Tony Bennett
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX
In reviewing Foucault on the asylum, the clinic, and the prison as institutional
articulations of power and knowledge relations, Douglas Crimp suggests that
there 'is another such institution of confinement ripe for analysis in Foucault's
terms - the museum - and another discipline - art history'.1
Crimp is no doubt
right, although the terms of his proposal are misleadingly restrictive. For the
emergence of the art museum was closely 'related to that of a wider range of
institutions - history and natural science museums, dioramas and panoramas,
national and, later, international exhibitions, arcades and department stores which
served as linked sites for the development and circulation of new
disciplines (history, biology, art history, anthropology) and their discursive
formations (the past, evolution, aesthetics, man) as well as for the development
of new technologies of vision. Furthermore, while these comprised an
intersecting set of institutional and disciplinary relations which might be
productively analysed as particular articulations of power and knowledge, the
suggestion that they should be construed as institutions of confinement is
curious. It seems to imply that works of art had previously wandered through
the streets of Europe like the Ships of Fools in Foucault's Madness and
Civilisation; or that geological and natural history specimens had been displayed
before the world, like the condemned on the scaffold, rather than being
withheld from public gaze, secreted in the studiolo of princes, or made accessible
only to the limited gaze of high society in the cabinets des curieux of the
aristocracy. Museums may have enclosed objects within walls, but the
nineteenth century saw their doors opened to the general public - witnesses
whose presence was just as essential to a display of power as had been that of the
people before the spectacle of punishment in the eighteenth century.
Institutions, then, not of confinement but of exhibition, forming a complex of
disciplinary and power relations whose development might more fruitfully be
juxtaposed to, rather than aligned with, the formation of Foucault's 'carceral
archipelago'. For the movement Foucault traces in Discipline and Punish is one
in which objects and bodies - the scaffold and the body of the condemned which
had previously formed a part of the public display of power were
withdrawn from the public gaze as punishment increasingly took the form of
incarceration. No longer inscribed within a public dramaturgy of power, the
body of the condemned comes to be caught up within an inward-looking web of
power relations. Subjected to omnipresent forms of surveillance through which
73
new formations NUMBER 4 SPRING I 988
the message of power was carried directly to it so as to render it docile, the body
no longer served as the surface on which, through the system of retaliatory
marks inflicted on it in the name of the sovereign, the lessons of power were
written for others to read:
The scaffold, where the body of the tortured criminal had been exposed to the
ritually manifest force of the sovereign, the punitive theatre in which the
representation of punishment was permanently available to the social body,
was replaced by a great enclosed, complex and hierarchised structure that was
integrated into the very body of the state apparatus.2
The institutions comprising 'the exhibitionary complex', by contrast, were
involved in the transfer of objects and bodies from the enclosed and private
domains in which they had previously been displayed (but to a restricted public)
into progressively more open and public arenas where, through the representations
to which they were subjected, they formed vehicles for inscribing and
broadcasting the messages of power (but of a different type) throughout society.
Two different sets of institutions and their accompanying knowledge/power
relations, then, whose histories, in these respects, run in opposing directions.
Yet they are also parallel histories. The exhibitionary complex and the carceral
archipelago develop over roughly the same period - the late eighteenth to the
mid-nineteenth century - and achieve developed articulations of the new
principles they embodied within a decade or so of one another. Foucault regards
the opening of the new prison at Mettray in 1840 as a key moment in the
development of the carceral system. Why Mettray? Because, Foucault argues,
'it is the disciplinary form at its most extreme, the model in which are
concentrated all the coercive technologies of behaviour previously found in
the cloister, prison, school or regiment and which, in being brought together in
one place, served as a guide for the future development of carceral institutions'
(p. 293). In Britain, the opening of Pentonville Model Prison in 1842 is often
viewed in a similar light. Less than a decade later the Great Exhibition of 1851
brought together an ensemble of disciplines and techniques of display that had
been developed within the previous histories of museums, panoramas,
Mechanics' Institute exhibitions, art galleries, and arcades. In doing so, it
translated these into exhibitionary forms which, in simultaneously ordering
objects for public inspection and ordering the public that inspected, were to
have a profound and lasting influence on the subsequent development of
museums, art galleries, expositions, and department stores.
Nor are these entirely separate histories. At certain points they overlap, often
with a transfer of meanings and effects between them. To understand their
interrelations, however, it will be necessary, in borrowing from Foucault, to
qualify the terms he proposes for investigating the development of power/
knowledge relations during the formation of the modern period. For the set of
such relations associated with the development of the exhibitionary complex
serves as a check to the generalizing conclusions Foucault derives from his
examination of the carceral system. In particular, it calls into question his
suggestion that the penitentiary merely perfected the individualizing and
normalizing technologies associated with a veritable swarming of forms of
74 NEW FORMATIONS
The cabinet of curiosities: the Metallotheca of Michele Mercati in the Vatican, 1719
The Great Exhibition, 1851: the Western, or British, Nave, looking east (plate by H.
Owen and M. Ferrier)
surveillance and disciplinary mechanisms which came to suffuse society with a
new - and all-pervasive - political economy of power. This is not to suggest that
technologies of surveillance had no place in the exhibitionary complex but
rather that their intrication with new forms of spectacle produced a more
complex and nuanced set of relations through which power was exercised and
relayed to - and, in part, through and by - the populace than the Foucauldian
account allows.
Foucault's primary concern, of course, is with the problem of order. He
conceives the development of new forms of discipline and surveillance, as
Jeffrey Minson puts it, as an 'attempt to reduce an ungovernable populace to a
multiply differentiated population', parts of 'an historical movement aimed at
transforming highly disruptive economic conflicts and political forms of
disorder into quasi-technical or moral problems for social administration'. These
mechanisms assumed, Minson continues, 'that the key to the populace's social
and political unruliness and also the means of combating it lies in the "opacity"
of the populace to the forces of order'.3
The exhibitionary complex was also a
response to the problem of order, but one which worked differently in seeking
to transform that problem into one of culture - a question of winning hearts and
minds as well as the disciplining and training of bodies. As such, its constituent
institutions reversed the orientations of the disciplinary apparatuses in seeking
to render the forces and principles of order visible to the populace transformed,
here, into a people, a citizenry - rather than vice versa. They
sought not to map the social body in order to know the populace by rendering it
visible to power. Instead, through the provision of object lessons in power - the
power to command and arrange things and bodies for public display - they
sought to allow the people, and en masse rather than individually, to know rather
than be known, to become the subjects rather than the objects of knowledge.
