledge or

recognise this history through apology, and more specifically, actions such as funding.

While the issue of shame is mentioned, it is not as actively engaged with as it was in

the previous interview. Indeed, LA45(79) states that they feel ‘a little bit sad’ and

does not want to talk about the personal meanings the exhibition may have. What is

drawn on in this interview is the authority of the museum that is perceived to offer a

‘balanced’, unbiased and ‘factual’ account of the history. Where some other white

British respondents used accusations that the museum was ‘unbalanced’ (see below)

to negate the legitimacy of the uncomfortable feelings that their visit elicited, this

couple uses a belief in the authority of the museum to overcome their ‘sadness’.

The above positive responses by white British were in the minority; many respondents

offered quite emotionally bland or neutral responses to the exhibitions by passively or

actively attempting to insulate themselves from negative feelings. In the following

interview, undertaken at the British Empire and Commonwealth Museum, a man, 25-

34, who identified as white British and as a human resource manager, discusses the

balanced nature of the exhibition, but takes an entirely different message away than

did LA44(78) and LA45(79):

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?BA122(122): Er, yes I think there is a national significance because I thinkBritain led the way in abolishing slavery and I'm very disappointed that therewasn’t more celebration about in the country and the focus was more onapologising where actually that we took that courageous step as a nation.

Does the marking of 1807 have a personal significance for you?BA122(122): No.

What for you is this exhibition about?



36

BA122(122): Er, actually, I er, I was coming a bit pessimistic as we alwaysconcentrate on the negative side putting the blame on Britain I think this is forme I feel quite encouraged because it seems quite balanced because it wasn’t

just Britain involved in slavery there was other countries as well as Africancountries I quite like that balance.

Whose history is being represented here?BA122(122): I think it’s everybody's.

Are you part of the history represented here?BA122(122): No I don’t think so.What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you?BA122(122): Er, most interest. I don’t know, I suppose for me it’s getting the

balance and seeing all the parts all the parties have played in it.What aspects of the exhibition were least successful?BA122(122): I suppose the bits you don’t like are the grim realities the way

people lived but I think it's important to show that. Has anything that you think could be relevant been left out of the exhibition?BA122(122): No I don't think so. Nothing springs to mind.

Did the exhibition meet your expectations?BA122(122): Er, I think it’s exceeded them as I was concerned with the

balance and I was really encouraged that the balance is there. How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?BA122(122): Er, I think it’s, it’s, it there’s a mixture of emotion it’s very,heart-wrenching when you see the actual person who's been in the conditionsthat people went through, I think it’s made me think a bit more positive aboutthe view of slavery in that it isn't just about beating Britain with a stick for the

part they played in it, but seeing that were acknowledging that there wereother people involved in it as well.

Are there any messages about the history or heritage of Britain that you’ll takeaway from the exhibition?BA122(122): I don't think it’s taught me anything new.What meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?BA122(122): I think it’s important because whether we like it or not it’s partof our past

Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?BA122(122): No I don’t think so.

Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past or present?

BA122(122): No I don't think so. Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this exhibition speaks toor links?BA122(122): No.The issue of ‘apology’ has been raised in this public debate over thebicentenary what is your opinion on this issue?BA122(122): Definitely not apologise. The reason for that is because wherewould it stop. Because there’s never been any question of apologising to theIrish for the Potato Famine, who's going to apologise to me and my family inthe North of England who were sent down the pit, and Scotland, who's goingto apologise for the land clearances, because I'm just from a normal working-

class background, but you know that's the history and we need to know aboutit it’s very very relevant I think it’s inappropriate to apologise, and I don’t



37

want somebody to apologise on my behalf because I wasn’t responsible forwhat happened.

When asked the apology question this man became quite agitated, and immediately

after the interview went to the discussion board at the end of the exhibition that asked

‘should there be an apology?’. He wrote ‘No definitely not!’ going on to repeat what

he had just said in the interview. His note was written below that of three children

who had each responded positively about the importance of apologizing and

acknowledging that people ‘had hurt each other’. The rejection of the idea of apology

is not necessarily indicative of denial or evasions; however, it was a question that

often elicited agitated responses, this agitation frequently revealing the extent to

which some respondents were confronted by the exhibitions. On the face of it, this

interview looks quite positive, as he is concerned that the grim realities are shown.

