Museum Utilitarianism: Utilised Incorrectly

The age-old debate surrounding the repatriation of cultural objects from museums to their original owners or countries can never be solved. The institutions implicated in repatriation dispute–auction houses, museums, art galleries, and private collectors–all have different, sometimes conflicting approaches to repatriation. There are also legal obligations which cultural institutions must adhere to, such as provenance research and the restitution of illegally imported or looted artefacts. But the focus of this article is the ethical obligations of those with culturally significant objects. I will outline the current use of utilitarianism by museums as a defence of their ownership of cultural objects, and why this approach could be the most ethical one. My proposal here it that the efficacy of utilitarianism is used by museums to support to wrong argument; that is to say, if we are arguing the benefit of a larger audience, would that not be the numerous ethnic groups which have been directly impacted by the colonialism which first laid hold of the artefacts?

Generally, the ethical ideology which best describes a museum’s approach is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, in short, indicates an ethical outcome based on the benefit to the most people. In a museum context, this means that an institution may refuse to repatriate an artefact, arguing that it benefits more people by remaining in a museum–to be studied, viewed, and recorded for future generations–than to be returned to a context in which it might not be so easily shared or cared for. This is due to a museum’s stakeholders: if a museum or art gallery is publicly funded, whether from donations as a registered charity or from government funding, the stakeholders of the organisation are the general public. Therefore, the museum displaying a monolith from Nigeria or a sculpture from an Indian temple could argue that the artefact is benefitting the more people–these people being the stakeholders of this museum–by residing in the museum than being returned to the village or temple where it originated.

I find it interesting that this perspective is so often supported by the idea of ‘future-proofing’, where museums want to retain artefacts to benefit and educate future generations. It is this attitude I wish to challenge. On paper, utilitarianism makes sense as a method of reconciliation since arguably the result benefits the most people. However, by refusing the repatriation of cultural or religious objects to their original communities (arguably the original stakeholders of the artefacts), are UK museums perpetuating colonial ideation? If we view this debate from a utilitarian perspective, as museums do, it is arguable that the greatest benefit would be achieved by repatriating artefacts to their original or ancestral owners. Museums claim that the future generations which will be educated by these artefacts constitute the largest group to benefit from them. However, the same could be said for the future generations of those impacted by colonialism who would benefit from the return of artefacts, as both groups of future generations are intangible and immeasurable. By repatriating cultural objects, UK museums are explicitly rejecting colonial ideation and supporting those groups from whom artefacts were taken. Although there is more to be said about the ownership of cultural objects, I would argue that museums retaining artefacts for ‘future generations’ is no longer sustainable as a defence. The largest benefit would be to all ethnic minority groups, indigenous groups, and those affected by colonialism and their future generations.

---

Written by Olivia Collier

(recent graduate from Durham Archaeology and Masters in International Cultural Heritage Management)