Yet, ideally, they sought also to allow the people to know and thence to regulate
themselves; to become, in seeing themselves from the side of power, both the
subjects and the objects of knowledge, knowing power and what power knows,
and knowing themselves as (ideally) known by power, interiorizing its gaze as a
principle of self-surveillance and, hence, self-regulation.
It is, then, as a set of cultural technologies concerned to organize a voluntarily
self-regulating citizenry that I propose to examine the formation of the
exhibitionary complex. In doing so, I shall draw on the Gramscian perspective
of the ethical and educative function of the modern state to account for the
relations of this complex to the development of the bourgeois democratic polity.
Yet, while wishing to resist a tendency in Foucault towards misplaced
generalizations, it is to Foucault's work that I shall look to unravel the relations
between knowledge and power effected by the technologies of vision embodied
in the architectural forms of the exhibitionary complex.
D I S C I P L I N E , SURVEILLANCE, SPECTACLE
In discussing the proposals of late-eighteenth-century penal reformers, Foucault
remarks that punishment, while remaining a 'legible lesson' organized in
relation to the body of the offended, was envisioned as 'a school rather than a
76 NEW FORMATIONS
festival; an ever-open book rather than a ceremony' (p. 111). Hence, in schemes
to use convict labour in public contexts, it was envisaged that the convict would
repay society twice: once by the labour he provided, and a second time by the
signs he produced, a focus of both profit and signification in serving as an everpresent
reminder of the connection between crime and punishment:
Children should be allowed to come to the places where the penalty is being
carried out; there they will attend their classes in civics. And grown men will
periodically relearn the laws. Let us conceive of places of punishment as a
Garden of the Laws that families would visit on Sundays, (p.111)
In the event, punishment took a different path with the development of the
carceral system. Under both the ancien regime and the projects of the lateeighteenth-century
reformers, punishment had formed part of a public system
of representation. Both regimes obeyed a logic according to which 'secret
punishment is a punishment half-wasted' (p. 111). With the development of the
carceral system, by contrast, punishment was removed from the public gaze in
being enacted behind the closed walls of the penitentiary, and had in view not
the production of signs for society but the correction of the offender. No longer
an art of public effects, punishment aimed at a calculated transformation in the
behaviour of the convicted. The body of the offended, no longer a medium for
the relay of signs of power, was zoned as the target for disciplinary technologies
which sought to modify behaviour through repetition.
The body and the soul, as principles of behaviour, form the element that is
now proposed for punitive intervention. Rather than on an art of representation,
this punitive intervention must rest on a studied manipulation of the
individual. . . . As for the instruments used, these are no longer complexes of
representation, reinforced and circulated, but forms of coercion, schemata of
restraint, applied and repeated. Exercises, not signs . . . (p. 128)
It is not this account itself that is in question here but some of the more
general claims Foucault elaborates on its basis. In his discussion of 'the
swarming of disciplinary mechanisms', Foucault argues that the disciplinary
technologies and forms of observation developed in the carceral system - and
especially the principle of panopticism, rendering everything visible to the eye
of power - display a tendency 'to become "de-institutionalised", to emerge from
the closed fortresses in which they once functioned and to circulate in a "free"
state' (p. 211). These new systems of surveillance, mapping the social body so as
to render it knowable and amenable to social regulation, mean, Foucault argues,
that 'one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society . . . that stretches
from the enclosed disciplines, a sort of social "quarantine", to an indefinitely
generalisable mechanism of "panopticism'" (p. 216). A society, according to
Foucault in his approving quotation of Julius, that 'is one not of spectacle, but
of surveillance':
Antiquity had been a civilisation of spectacle. 'To render accessible to a
multitude of men the inspection of a small number of objects': this was the
problem to which the architecture of temples, theatres and circuses
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 77
responded. . . . In a society in which the principal elements are no longer the
community and public life, but, on the one hand, private individuals and, on
the other, the state, relations can be regulated only in a form that is the exact
reverse of the spectacle. It was to the modern age, to the ever-growing
influence of the state, to its ever more profound intervention in all the details
and all the relations of social life, that was reserved the task of increasing and
perfecting its guarantees, by using and directing towards that great aim the
building and distribution of buildings intended to observe a great multitude
of men at the same time. (pp. 216-17)
A disciplinary society: this general characterization of the modality of power
in modern societies has proved one of the more influential aspects of Foucault's
work. Yet it is an incautious generalization and one produced by a peculiar kind
of misattention. For it by no means follows from the fact that punishment had
ceased to be a spectacle that the function of displaying power - of making it
visible for all to see - had itself fallen into abeyance.4
Indeed, as Graeme
Davison suggests, the Crystal Palace might serve as the emblem of an
architectural series which could be ranged against that of the asylum, school,
and prison in its continuing concern with the display of objects to a great
multitude:
The Crystal Palace reversed the panoptical principle by fixing the eyes of the
multitude upon an assemblage of glamorous commodities. The Panopticon
was designed so that everyone could be seen; the Crystal Palace was designed
so that everyone could see.5
This opposition is a little overstated in that one of the architectural
innovations of the Crystal Palace consisted in the arrangement of relations
between the public and exhibits so that, while everyone could see, there were
also vantage points from which everyone could be seen, thus combining the
functions of spectacle and surveillance. None the less, the shift of emphasis is
worth preserving for the moment, particularly as its force is by no means limited
to the Great Exhibition. Even a cursory glance through Richard Altick's The
Shows of London convinces that the nineteenth century was quite unprecedented
in the social effort it devoted to the organization of spectacles arranged for
increasingly large and undifferentiated publics.6
Several aspects of these
developments merit a preliminary consideration.
First: the tendency for society itself - in its constituent parts and as a whole to
be rendered as a spectacle. This was especially clear in attempts to render the
city visible, and hence knowable, as a totality. While the depths of city life were
penetrated by developing networks of surveillance, cities increasingly opened
up their processes to public inspection, laying their secrets open not merely to
the gaze of power but, in principle, to that of everyone; indeed, making the
specular dominance of the eye of power available to all. By the turn of the
century, Dean MacCannell notes, sightseers in Paris 'were given tours of the
sewers, the morgue, a slaughterhouse, a tobacco factory, the government
printing office, a tapestry works, the mint, the stock exchange and the supreme
court in session'.7
No doubt such tours conferred only an imaginary dominance
78 NEW FORMATIONS
over the city, an illusory rather than substantive controlling vision, as Dana
Brand suggests was the case with earlier panoramas.8
Yet the principle they
embodied was real enough and, in seeking to render cities knowable in
exhibiting the workings of their organizing institutions, they are without
parallel in the spectacles of earlier regimes where the view of power was always
'from below'. This ambition towards a specular dominance over a totality was
even more evident in the conception of international exhibitions which, in their
heyday, sought to make the whole world, past and present, metonymically
available in the assemblages of objects and peoples they brought together and,
from their towers, to lay it before a controlling vision.