However, he was very worried that the exhibition would be unbalanced, and

expressed concern at what he saw as all the negativity toward the bicentenary, and

that Britain’s moral leadership had not been celebrated enough. However, he is

relieved, the exhibition is balanced, and it is balanced because he has found a way to

insulate negative feelings – the exhibition has verified that ‘it wasn’t just Britain’, a

point he makes a couple of times in the interview. This is a reference to one of the five

self-sufficient arguments used by many to negate negative feelings, and his agitation

at the apology question underlines his inability to engage with legacy issues. Although

Cameron (2006, 2007) suggests that when confronted by difficult topics museum

visitors will look to the neutral authority of the museum, what the last two interviews

demonstrate is that ideas of neutrality and ‘balance’ can be used in two distinct ways.

It may be used to engage critically, but unemotionally, with difficult content, as was

done by LA44(78) and LA45(79) or used, as was done by BA122(122), to reinforce



38

arguments or assumptions that allow a disengagement or a distancing from difficult

content, and the implications they have for self-recognition based on national identity.

BA122(122) seizes on the first panels of the exhibition at the British Empire and

Commonwealth Museum, which chart a history of enslavement around the world, and

which attempts to critically contextualise the difference between previous forms of

slavery and chattel slavery. However, BA122(122), simply sees the point that Britain

was not the only country, and not the significance of the role Britain played in the

development of chattel slavery, and his desire to celebrate British morality is not

impacted upon by the rest of the exhibition.

The self-sufficient argument ‘that it was not just Britain’ that BA122(122) called

upon, and other similar arguments, worked to emotionally distance and disengage

visitors from the exhibitions and the histories they represented. This phenomenon is

well illustrated in the next two interviews, as the speakers utilise several of the

arguments during the interviews to neutralise the impact and affect of the exhibitions

they were visiting. The first is from the National Maritime Museum and is with a

couple, both white British and between 45-54, he identified as a human resource

manager and she did not offer an occupation.

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?MH18(18): Yeah.Why so?MH18(18): I think it was because [Britain] was the first country to abolishslavery in a certain form, I mean slavery did go on for a period of time,although there was no more slavery, people who were already slaves were notfreed.

Does the marking of 1807 have a personal significance for you?MH18(18): No. Not that we know of.MH19(19): No. We haven’t tested our DNA yet we're not sure! (laughs)What for you is this exhibition about?

MH18(18): (pause) I suppose it’s about slavery...MH19(19): Just the history of slavery.



39

MH18(18): ...That was used for trade and developed Britain into one of thelargest trading nations, the industrial revolution was in a way financed by theslave trade by having the money there for the investment into the industrialrevolution.Whose history is being represented here?

MH18(18): I think both sides. Are you part of the history represented here?MH18(18): Slightly.MH19(19): A bit distant.MH18(18): We don’t come from Bristol or Liverpool, so our ancestry isnothing to do with slavery and the trade, but it’s just part of our culture,heritage.What were the aspects of the exhibition that were of most interest to you?MH19(19): I thought the central one with the all the products, I'm not sureabout the cod [fish], what we should have know about that, all the products are

produced by us as a result of the work of the slaves.What aspects of the exhibition were least successful?MH19(19): Er, no I don’t think so, I think it’s very difficult to decide what you

put in an exhibit like this, without having maybe so much emphasis on oneside or another, it’s keeping you balanced.MH18(18): As long as you don't make it so deep, people can't take it in, I thinkthis is the truth, if you're that interested you read a book about it or something,

but I don't think you can use a museum to give you all the information andknowledge.[...]

How does it make you feel to visit an exhibition of this type?MH18(18): it’s just part of history, we're interested in history, it’s somethingyou have to accept happened, but there’s a limit to how much we can browbeatourselves.MH19(19): […if we had] come specifically for this exhibit we'd have more tosay, but as it is, it’s a good exhibition.

Are there any messages about the history or heritage of Britain that you’ll takeaway from the exhibition?MH19(19): (pause) Nothing that specific that we didn't know before.What meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?MH18(18): Well I think we can't, can’t pretend it didn’t happen, but again youhave to get it in context of what the world was like in those days, there’s to

much looking at our morals back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, therewere people doing it, and we've got to accept that the people in Africa werequite happy to sell the slaves to us, it wasn’t just us taking them, there’s aresponsibility on both sides.MH19(19): That's probably why it’s quite good and quite well-balanced Ithink lots of other exhibition, you call them exhibitions on apology, this isn’t,it’s just basic facts about the history, which is nice, it’s nice and clean andsimple and tells the story, I don’t like all this being continually beingapologetic for something you can't do anything about now!MH18(18): You think about it at the time, it wasn’t that brilliant for a lot of

people, native people in this country, farm workers didn’t have exactly alright

they were free supposedly, but they were tied to whoever they were workingfor.



