The ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections conducted a lengthy consultation (2008-2011) with its members in order to assess whether they wanted to change the group's name, and if so, what this name would be.
Summary
of proposal to change WG name from ‘Ethnographic Collections’ to ‘Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures’
1. Justification
The Name Change
Committee was formed in response to increasing international scrutiny of
terminology, concerns voiced by indigenous colleagues, and almost 20 years of
internal group discussion. During the ICOM-CC 2008 conference the issue was
discussed in a plenary paper [1] that noted for
indigenous people (whose objects the Working Group on Ethnographic Collections
purports to represent and advocate for relating to best practice and ethics).
Current
development in international thinking and policy in regards to the use of the word
ethnographic mirror these sentiments. In recent years several museums and
departments of ethnography have changed their names (British Museum Ethnography
Department to Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas; Royal Ontario
Museum Ethnology Department to Department of World Cultures; Frankfurt Museum
of Ethnology to Museum of World Cultures for example). Relevant international
organisations and institutions have encoded the rights, interests and
responsibilities of indigenous peoples in regards to their heritage (for
instance 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions; 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples), as reflected in the 2004 revisions to the ICOM Code of
Ethics (Article 7) and the 2010 ICOM Diversity Charter.
There is also the question whether objects themselves can correctly be called
ethnographic. Originating communities do not refer to their own objects as
ethnographic, rather by the name of the culture of origin. As ethnography is
the study of cultures or people, labelling something as ethnographic locates its
interest purely within that framework. Yet cultural material is of cultural
importance, beyond this study. While in Europe the term ethnographic is usually
not considered pejorative, in a post-colonial context (Africa, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, United States and South America) it can be. In the words of a
surveyed member of the Working Group on Ethnographic Collections; ‘I don’t
consider the term ‘ethnographic’ to be racist or derogatory, but obviously many
conservators do.’ As a consequence of these considerations, a discussion
document was written and circulated by Carole Dignard (committee chair)2
and after this dissemination, relevant constituents were surveyed to ask if
they believed that our working group required a new name (Members of ICOM-CC Working
Group on Ethnographic Collections as well Ethnographic Conservation listserv
members; Non-Members below) with a clear
majority of respondents stating YES (70% Members, 68%Non-Members; Survey 1
June/July 2011).
2. Processes of consultation
As a result of a
clear mandate for a name change, a number of processes to develop an
alternative were undertaken as follows:
1.
Discussion Paper, April 2011 (definitions of terminology, pros and
cons of change, 14 possible names)
2.
Membership Consultation survey1 June/July
2011 (26 possible names
for ranking, 107 Members, 170 non-members surveyed; 40% response rate, 70% of
members in favour of name change)
3.
Second Discussion Paper May 2012 (paper on WG Vision, broader context for
name change, names or terms not supported by survey 1, discussion of three top
ranked names; 1. WG on Objects from Indigenous and World Cultures 2. WG on
Indigenous and Local Material Culture 3. WG on Indigenous and Traditional
Material Culture)
4.
Membership Consultation survey 2 June
2012 (40% Member
response rate; 63% Members who responded chose WG on Objects from Indigenous
and World Cultures, 93% were satisfied with the Name Change process, 0 were
unsatisfied, 7% were undecided)
5.
Membership Consultation survey 3
October/November 2012
(YES/NO to support name change to WG on Objects from Indigenous and World
Cultures (response rate 36% Members, 20% Non-Members; YES =85% Members, 86%
Non-Members; NO=10% Members, 11% Non-Members; Undecided/Other =5% Members,
3& Non-Members)
Summary
·
An exhaustive, consultative and democratic
process has been followed, with a very high
rate of participation
·
The
experts in this field of conservation (i.e. members of this specific working
group and their peers) are overwhelmingly
in favour of a change
·
All ICOM-CC rules and procedures have
been adhered too
·
So
far the DB has responded negatively to the name change. Impediments to this
change as articulated by past responses of the DB;
a) are contrary to the wishes of the
members of the group in question (DB members stated they think name change
unnecessary)
b) imply that the DB has greater
knowledge than those in the group (DB stated they would like to choose the name
from several options; DB members stated they think name change unnecessary)
c) ignore a democratic and consultative
process (while not all members participated, a very high proportion did , and
were overwhelmingly in favour of one name)
d) have no basis in ICOM–CC regulations
(DB members stated our WG should consult with ICME; that all members have to
agree)
1. Bloomfield, T. 2008. Pupura te mahara - Preserving the Memory: Working with Maori Communities on Preservation Projects in Aotearoa / New Zealand. Preprints ICOM-CC Triennial. New Delhi.
2. Dignard, C. 2012. Report to the ICOM-CC Directory Board Concerning the Possibility of Changing the Name of the ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections (WG-EC)- July 12, 2012
3. 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