Second: the increasing involvement of the state in the provision of such
spectacles. In the British case, and even more so the American, such
involvement was typically indirect.9
Nicholas Pearson notes that while the
sphere of culture fell increasingly under governmental regulation in the second
half of the nineteenth century, the preferred form of administration for
museums, art galleries, and exhibitions was (and remains) via boards of trustees.
Through these, the state could retain effective direction over policy by virtue of
its control over appointments but without involving itself in the day-to-day
conduct of affairs and so, seemingly, violating the Kantian imperative in
subordinating culture to practical requirements.10
Although the state was
initially prodded only reluctantly into this sphere of activity, there should be no
doubt of the importance it eventually assumed. Museums, galleries, and, more
intermittently, exhibitions played a pivotal role in the formation of the modern
state and are fundamental to its conception as, among other things, a set of
educative and civilizing agencies. Since the late nineteenth century, they have
been ranked highly in the funding priorities of all developed nation-states and
have proved remarkably influential cultural technologies in the degree to which
they have recruited the interest and participation of their citizenries.
Finally: the exhibitionary complex provided a context for the permanent
display of power/knowledge. In his discussion of the display of power in the
ancien regime, Foucault stresses its episodic quality. The spectacle of the scaffold
formed part of a system of power which 'in the absence of continual
supervision, sought a renewal of its effect in the spectacle of its individual
manifestations; of a power that was recharged in the ritual display of its reality
as "super-power"' (p. 57). It is not that the nineteenth century dispensed
entirely with the need for the periodic magnification of power through its
excessive display, for the expositions played this role. They did so, however, in
relation to a network of institutions which provided mechanisms for the
permanent display of power. And for a power which was not reduced to periodic
effects but which, to the contrary, manifested itself precisely in continually
displaying its ability to command, order, and control objects and bodies, living
or dead.
There is, then, another series from the one Foucault examines in tracing the
shift from the ceremony of the scaffold to the disciplinary rigours of the
penitentiary. Yet it is a series which has its echo and, in some respects, model in
another section of the socio-juridical apparatus: the trial. The scene of the trial
and that of punishment traversed one another as they moved in opposite
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 79
directions during the early modern period. As punishment was withdrawn from
the public gaze and transferred to the enclosed space of the penitentiary, so the
procedures of trial and sentencing - which, except for England, had hitherto
been mostly conducted in secret, 'opaque not only to the public but also to the
accused himself (p. 35) - were made public as part of a new system of judicial
truth which, in order to function as truth, needed to be made known to all. If
the asymmetry of these movements is compelling, it is no more so than the
symmetry of the movement traced by the trial and the museum in the transition
they make from closed and restricted to open and public contexts. And, as a part
of a profound transformation in their social functioning, it was ultimately to
these institutions - and not by witnessing punishment enacted in the streets nor,
as Bentham had envisaged, by making the penitentiaries open to public
inspection - that children, and their parents, were invited to attend their lessons
in civics.
Moreover, such lessons consisted not in a display of power which, in seeking
to terrorize, positioned the people on the other side of power as its potential
recipients but sought rather to place the people - conceived as a nationalized
citizenry - on this side of power, both its subject and its beneficiary. To identify
with power, to see it as, if not directly theirs, then indirectly so, a force
regulated and channelled by society's ruling groups but for the good of all: this
was the rhetoric of power embodied in the exhibitionary complex - a power
made manifest not in its ability to inflict pain but by its ability to organize and
co-ordinate an order of things and to produce a place for the people in relation to
that order. Detailed studies of nineteenth-century expositions thus consistently
highlight the ideological economy of their organizing principles, transforming
displays of machinery and industrial processes, of finished products and objets
d'art, into material signifiers of progress - but of progress as a collective national
achievement with capital as the great co-ordinator.11
This power thus
subjugated by flattery, placing itself on the side of the people by affording them
a place within its workings; a power which placed the people behind it,
inveigled into complicity with it rather than cowed into submission before it.
And this power marked out the distinction between the subjects and the objects
of power not within the national body but, as organized by the many rhetorics of
imperialism, between that body and other, 'non-civilized' peoples upon whose
bodies the effects of power were unleashed with as much force and theatricality
as had been manifest on the scaffold. This was, in other words, a power which
aimed at a rhetorical effect through its representation of otherness rather than at
any disciplinary effects.
Yet it is not merely in terms of its ideological economy that the exhibitionary
complex must be assessed. While museums and expositions may have set out to
win the hearts and minds of their visitors, these also brought their bodies with
them creating architectural problems as vexed as any posed by the development
of the carceral archipelago. The birth of the latter, Foucault argues, required a
new architectural problematic:
that of an architecture that is no longer built simply to be seen (as with the
ostentation of palaces), or to observe the external space (cf. the geometry of
80 NEW FORMATIONS
fortresses), but to permit an internal, articulated and detailed control - to
render visible those who are inside it; in more general terms, an architecture
that would operate to transform individuals: to act on those it shelters, to
provide a hold on their conduct, to carry the effects of power right to them, to
make it possible to know them, to alter them. (p. 172)
As Davison notes, the development of the exhibitionary complex also posed a
new demand: that everyone should see, and not just the ostentation of imposing
facades but their contents too. This, too, created a series of architectural
problems which were ultimately resolved only through a 'political economy of
detail' similar to that applied to the regulation of the relations between bodies,
space, and time within the penitentiary. In Britain, France, and Germany, the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries witnessed a spate of statesponsored
architectural competitions for the design of museums in which the
emphasis shifted progressively away from organizing spaces of display for the
private pleasure of the prince or aristocrat and towards an organization of space
and vision that would enable museums to function as organs of public
instruction.12
Yet, as I have already suggested, it is misleading to view the
architectural problematics of the exhibitionary complex as simply reversing
the principles of panopticism. The effect of these principles, Foucault argues,
was to abolish the crowd conceived as 'a compact mass, a locus of multiple
exchanges, individualities merging together, a collective effect' and to replace it
with 'a collection of separated individualities' (p. 201). However, as John
MacArthur notes, the Panopticon is simply a technique, not itself a disciplinary
regime or essentially a part of one, and, like all techniques, its potential effects
are not exhausted by its deployment within any of the regimes in which it
happens to be used.13
The peculiarity of the exhibitionary complex is not to
be found in its reversal of the principles of the Panopticon. Rather, it consists
in its incorporation of aspects of those principles together with those of the
panorama, forming a technology of vision which served not to atomize and
disperse the crowd but to regulate it, and to do so by rendering it visible to
itself, by making the crowd itself the ultimate spectacle.