40

MH19(19): Free to live in a ditch. Dorset farm workers.MH18(18): So I think you’ve got to look at it from what it was like at the time.

Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past or present?MH19(19): No.

MH18(18): No.The issue of ‘apology’ has been raised in public debate over the bicentenarywhat is your opinion on this issue?MH19(19): Do we have any responsibility? No, I don't. We pour enough intothe African countries at the moment don't we.MH18(18): If the money was being used properly then yes, but you hear of somuch corruption.MH19(19): It’s just a bottomless pit. you hear of so much corruption if thatwasn't the case then I might think we do owe them something, at the moment Iwould say contribute less rather than more until they sort their problems out.

The interview starts with a statement that was made publically (and incorrectly)

during the bicentenary, that Britain was the ‘first’ to abolish the trade, but moves to

correctly note that this did not end the use of slaves by the British. The financial

impact of the slave trade is acknowledged, and they are surprised by all the products

that came from the trade. Although the history is recognised as part of their ‘cultural

heritage’, their discomfort about this history is noted in their joke about DNA testing,

and the fact that they make it known that they do not come from the trading ports of

Bristol and Liverpool, which were heavily involved in the trade. The joke about DNA

testing is interesting, as many white British noted that the history/exhibition had no

personal links for them, or that they were not part of the history, because they could

not trace a specific ancestor to the trade. Although some white British did note it was

their history, and said so because they identified it as part of collective British history,

but also because all of Britain had benefited from it in some way, most tended not to

see it as ‘their’ history (see Smith 2010). This depersonalizing either was done

through the respondent stating in an exclusive, rather than an inclusive way, that ‘it’s

everybody in the world’s history’, or by denying a specific genetic or ancestral link to



41

actors in this history (see Smith 2010 for fuller discussion). This is an emotional

distancing of the history, by failing to identify specific ancestors implicated in the

trade, the history becomes of general rather than personal interest. The invoking of the

fifth self-sufficient argument in which people affirmed their identity as working-class

or of working-class ancestry, was also used by some to exclude the possibility of

ancestors’ having been involved – or perhaps having responsibility for such

involvement. For one white British respondent, however, the history was personal, as

it spoke to ‘my humanity and sense of responsibility’ (BA9(9): female, 45-54,

lecturer) and in doing so reinforced the importance of issues of equity for that person.

However, in depersonalizing the history and its consequences, the possibility that any

recognition of this history could lead to appreciation of legacy issues and a

reassessment of what it may ‘mean’ to be British is defused.

The discomfort of MH19(19) and 18(18) is further revealed as they note this is a good

‘balanced’ exhibition, it is not an exhibition ‘on apology’, by which they mean that

they do not see it as pushing a particular message or making them too uncomfortable,

instead the exhibition is ‘nice and clean’, it makes them comfortable, and tells a

simple story. A museum for them is not something from which they are taking or

using knowledge, it should not be ‘too deep’, in effect, it should not make them feel

uncomfortable or challenged, as there is a ‘limit’ to how much one can browbeat

oneself. That limit is nicely drawn by the use of a range of self-sufficient arguments

that sees them acknowledging that this history ‘happened’, but not being too worked

up about its consequences, as, after all, it has to be placed ‘in context’. What in reality

de-contextualises that history for them, what renders it ‘just part of history’, is the

employment firstly of the self-sufficient argument about morals (argument 2). This is



42

an argument that sits awkwardly with the idea that the bicentenary should be about

celebrating the ‘moral’ value of the abolition. From argument 2, MH18(18) moves

swiftly to argument 4, that the Africans were also involved in the trade, to a version of

argument 5 about class. With respect to argument 5, they invoke a form of this

argument that notes that working people in Britain too were oppressed, a point that

diffuses the emotional impact of the history so that they ‘fail to grasp the implications

of one’s difference from others’ (Bonnell and Simon 2007:69). From this, when

talking about apology at the end of the interview, they go on to employ another self-

sufficient argument not frequently used in the interview sample but identified by

Wetherell and Potter (1992), that notes ‘resources should be used productively and in

a cost-effective manner’ (see also Augoustinos et al 2002).