An instruction from a 'Short Sermon to Sightseers' at the 1901 Pan-American
Exposition enjoined: 'Please remember when you get inside the gates you are
part of the show.'14
This was also true of museums and department stores
which, like many of the main exhibition halls of expositions, frequently
contained galleries affording a superior vantage point from which the lay-out of
the whole and the activities of other visitors could also be observed.15
It was,
however, the expositions which developed this characteristic furthest in
constructing viewing positions from which they could be surveyed as totalities:
the function of the Eiffel Tower at the 1889 Paris exposition, for example. To
see and be seen, to survey yet always be under surveillance, the object of an
unknown but controlling look: in these ways, as micro-worlds rendered
constantly visible to themselves, expositions realized some of the ideals of
panopticism in transforming the crowd into a constantly surveyed, selfwatching,
self-regulating, and, as the historical record suggests, consistently
orderly public - a society watching over itself.
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 8l
The Paris Exhibition, 1855
Within the hierarchically organized systems of looks of the penitentiary in
which each level of looking is monitored by a higher one, the inmate constitutes
the point at which all these looks culminate but he is unable to return a look of
his own or move to a higher level of vision. The exhibitionary complex, by
contrast, perfected a self-monitoring system of looks in which the subject and
object positions can be exchanged, in which the crowd comes to commune with
and regulate itself through interiorizing the ideal and ordered view of itself as
seen from the controlling vision of power - a site of sight accessible to all. It was
in thus democratizing the eye of power that the expositions realized Bentham's
aspiration for a system of looks within which the central position would be
available to the public at all times, a model lesson in civics in which a society
regulated itself through self-observation. But, of course, of self-observation
from a certain perspective. As Manfredo Tafuri puts it:
The arcades and the department stores of Paris, like the great expositions,
were certainly the places in which the crowd, itself become a spectacle, found
the spatial and visual means for a self-education from the point of view of
capital.16
However, this was not an achievement of architecture alone. Account must
also be taken of the forces which, in shaping the exhibitionary complex, formed
both its publics and its rhetorics.
SEEING THINGS
It seems unlikely, come the revolution, that it will occur to anyone to storm the
British Museum. Perhaps it always was. Yet, in the early days of its history, the
fear that it might incite the vengeance of the mob was real enough. In 1780, in
82 NEW FORMATIONS
The South Kensington Museum (later the Victoria and Albert): interior of the South
Court, eastern portion, from the south, circa 1876 (drawing by John Watkins)
the midst of the Gordon Riots, troops were housed in the gardens and building
and, in 1848, when the Chartists marched to present the People's Charter to
Parliament, the authorities prepared to defend the museum as vigilantly as if it
had been a penitentiary. The museum staff were sworn in as special constables;
fortifications were constructed around the perimeter; a garrison of museum
staff, regular troops, and Chelsea pensioners, armed with muskets, pikes, and
cutlasses, and with provisions for a three-day siege, occupied the buildings;
stones were carried to the roof to be hurled down on the Chartists should they
succeed in breaching the outer defences.17
This fear of the crowd haunted debates on the museum's policy for over a
century. Acknowledged as one of the first public museums, its conception of the
public was a limited one. Visitors were admitted only in groups of fifteen and
were obliged to submit their credentials for inspection prior to admission which
was granted only if they were found to be 'not exceptionable'.18
When changes
to this policy were proposed, they were resisted by both the museum's trustees
and its curators, apprehensive that the unruliness of the mob would mar the
ordered display of culture and knowledge. When, shortly after the museum's
establishment, it was proposed that there be public days on which unrestricted
access would be allowed, the proposal was scuttled on the grounds, as one
trustee put it, that some of the visitors from the streets would inevitably be 'in
liquor' and 'will never be kept in order'. And if public days should be allowed,
Dr Ward continued:
then it will be necessary for the Trustees to have a presence of a Commitiee of
themselves attending, with at least two Justices of the Peace and the
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX
constables of the division of Bloomsbury . . . supported by a guard such as
one as usually attends at the Play-House, and even after all this, Accidents
must and will happen.19
Similar objections were raised when, in 1835, a select committee was
appointed to inquire into the management of the museum and suggested that it
might be opened over Easter to facilitate attendance by the labouring classes. A
few decades later, however, the issue had been finally resolved in favour of the
reformers. The most significant shift in the state's attitude towards museums
was marked by the opening of the South Kensington Museum in 1857.
Administered, eventually, under the auspices of the Board of Education, the
museum was officially dedicated to the service of an extended and undifferentiated
public with opening hours and an admissions policy designed to maximize its
accessibility to the working classes. It proved remarkably successful, too,
attracting over 15 million visits between 1857 and 1883, over 6.5 million of
which were recorded in the evenings, the most popular time for working-class
visitors who, it seems, remained largely sober. Henry Cole, the first director of
the museum and an ardent advocate of the role museums should play in the
formation of a rational public culture, pointedly rebutted the conceptions of the
unruly mob which had informed earlier objections to open admissions policies.
Informing a House of Commons committee in i860 that only one person had
had to be excluded for not being able to walk steadily, he went on to note that
the sale of alcohol in the refreshment rooms had averaged out, as Altick
summarizes it, at 'two and a half drops of wine, fourteen-fifteenths of a drop of
brandy, and ten and half drops of bottled ale per capita'.20
As the evidence of
the orderliness of the newly extended museum public mounted, even the British
Museum relented and, in 1883, embarked on a programme of electrification to
permit evening opening.