The next interview, also at the British Empire and Commonwealth Museum, with a

man, 35-44, who identified himself as white English-Irish and an accountant,

illustrates further the way these arguments come into play to diffuse the effect of

exhibitions acknowledging dissonant histories can have. In this interview, the speaker

moves quickly from a position where he states that Britain was ‘heavily involved in

the trade’, through sadness in recognition of the trauma, to the statement ‘I haven’t

got an emotional tie, it’s just history to me’.

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?BA99(99): From Britain's point [of view], yes because we were heavilyinvolved in Atlantic slave trade. But sometimes I am glad to see that thisexhibition mentions that slavery was not a British issue, it was going on inAfrica and it’s going on up to the present day. I think that a lot of people hadthe idea that Britain was the bad guy in all of this, you get this idea of Britsrunning into the country and rounding up Africans. It really wasn’t the case atall, it was just that we were involved in the trade that was going on before

hand, and it’s been going on since. It needs to be stamped out, but if you'regoing to get to the bottom of things, you know, you got to fully understand



44

time and a different moral code and whatever so it’s a you know it’s obviouslynot something you want to return to so...What meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?BA99(99): Erm, I'm not convinced that it really does have much relevancethese days, in history, or whatever, if perhaps you’ve got, if you're from one of

the indigenous populations from Africa or you've got some tie with yourancestors maybe, but from my point of view it was upper class England doingthings to other people around the world so I haven’t got an emotional tie, it’s

just history to me. Is there anything you’ve seen today that has changed your views on the past?BA99(99): No, not really, I'm quite well read on it.

Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this exhibition speaks toor links?BA99(99): not really no.

My last question the issue of apology has been raised in debates about 1807what is your opinion on this issue?BA99(99): What in terms of sort of like Britain apologising to people Iunderstand Tony Blair has done that anyway, but you can’t be responsible for

people's actions, of family members, or what people did hundreds of yearsago, it’s not my fault they did that or whatever. It’s not a great part of Britishhistory, but they weren't doing anything different than the French you know orthe Spanish or Portuguese, it’s just what they did at the times, moral valueshave changed, so you just have to make sure you don't do it in the future.

At the start of the interview, and in response to the question ‘how does it make you

feel’, BA99(99) acknowledges both the depth of Britain’s historical involvement with

the trade, and the trauma that trade produced. It is a history he ‘wouldn't wish [...] on

anyone’. However, this knowledge and empathy is quickly diffused, as he does not

really find the history emotional, because it’s ‘just history’. Indeed, there is a sense of

relief in the first part of the interview, as he locates information in the exhibition that

diffuses British complicity. He employs self-sufficient argument 3, ‘everybody was

involved’. Britain was not the bad guy after all, he notes, it is not, after all, a ‘British

issue’. The exhibition focuses a little too much on Britain for him, but he can find

solace in the idea that the trade went on both before and after Britain’s involvement;

this, for him, is the truth you need to know before you can rectify anything. In effect,

there is nothing for Britain to rectify – everyone was involved.



45

Exhibitions for him are not about information – this exhibition was judged to be ‘too

wordy’ – rather it is about looking at objects, going to a museum should be

‘refreshing’, it should be poignant, but this exhibition is too poignant for him. When

asked what he did not like about the exhibition he rambles and becomes agitated,

possibly not wanting to say explicitly what he finds problematic. Then, when he

expresses some empathy, this is immediately defused by his assertion that he has not

learned anything from the exhibition, that this history has little relevance for

contemporary society, and finally to a denial of any emotional investment in the

history or its meaning for the present. In this process, he employs a combination of

self-sufficient arguments 1 and 2, it was a long time ago and morals were different,

and then moves to 5, it was the upper class English who were involved. In the final

statement of the interview, the speaker manages to re-employ arguments 1, 2 and 3

reinforcing a sense of panic at the idea that Britain should feel any sense of

responsibility, and moving him adroitly from any sense of an inclusive ‘we’ in his

starting statement that ‘we were heavily involved in Atlantic slave trade’.

The self-sufficient arguments, like those in play in the last two interviews, have been

defined as a form of modern, symbolic or covert racism (Augoustinos and Every

2007: 124). These arguments have supplanted ‘old fashioned’, or overt, forms of

racist statements as they become publically more and more problematic. While what

can be defined as racist discourse may be difficult to classify, as Augoustinos and

Every (2007) note, it is important to recognise that whether a speaker intends

prejudice or not, the consequence of the use of such self-sufficient arguments is to

deny the recognition sought by many African-Caribbean British visitors to the



46

museum. As noted above, the use of self-sufficient arguments were frequent in the

white British response. Overt racism was relatively rare and recorded in 1.2% of the

interviews and was expressed by those white British who were particularly confronted

and angry. As one British woman, who identified herself as ‘white Jewish’ noted, the

exhibition at the Museum in Docklands for her was unbalanced:

Nothing is placed in context because it doesn’t show how British people also

suffered. It would probably be an outrage it they show it side by side [African

and British suffering]. In that respect [it’s] unevenly balanced, it’s not such a

good exhibition.