The South Kensington Museum thus marked a significant turning-point in
the development of British museum policy in clearly enunciating the principles
of the modern museum conceived as an instrument of public education. It
provided the axis around which London's museum complex was to develop
throughout the rest of the century and exerted a strong influence on the
development of museums in the provincial cities and towns. These now rapidly
took advantage of the Museum Bill of 1845 (hitherto used relatively sparingly)
which empowered local authorities to establish museums and art galleries: the
number of public museums in Britain increased from 50 in i860 to 200 in
1900.21
In its turn, however, the South Kensington Museum had derived its
primary impetus from the Great Exhibition which, in developing a new
pedagogic relation between state and people, had also subdued the spectre of the
crowd. This spectre had been raised again in the debates set in motion by the
proposal that admission to the exhibition should be free. It could only be
expected, one correspondent to The Times argued, that both the rules of
decorum and the rights of property would be violated if entry were made free to
'his majesty the mob'. These fears were exacerbated by the revolutionary
upheavals of 1848, occasioning several European monarchs to petition that the
public be banned from the opening ceremony (planned for May Day) for fear
that this might spark off an insurrection which, in turn, might give rise to a
NEW FORMATIONS
general European conflagration.22
And then there was the fear of social
contagion should the labouring classes be allowed to rub shoulders with the
upper classes.
In the event, the Great Exhibition proved a transitional form. While open to
all, it also stratified its public in providing different days for different classes of
visitors regulated by varying prices of admission. In spite of this limitation, the
exhibition proved a major spur to the development of open-door policies.
Attracting over 6 million visitors itself, it also vastly stimulated the attendance at
London's main historic sites and museums: visits to the British Museum, for
example, increased from 720,643 in 1850 to 2,230,242 in 1851.23
Perhaps more
important, though, was the orderliness of the public which in spite of the
thousand extra constables and ten thousand troops kept on stand-by, proved
duly appreciative, decorous in its bearing and entirely a-political. More than
that, the exhibition transformed the many-headed mob into an ordered crowd, a
part of the spectacle and a sight of pleasure in itself. Victoria, in recording her
impressions of the opening ceremony, dwelt particularly on her pleasure in
seeing so large, so orderly, and so peaceable a crowd assembled in one place:
The Green Park and Hyde Park were one mass of densely crowded human
beings, in the highest good humour and most enthusiastic. I never saw Hyde
Park look as it did, being filled with crowds as far as the eye could see.24
Nor was this entirely unprepared for. The working-class public the exhibition
attracted was one whose conduct had been regulated into appropriate forms in
the earlier history of the Mechanics Institute exhibitions. Devoted largely to the
display of industrial objects and processes, these exhibitions pioneered policies
of low admission prices and late opening hours to encourage working-class
attendance long before these were adopted within the official museum complex.
In doing so, moreover, they sought to tutor their visitors on the modes of
deportment required if they were to be admitted. Instruction booklets advised
working-class visitors how to present themselves, placing particular stress on
the need to change out of their working clothes - partly so as not to soil the
exhibits, but also so as not to detract from the pleasures of the overall spectacle;
indeed, to become parts of it:
Here is a visitor of another sort; the mechanic has resolved to treat himself
with a few hours holiday and recreation; he leaves the 'grimy shop', the dirty
bench, and donning his Saturday night suit he appears before us - an
honourable and worthy object.25
In brief, the Great Exhibition and, subsequently, the public museums
developed in its wake found themselves heirs to a public which had already been
formed by a set of pedagogic relations which, developed initially by voluntary
organizations - in what Gramsci would call the realm of civil society - were
henceforward to be more thoroughgoingly promoted within the social body in
being subjected to the direction of the state.
Not, then, a history of confinement but one of the opening up of objects to
more public contexts of inspection and visibility: this is the direction of
movement embodied in the formation of the exhibitionary complex. A
movement which simultaneously helped to form a new public and inscribe ;
t in
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 85
new relations of sight and vision. Of course, the precise trajectory of these
developments in Britain was not followed elsewhere in Europe. None the less,
the general direction of development was the same. While earlier collections
(whether of scientific objects, curiosities, or works of art) had gone under a
variety of names (museums, studiolo, cabinets des curieux, Wunderkammer,
Kunstkammer) and fulfilled a variety of functions (the storing and dissemination
of knowledge, the display of princely and aristocratic power, the advancement
of reputations and careers), they had mostly shared two principles: that of
private ownership and that of restricted access.26
The formation of the
exhibitionary complex involved a break with both in effecting the transfer of
significant quantities of cultural and scientific property from private into public
ownership where they were housed within institutions administered by the state
for the benefit of an extended general public.
The significance of the formation of the exhibitionary complex, viewed in this
perspective, was that of providing new instruments for the moral and cultural
regulation of the working classes. Museums and expositions, in drawing on the
techniques and rhetorics of display and pedagogic relations developed in earlier
nineteenth-century exhibitionary forms, provided a context in which the
working- and middle-class publics could be brought together and the former having
been tutored into forms of behaviour to suit them for the occasion could
be exposed to the improving influence of the latter. A history, then, of the
formation of a new public and its inscription in new relations of power and
knowledge. But a history accompanied by a parallel one aimed at the destruction
of earlier traditions of popular exhibition and the publics they implied and
produced. In Britain, this took the form, inter alia, of a concerted attack on
popular fairs owing to their association with riot, carnival, and, in their sideshows,
the display of monstrosities and curiosities which, no longer enjoying
elite patronage, were now perceived as impediments to the rationalizing
influence of the restructured exhibitionary complex.
Yet, by the end of the century, fairs were to be actively promoted as an aid
rather than a threat to public order. This was partly because the mechanization
of fairs meant that their entertainments were increasingly brought into line with
the values of industrial civilization, a testimony to the virtues of progress.27
But
it was also a consequence of changes in the conduct of fairgoers. By the end of
the century, Hugh Cunningham argues, 'fairgoing had become a relatively
routine ingredient in the accepted world of leisure' as 'fairs became tolerated,
safe, and in due course a subject for nostalgia and revival'.28
The primary site
for this transformation of fairs and the conduct of their publics - although never
quite so complete as Cunningham suggests - was supplied by the fair zones of
the late-nineteenth-century expositions. It was here that two cultures abutted on
to one another, the fair zones forming a kind of buffer region between the
official and the popular culture with the former seeking to reach into the latter
and moderate it. Initially, these fair zones established themselves independently
of the official expositions and their organizing committees. The product of the
initiative of popular showmen and private traders eager to exploit the market the
expositions supplied, they consisted largely of an ad hoc melange of both new
(mechanical rides) and traditional popular entertainments (freak shows, etc.)
86 NEW FORMATIONS
which frequently mocked the pretensions of the expositions they adjoined.