The issue for this woman’s mother, who angrily interjected into the interview, was

that the exhibition was not only ‘imbalanced’; it was ‘aggressive’. The exhibition, she

furiously noted, had left out the fact ‘that the Africans fought each other and sold each

other!’, going on to note that she thought the exhibition ‘would give a teenager a

reason to get a gun and go shoot English people’. This sort of overt racism is extreme,

and offers an angry and bizarre response to issues of guilt. However, the degree to

which many white British insulated themselves, and thus failed to recognize

difference, and/or attempted to disarm the negative feelings this history generates, is

also, collectively, a problematic result. As the dominant collective response, it

impedes the possibility of social justice, and maintains racism and discrimination.

Collectively it becomes a modern, covert expression of racism.

The final interview deals with another form of overt racism. In this example yet

another response to empathy and negative emotions is revealed – that of voyeurism.



47

Voyeurism was an infrequent response (1.5% of the sample, or 22 people), but

nonetheless illustrates the range of emotional responses to dissonant exhibitions. This

interview is with a white British couple, both 45-50, she was a nurse (LD79) and he

an accountant (LD80). The interview starts with a lengthy discussion of their interest

in Africa, they note they had come to the exhibition ‘because we spent a lot of time in

Africa’. They go on to discuss:

LD80(214): and we know a lot about Africans, native Africans, we’veexplored [the] slave trade from the root area, which is at west Africa.Yeah?LD80(214): and therefore we’ve actually seen where they set off from andfrom the tribal villages that they were captured. We’ve spoken to nativeAfricans because we’ve expressed concerns [as] to why the blacks would letthemselves, in such big numbers, [be] captured and taken, and nobodyunderstands why […]. We understand that there is even greater slavery on theeast side of Africa by the Arabs in particular, they have been great slavemasters.LD79(213): We went to Zanzibar and we went to see the actual area, the slave,where, you know, they used to sell them, the actual site if you wish…LD80(214): The treatment was– [interrupting each other]LD79(213): That was ten times–LD80(214): –the treatment of the slaves, and they were black slaves as well–LD79(213): –ten times worse, wasn’t it? On their side, on that side, and stilland still going on.LD80(214): The question we asked was if there is slavery going on in the

planet today, as in 200/300 hundred years ago, and nobody does anythingabout it, so how come all of the sudden–LD79(213): We’ve actually got a rich friend, a rich Gambian friend who hasgot a slave–LD80(214): Black.

LD79(213): Yeah, another black person, doesn’t she?LD80(214): They are in the high hierarchy system.LD79(213): And she treats him really bad, you know, doesn’t she?LD80(214): So the question is, why do we have to prick at our consciousnessfor something that happened over 200 years ago?LD79(213): When it is happening today.LD80(214): When it is happening worse today, when it was supposed to bemore civilised, and culturally and knowledgeable and the planet now is a muchsmaller place than it was 100 years ago, and Europeans who travelled did notunderstand the culture of the Blacks.

Do you think there is any significance for Britain to remember the 1807

abolition Act?



48

LD79(213): I do not think we should forget. I mean it’s not the Holocaust, butyou shouldn’t forget, because if you do forget, if you let people forget, it will

perpetuate what was happening, but it is still up there, nothing is going tochange it.[…]

What do you think about the idea of an apology over slavery?LD80(214): Not at allLD79(213): We can’t apologise for something that my great great greatgrandfather did I am sorry that he did, if he did do it, I mean I could be blackfrom what I know, you know I could have black genes, I don’t know, and Idon’t care.[…]LD80(214): No matter what our ultimate heritage was [why should] I have toapologise for something I have [no] control [of].[…discusses how whites are now not treated with equity in South Africa…]

Has anything that you seen today changed your [interrupted] – LD79(213): But we’ve seen this before.[…]LD80(214): There is nothing vivid here that…LD79(213): Shocks us…[…]LD79(213): We have been interested in it over the years because [of] theamount of slave places we’ve been into, in Zanzibar, we were in South Africa,we were in the Gambian, so we’ve obviously got an interest in it.LD80(214): We appreciate it, but on the other hand we can see another side ofit which is–LD79(213): Without it where [would] this country be?LD80(214): And secondly the blacks live worse on their own, slavery stillexists, in Arabic places, it’s part of their culture so–LD79(213): In most of the black societies, black cultures in the tribal districts,in almost the whole of Africa, slavery is the norm, you know, you get someoneto do all for you, you just feed him–LD80(214): So what is the purpose of this mu…this museum today?

I am not actually part of the museum. I am working with museums to try to seewhat people thought about it.LD80(214): Ok, what’s the background to it then? Somebody said we should

be regret, that our forefathers were guilty of–

[…] Whose history is being represented here?LD79: Nothing, no-one’s

Are you part of the history represented here?LD79: NoWhat were the aspects of the exhibition that were least successful?LD80(214): All of it was too sanitised. You should be able to smell the blood.

Has anything that you think could be relevant been left out of the exhibition?LD80(214): It should not focus only on Liverpool, but other cities too. It is toomuch about economics rather than on humans. The cotton fields were betterthan the African villages.

LD79(213): The blacks sold blacks, they sold them to the Arabs.[…]



49

How does it make you feel to visit this exhibition?LD80(214): It should be about the horrorLD79(213): Nothing, it makes me feel nothing.

Are there any messages about the heritage/history of Britain that you will takeaway from this exhibition?

LD80(214): Only that we helped them. If there wasn’t slavery they wouldn’thave civilised, we advanced them. Think about the black mama in the US, shecould have more love from white kids than their own parents.What meaning does an exhibition like this have for modern Britain?LD79(213): Teaches us nothing

Does this exhibition have personal importance or meaning for you?LD79(213): It means nothing[…]

Is there any national significance in marking 1807?LD80(214): No, it means nothing. We shouldn’t be guilty.[…]LD80(214): We shouldn’t apologise, the blacks went their own course. It hasto do with the black mentality. They will accept anything.

In this exchange the racism is stark and intermixed with a number of self-sufficient

arguments, which include the temporal argument (reference to great-great etc

grandfather), the Africans were party to it (4), and other countries (the Arabs) were

involved too argument (3). What is doubly disturbing about this exchange is the relish

in which they talk about having visited the various countries in Africa, where they

experienced first hand the sites of enslavement, and of a Gambian friend who they

claimed owned a slave. In the end, they find the exhibition ‘sanitised’, a word used by

many African-Caribbean British respondents critical of the exhibitions. ‘Sanitised’

was used by African-Caribbean British respondents to describe exhibitions they

considered had not given sufficient ‘weight’ of acknowledgement to the history of the

slave trade, and/or to note that the exhibition for them was emotionally sterile. Here

too it was used to describe emotional sterility, but the emotional engagement being

looked for here was entirely different. The exhibition has no personal importance to

LD78 and 80, it means nothing and it teaches nothing because ‘they do not smell the

blood’, they are not titillated.



50

Conclusion

This selection of interviews does not do justice to the range of responses recorded in

the 1498 interviews undertaken, but it gives a glimpse at some of the types of typical

responses that were recorded. In the interviews above, when asked if anything they

had seen in an exhibition had changed a respondent’s views about the past and/or the

present, they said no, that it had not (although both DA12(12) and LA44(78) noted the

exhibitions had given them a bit more information). In the overall sample 76% in

response to this question said either ‘no’, or that it had simply reinforced what they

already knew and understood. For most of the visitors we interviewed, visiting was

not about knowledge seeking, it was about reinforcing a sense of what they both knew

and felt. Poria et al (2009) argue that visitors to heritage sites fall into one of two

groups: ‘knowledge seekers’ and ‘identity reinforcers’. While this is perhaps an

overly simplistic classification, it does call into question the assumption that visitors

to museums are largely interested in or engaged in ‘learning’. Certainly, the African-

Caribbean British visitors were, on the whole, not engaged in learning, but rather were

using museums to gauge and assess the extent to which wider British society had, or

could potentially, change in terms of recognising and engaging with the consequences

of Britain’s role in the slave trade. In this context, museums were seen as reflectors or

facilitators of public debate, and what African-Caribbean British visitors were looking

for, and often not finding, were indications that they, and their historical and

contemporary experiences, were being recognised. This was not only about emotional

affirmation, but also political affirmation and social justice.