Burton Benedict summarizes the relations between expositions and their
amusement zones in late-nineteenth-century America as follows:
Many of the display techniques used in the amusement zone seemed to
parody those of the main fair. Gigantism became enormous toys or grotesque
monsters. Impressive high structures became collapsing or whirling amusement
'rides'. The solemn female allegorical figures that symbolised nations (Miss
Liberty, Britannia) were replaced by comic male figures (Uncle Sam, John
Bull). At the Chicago fair of 1893 the gilded female statue of the Republic on
the Court of Honour contrasted with a large mechanical Uncle Sam on the
Midway that delivered forty thousand speeches on the virtues of Hub Gore
shoe elastics. Serious propagandists for manufacturers and governments in
the main fair gave way to barkers and pitch men. The public no longer had to
play the role of impressed spectators. They were invited to become frivolous
participants. Order was replaced by jumble, and instruction by entertainment.29
As Benedict goes on to note, the resulting tension between unofficial fair and
official exposition led to 'exposition organisers frequently attempting to turn the
amusement zone into an educational enterprise or at least to regulate the type of
exhibit shown'. In this, they were never entirely successful. Into the twentieth
century, the amusement zones remained sites of illicit pleasures - of burlesque
shows and prostitution - and of ones which the expositions themselves aimed to
render archaic. Altick's 'monster-mongers and retailers of other strange sights'
seem to have been as much in evidence at the Panama Pacific Exhibition of 1915
as they had been, a century earlier, at St Bartholomew's Fair, Wordsworth's
Parliament of Monsters.30
None the less, what was evident was a significant
restructuring in the ideological economy of such amusement zones as a
consequence of the degree to which, in subjecting them to more stringent forms
of control and direction, exposition authorities were able to align their thematics
to those of the official expositions themselves and, thence, to those of the rest of
the exhibitionary complex. Museums, the evidence suggests, appealed largely to
the middle classes and the skilled and respectable working classes and it seems
likely that the same was true of expositions. The link between expositions and
their adjoining fair zones, however, provided a route through which the
exhibitionary complex and the disciplines and knowledges which shaped its
rhetorics acquired a far wider and more extensive social influence.
THE EXHIBITIONARY DISCIPLINES
The space of representation constituted by the exhibitionary complex was
shaped by the relations between an array of new disciplines: history, art history,
archaeology, geology, biology, and anthropology. Whereas the disciplines
associated with the carceral archipelago were concerned to reduce aggregates to
individualities, rendering the latter visible to power and so amenable to control,
the orientation of these disciplines - as deployed in the exhibitionary complex might
best be summarized as that of 'show and tell'. They tended also to be
generalizing in their focus. Each discipline, in its museological deployment,
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 87
aimed at the representation of a type and its insertion in a developmental
sequence for display to a public.
Such principles of classification and display were alien to the eighteenth
century. Thus, in Sir Hans Soane's Museum, architectural styles are displayed
in order to demonstrate their essential permanence rather than their change and
development.31
The emergence of a historicized framework for the display of
human artefacts in early-nineteenth-century museums was thus a significant
innovation. But not an isolated one. As Stephen Bann shows, the emergence of a
'historical frame' for the display of museum exhibits was concurrent with the
development of an array of disciplinary and other practices which aimed at the
The Crystal Palace: model of one of the Colossi of Abu Simbel, 1852/3 (plate by Philip
Henry Delamotte)
NEW FORMATIONS
life-like reproduction of an authenticated past and its representation as a series
of stages leading to the present - the new practices of history writing associated
with the historical novel and the development of history as an empirical
discipline, for example.32
Between them, these constituted a new space of
representation concerned to depict the development of peoples, states, and
civilizations through time conceived as a progressive series of developmental
stages.
The French Revolution, Germaine Bazin suggests, played a key role in
opening up this space of representation by breaking the chain of dynastic
succession that had previously vouchsafed a unity to the flow and organization
of time.33
Certainly, it was in France that historicized principles of museum
display were first developed. Bazin stresses the formative influence of the
Museum des monuments frangais (1795) in exhibiting works of art in galleries
devoted to different periods, the visitor's route leading from earlier to later
periods, with a view to demonstrating both the painterly conventions peculiar to
each epoch and their historical development. He accords a similar significance to
Alexandre du Sommerard's collection at the Hotel de Cluny which, as Bann
shows, aimed at 'an integrative construction of historical totalities', creating the
impression of a historically authentic milieu by suggesting an essential and
organic connection between artefacts displayed in rooms classified by period.34
Bann argues that these two principles - the galleria progressiva and the period
room, sometimes employed singly, at others in combination - constitute the
distinctive poetics of the modern historical museum. It is important to add,
though, that this poetics displayed a marked tendency to be nationalized. If, as
Bazin suggests, the museum became 'one of the fundamental institutions of the
modern state',35
that state was also increasingly a nation-state. The significance
of this was manifested in the relations between two new historical times national
and universal - which resulted from an increase in the vertical depth of
historical time as it was both pushed further and further back into the past and
brought increasingly up to date. Under the impetus of the rivalry between
France and Britain for dominion in the Middle East, museums, in close
association with archaeological excavations of progressively deeper pasts,
extended their time horizons beyond the medieval period and the classical
antiquities of Greece and Rome to encompass the remnants of the Egyptian and
Mesopotamian civilizations. At the same time,-the recent past was historicized
as the newly emerging nation-states sought to preserve and immemorialize their
own formation as a part of that process of 'nationing' their populations that was
essential to their further development. It was as a consequence of the first of
these developments that the prospect of a universal history of civilization was
opened up to thought and materialized in the archaeological collections of the
great nineteenth-century museums. The second development, however, led to
these universal histories being annexed to national histories as, within the
rhetorics of each national museum complex, collections of national materials
were represented as the outcome and culmination of the universal story of
civilization's development.
Nor had displays of natural or geological specimens been organized
historically in the various precursors of nineteenth-century public museums.