51

For many white British visitors the complexity of the emotions they encountered

expressed itself in, paradoxically, emotional neutrality. Just under half of all those

interviewed were assessed as emotionally neutral (table 3), and 74% (table 5) were

assessed as either neutral or passive in their engagement with the exhibitions they

were visiting. Attempts to acknowledging dissonant and confronting histories were, as

Bonnell and Simon (2007) predicted, too emotionally destabilizing, and visitors

turned to an array of strategies to insulate themselves from the emotional content of

the exhibition. In doing so, visitors tended to also distance themselves from any sense

of personal or collective responsibility for recognizing the implications of this history,

and thus in participating in the public debates looked for by African-Caribbean British

visitors. The sense of collective acknowledgement expected by DA12(12) was mostly,

and despite her sense of optimism, absent. The cathartic release she found in the

exhibition proved too difficult for most white British visitors. DE46(115) and

BE11(140) were critical of the exhibitions they were visiting for not providing

adequate representations of their history, and were concerned that the exhibitions

would reinforce misrecognition of African-Caribbean British people. However, a

strong sense emerges from the interviews overall that people came to the museums

with their own knowledge and values, and looked for, and often found, what they

needed to reinforce those values, whether progressive, conservative, reactionary or

overtly racist. This is not to say that exhibitions cannot change or modify people’s

views, but that some people do not use museums as places of learning, and that the

sense to which people go to seek affirmation of their knowledge, views and identities

is, as yet, not well understood. However, the criticisms of DE46(115) and BE11(140),

together with the responses of those white British respondents who worked either

actively or passively to maintain the emotional neutrality of this history, reveal that



52

museums are perhaps less active in facilitating public debate than they are in

reflecting the nature and status of that debate.

Notes

1. The generic interview schedule used for this study can be found on the 1807

Commemorated web site: http://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/.

2. Socio-economic categories were determined by asking visitors their occupation (or

where relevant that of parent/guardian/head of household) and coding these

occupations according to the Office for National Statistics,

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/.

3. In this study ‘emotionally neutral’ refers to those interviews in which no or little

emotion was expressed by the speaker. Those who were overtly or covertly

‘confronted’ expressed deep and negative shock, which often resulted in a range of

activities to emotionally ‘disengage’ or insulate the speaker from their shock. ‘Deep

empathy’ refers to an imaginative response that is beyond simple expressions of ‘I

feel sad’.

5. ‘Passive engagement’ involves relatively minor attempts to interact with the

content of the exhibition, but despite this there is some engagement. Respondents

were often unreceptive, and offered banal, clichéd or limp responses, but are relatively

more engaged than those who are assessed as ‘neutral or uncommitted’. In these

interviews, respondents give nothing away about their intellectual or emotional

response to the exhibition and present as detached or uncommitted.

5. ‘Progressive responses’ refers to those who used the exhibition to make some form

of social commentary on contemporary social and/or political issues.



53

4. In presenting the interviews three dots represents pauses by the speaker, while three

dots in square brackets […] represents material excised for brevity/clarity from the

interview.

References

Agbetu, T. (director) (2007) Maafa: Truth 2007, E. Pierre (producer), London: LigaliOrganisation.

Ashton, P. and Hamilton, P. (2003) ‘At home with the past: background and initialfindings from the national survey’, Australian Cultural History, 22:5-30.

Augoustinos, M. and Every, D. (2007) ‘The language of ‘race’ and prejudice: adiscourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics’, Journal of Languageand Social Psychology, 26(2): 123-141.

–––– (2010) ‘Accusations and denials of racism: managing moral accountability in public discourse’, Discourse and Society , 21(3): 251-256.

Augoustinos, M., LeCouteur, A. and Soyland, J. (2002) ‘Self-sufficient arguments in political rhetoric: constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the StolenGenerations’, Discourse and Society 13(1): 105-142.

Bonnell, J. and Simon, R.I. (2007) ‘‘Difficult’ exhibitions and intimate encounters’,Museum and Society, 5(2): 65-85.

Butler, D.L. (2001) Whitewashing plantations: the commodification of a slave-freeantebellum South’, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Administration, 2(3-4): 163-175.Buzinde, C.N. and Santos, C.A. (2008) ‘Representations of slavery’, Annals of

Tourism Research, 35(2):469-488.Byrne, D. (2009) ‘A critique of unfeeling heritage’, in L. Smith and N. Akagawa (eds)

Intangible Heritage, London: Routledge.Cameron, F. (2006) ‘Beyond surface representations: museum, edgy topics, civic

responsibilities and modes of engagement’, Open Museum Journal , 8 on line.Cameron, F. (2007) ‘Moral lessons and reforming agendas: history museums, science

museums, contentious topics and contemporary societies’, in S.J. Knell, S.MacLeod and S. Watson (eds) Museum Revolutions, Oxford: Blackwell.