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 89
Throughout the greater part of the eighteenth century, principles of scientific
classification testified to a mixture of theocratic, rationalist, and protoevolutionist
systems of thought. Translated into principles of museological
display, the result was the table, not the series, with species being arranged in
terms of culturally codified similarities/dissirnilarities in their external appearances
rather than being ordered into temporally organized relations of precession/
succession. The crucial challenges to such conceptions came from developments
within geology and biology, particularly where their researches overlapped in
the stratigraphical study of fossil remains.36
However, the details of these
developments need not concern us here. So far as their implications for
museums were concerned, their main significance was that of allowing for
organic life to be conceived and represented as a temporally ordered succession
of different forms of life where the transitions between them were accounted for
not as a result of external shocks (as had been the case in the eighteenth century)
but as the consequence of an inner momentum inscribed within the concept of
life itself.37
If developments within history and archaeology thus allowed for the
emergence of new forms of classification and display through which the stories
of nations could be told and related to the longer story of western civilization's
development, the discursive formations of nineteenth-century geology and
biology allowed these cultural series to be inserted within the longer
developmental series of geological and natural time. Museums of science and
technology, heirs to the rhetorics of progress developed in national and
international exhibitions, completed the evolutionary picture in representing
the history of industry and manufacture as a series of progressive innovations
leading up to the contemporary triumphs of industrial capitalism.
Yet, in the context of late-nineteenth-century imperialism, it was arguably the
employment of anthropology within the exhibitionary complex which proved
most central to its ideological functioning. For it played the crucial role of
connecting the histories of Western nations and civilizations to those of other
peoples, but only by separating the two in providing for an interrupted
continuity in the order of peoples and races - one in which 'primitive peoples'
dropped out of history altogether in order to occupy a twilight zone between
nature and culture. This function had been fulfilled earlier in the century by the
museological display of anatomical peculiarities which seemed to confirm
polygenetic conceptions of mankind's origins. The most celebrated instance was
that of Saartjie Baartman, the 'Hottentot Venus', whose protruding buttocks interpreted
as a sign of separate development - occasioned a flurry of scientific
speculation when she was displayed in Paris and London. On her death in 1815,
an autopsy revealed alleged peculiarities in her genitalia which, likened to those
of the orang-utan, were cited as proof positive of the claim that black peoples
were the product of a separate - and, of course, inferior, more primitive, and
bestial - line of descent. No less an authority than Cuvier lent his support to this
conception in circulating a report of Baartman's autopsy and presenting her
genital organs - 'prepared in a way so as to allow one to see the nature of the
labia'38
- to the French Academy which arranged for their display in the Musee
d'Ethnographie de Paris (now the Musee de l'homme).
NEW FORMATIONS
The cabinet of curiosities: Ferrante Imperato's museum in Naples, 1599
The Crystal Palace: stuffed animals and ethnographic figures (plate by Delamotte)
Darwin's rebuttal of theories of polygenesis entailed that different means be
found for establishing and representing the fractured unity of the human
species. By and large, this was achieved by the representation of 'primitive
peoples' as instances of arrested development, as examples of an earlier stage of
species development which Western civilizations had long ago surpassed.
Indeed, such peoples were typically represented as the still-living examples of
the earliest stage in human development, the point of transition between nature
and culture, between ape and man, the missing link necessary to account for the
transition between animal and human history. Denied any history of their own,
it was the fate of 'primitive peoples' to be dropped out of the bottom of human
history in order that they might serve, representationally, as its support underlining
the rhetoric of progress by serving as its counterpoints, representing
the point at which human history emerges from nature but has not yet properly
begun its course.
So far as the museological display of artefacts from such cultures was
concerned, this resulted in their arrangement and display - as at the Pitt-Rivers
Museum - in accordance with the genetic or typological system which grouped
together all objects of a similar nature, irrespective of their ethnographic
groupings, in an evolutionary series leading from the simple to the complex.39
However, it was with regard to the display of human remains that the
consequences of these principles of classification were most dramatically
manifested. In eighteenth-century museums, such displays had placed the
accent on anatomical peculiarities, viewed primarily as a testimony to the rich
diversity of the chain of universal being. By the late nineteenth century,
however, human remains were most typically displayed as parts of evolutionary
series with the remains of still extant peoples being allocated the earliest position
within them. This was particularly true for the remains of Australian
Aborigines. In the early years of Australian settlement, the colony's museums
had displayed little or no interest in Aboriginal remains.40
The triumph of
evolutionary theory transformed this situation, leading to a systematic rape of
Aboriginal sacred sites - by the representatives of British, European, and
American as well as Australian museums - for materials to provide a
representational foundation for the story of evolution within, tellingly enough,
natural history displays.41
The space of representation constituted in the relations between the
disciplinary knowledges deployed within the exhibitionary complex thus
permitted the construction of a temporally organized order of things and
peoples. Moreover, that order was a totalizing one, metonymically encompassing
all things and all peoples in their interactions through time. And an order which
organized the implied public - the white citizenries of the imperialist powers into
a unity, representationally effacing divisions within the body politic in
constructing a 'we' conceived as the realization, and therefore just beneficiaries,
of the processes of evolution and identified as a unity in opposition to the
primitive otherness of conquered peoples. This was not entirely new. As Peter
Stallybrass and Allon White note, the popular fairs of the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries had exoticized the grotesque imagery of the carnival
tradition by projecting it on to the representatives of alien cultures. In thus
92 NEW FORMATIONS
providing a normalizing function via the construction of a radically different
Other, the exhibition of other peoples served as a vehicle for 'the edification of a
national public and the confirmation of its imperial superiority'.42
If, in its
subsequent development, the exhibitionary complex latched on to this preexisting
representational space, what it added to it was a historical dimension.
THE EXHIBITIONARY APPARATUSES
The space of representation constituted by the exhibitionary disciplines, while
conferring a degree of unity on the exhibitionary complex, was also somewhat
differently occupied - and to different effect - by the institutions comprising
that complex. If museums gave this space a solidity and permanence, this was
achieved at the price of a lack of ideological flexibility. Public museums
instituted an order of things that was meant to last. In doing so, they provided
the modern state with a deep and continuous ideological backdrop but one
which, if it was to play this role, could not he adjusted to respond to shorterterm
ideological requirements. Exhibitions met this need, injecting new life into
the exhibitionary complex and rendering its ideological configurations more
pliable in bending them to serve the conjuncturally specific hegemonic strategies
of different national bourgeoisies. They made the order of things dynamic,
mobilizing it strategically in relation to the more immediate ideological and
political exigencies of the particular moment.
This was partly an effect of the secondary discourses which accompanied
exhibitions. Ranging from the state pageantry of their opening and closing
ceremonies through newspaper reports to the veritable swarming of pedagogic
initiatives organized by religious, philanthropic, and scientific associations to
take advantage of the publics which exhibitions produced, these often forged
very direct and specific connections between the exhibitionary rhetoric of
progress and the claims to leadership of particular social and political forces.