Connerton, P. (1991) How Societies Remember , Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. –––– (2008) ‘Seven types of forgetting’, Memory Studies, 1(1): 59-71.Cubitt, G. (2009) ‘Bringing it home: making local meaning in 2007 bicentenary

exhibitions’, Slavery and Abolition, 30(2): 259-275Dann, G.M.S. and Seaton, A.V. (2001) ‘Slavery, contested heritage and

thanatourism’, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration ,2(3-4): 1-29.

Falk, J.H. and Dierking, D.L. (2000) Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning , Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Fraser, N. (2000) ‘Rethinking recognition’, New Left Review , 3 (May/June), 107-120.Gurian, E.H. (1995) ‘A blurring of the boundaries’, Curator, 38(1): 31-37

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline , London:Meltuen London Ltd.



54

Hooper-Greenhill, E (1991) Museum and Gallery Education, Leicester : LeicesterUniversity Press.

Janes, R.R. (2007) ‘Museums, social responsibility and the future we desire’, in S.J.Knell, S. MacLeod and S. Watson (eds) Museum Revolutions: How MuseumsChange and are Changed, London: Routledge.

Lovell, T. (ed.) (2007) (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice NancyFraser and Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.

Macdonald, S. (2007) ‘Exhibitions of power and powers of exhibition’, in S. Watson (ed) Museums and their Communities , London: Routledge.

Macdonald, S. (2009) Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond , London: Routledge.

Mandler, P. (1997) The Fall and Rise of the Stately Home, New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Moscardo, G. (1996) 'Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism', Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 376-397.

Message, K. (2009) ‘New directions for civil renewal in Britain: Social capital andculture for all?’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(3):257-278.

Oldfield, J.R. (2007) ‘Chords of Freedom’: Commemoration, Ritual and BritishTransatlantic Slavery, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Palmer, C. (2005) ‘An ethnography of Englishness: experiencing identity throughtourism’, Annals of Tourism Research , 32(1): 7-27.

Paton, D. (2009) ‘Interpreting the bicentenary in Britain’, Slavery and Abolition ,30(2): 227-289.

Paton, D. and Webster, J. (2009) ‘Remembering slave trade abolitions: reflections on2007 in international perspective’, Slavery and Abolition, 30(2): 161-167.

Poria, Y. (2007) ‘Establishing cooperation between Israel and Poland to save

Auschwitz Concentration Camp: globalising the responsibility for the massacre’, International Journal of Tourism Policy , 1(1): 45-57.

Poria, Y., Biran, A. and Reichel, A. (2009) ‘Visitor’s preferences for interpretation atheritage sites’, Journal of Travel Research , 48(1): 92-105.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D. (2003) ‘The core of heritage tourism,’ Annals ofTourism Research , 30(1): 238-254.

Sandell, R. (ed.) (2002) Museums, Society, Inequality , London: Routledge. –––– (2007) Museums, Prejudice and the Reframing of Difference , London:

Routledge.Santos, M.S. (2008) ‘The repressed memory of Brazilian slavery’, International

Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2): 157-175.

Seaton, A.V. (2001) ‘Sources of slavery-destinations of slavery: the silences anddiscloures of slavery heritage in the UK and US’, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 2(3-4): 107-129.

Shackel, P. (2003) Memory in Black and White: Race, Commemoration, and the Post- Bellum Landscape, Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

Smith, L. (2006) Uses of Heritage , London: Routledge. –––– (in press, 2010) ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’ and other platitudes of avoidance

and misrecognition: an analysis of visitor responses to exhibitions marking the1807 bicentenary, Museum and Society, ???.

Vergo, P. (ed.) (1989) The New Museology , London: Reaktion Books.Walvin, J. (2000) Britain's Slave Empire , Stroud: Tempus Publishing.

Waterton, E. (2010) Humiliated silence: multiculturalism, blame and the trope of‘moving on’, Museum and Society, ???.



Waterton, E. and Wilson R. (2009) ‘Talking the talk: policy, popular and mediaresponses to the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade using the‘abolition Discourse’’, Discourse and Society , 20(3): 381-399.

Wetherell, M. and Potter, E. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse andthe Legitimization of Exploitation , Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Witcomb, A. (2003) Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum , London:Routledge.

Chapt_15_Registers_of_engagement.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Chapt_15_Registers_of_engagement.pdf