The distinctive influence of the exhibitions themselves, however, consisted in
their articulation of the rhetoric of progress to the rhetorics of nationalism and
imperialism and in producing, via their control over their adjoining popular
fairs, an expanded cultural sphere for the deployment of the exhibitionary
disciplines.
The basic signifying currency of the exhibitions, of course, consisted in their
arrangement of displays of manufacturing processes and products. Prior to the
Great Exhibition, the message of progress had been carried by the arrangement
of exhibits in, as Davison puts it, 'a series of classes and sub-classes ascending
from raw products of nature, through various manufactured goods and
mechanical devices, to the "highest" forms of applied and fine art'.43
As such,
the class articulations of this rhetoric were subject to some variation. Mechanics
Institutes' exhibitions placed considerable stress on the centrality of labour's
contributions to the processes of production which, at times, allowed a radical
appropriation of their message. 'The machinery of wealth, here displayed,' the
Leeds Times noted in reporting an 1839 exhibition, 'has been created by the men
of hammers and papercaps; more honourable than all the sceptres and coronets
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 93
in the world.'44
The Great Exhibition introduced two changes which decisively
influenced the future development of the form.
First, the stress was shifted from the processes to the products of production,
divested of the marks of their making and ushered forth as signs of the
productive and co-ordinating power of capital and the state. After 1851, world
fairs were to function less as vehicles for the technical education of the working
classes than as instruments for their stupefaction before the reified products of
their own labour, 'places of pilgrimage', as Benjamin put it, 'to the fetish
Commodity'.45
Second, while not entirely abandoned, the earlier progressivist taxonomy
based on stages of production was subordinated to the dominating influence of
principles of classification based on nations and the supra-national constructs of
empires and races. Embodied, at the Crystal Palace, in the form of national
courts or display areas, this principle was subsequently developed into that of
separate pavilions for each participating country. Moreover, following an
innovation of the Centennial Exhibition held at Philadelphia in 1876, these
pavilions were typically zoned into racial groups: the Latin, Teutonic, AngloSaxon,
American, and Oriental being the most favoured classifications, with
black peoples and the aboriginal populations of conquered territories, denied
any space of their own, being represented as subordinate adjuncts to the
The Great Exhibition, 1851: stands of Egypt, Turkey and Greece (plate by Owen and
Ferrier)
94 NEW FORMATIONS
imperial displays of the major powers. The effect of these developments was to
transfer the rhetoric of progress from the relations between stages of production
to the relations between races and nations by superimposing the associations of
the former on to the latter. In the context of imperial displays, subject peoples
were thus represented as occupying the lowest levels of manufacturing
civilization. Reduced to displays of 'primitive' handicrafts and the like, they
were represented as cultures without momentum except for that benignly
bestowed on them from without through the improving mission of the
imperialist powers. Oriental civilizations were allotted an intermediate position
in being represented either as having at one time been subject to development
but subsequently degenerating into stasis or as embodying achievements of
civilization which, while developed by their own lights, were judged inferior to
the standards set by Europe.46
In brief, a progressivist taxonomy for the
classification of goods and manufacturing processes was laminated on to a
crudely racist teleological conception of the relations between peoples and races
which culminated in the achievements of the metropolitan powers, invariably
most impressively displayed in the pavilions of the host country.
Exhibitions thus located their preferred audiences at the very pinnacle of the
exhibitionary order of things they constructed. They also installed them at the
threshold of greater things to come. Here, too, the Great Exhibition led the way
in sponsoring a display of architectural projects for the amelioration of workingclass
housing conditions. This principle was to be developed, in subsequent
exhibitions, into displays of elaborate projects for the improvement of social
conditions in the areas of health, sanitation, education, and welfare promissory
notes that the engines of progress would be harnessed for the general
good. Indeed, exhibitions came to function as promissory notes in their
totalities, embodying, if just for a season, Utopian principles of social
organization which, when the time came for the notes to be redeemed, would
eventually be realized in perpetuity. As world fairs fell increasingly under the
influence of modernism, the rhetoric of progress tended, as Rydell puts it, to be
'translated into a Utopian statement about the future', promising the imminent
dissipation of social tensions once progress had reached the point where its
benefits might be generalized.47
Iain Chambers has argued that working- and middle-class cultures became
sharply distinct in late-nineteenth-century Britain as an urban commercial
popular culture developed beyond the reach of the moral economy of religion
and respectability. As a consequence, he argues, 'official culture was publicly
limited to the rhetoric of monuments in the centre of town: the university, the
museum, the theatre, the concert hall; otherwise it was reserved for the
"private" space of the Victorian residence'.48
While not disputing the general
terms of this argument, it does omit any consideration of the role of exhibitions
in providing official culture with powerful bridgeheads into the newly
developing popular culture. Most obviously, the official zones of exhibitions
offered a context for the deployment of the exhibitionary disciplines which
reached a more extended public than that ordinarily reached by the public
museum system. The exchange of both staff and exhibits between museums and
exhibitions was a regular and recurrent aspect of their relations, furnishing an
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 95
institutional axis for the extended social deployment of a distinctively new
ensemble of disciplines. Even within the official zones of exhibitions, the
exhibitionary disciplines thus achieved an exposure to publics as large as any to
which even the most commercialized forms of popular culture could lay claim:
32 million people attended the Paris Exposition of 1889; 27.5 million went to
Chicago's Columbian Exposition in 1893 and nearly 49 million to Chicago's
1933/4 Century of Progress Exposition; the Glasgow Empire Exhibition of 1938
attracted 12 million visitors, and over 27 million attended the Empire
Exhibition at Wembley in 1924/5.49
However, the ideological reach of
exhibitions often extended significantly further as they established their
influence over the popular entertainment zones which, while initially deplored
by exhibition authorities, were subsequently to be managed as planned adjuncts
to the official exhibition zones and, sometimes, incorporated into the latter. It
was through this network of relations that the official public culture of museums
reached into the developing urban popular culture, shaping and directing its
development in subjecting the ideological thematics of popular entertainments
to the rhetoric of progress.
The most critical development in this respect consisted in the extension of
anthropology's disciplinary ambit into the entertainment zones, for it was here
that the crucial work of transforming non-white peoples themselves - and not
just their remains or artefacts - into object lessons of evolutionary theory was
accomplished. Paris led the way here in the colonial city it constructed as part of
its 1889 Exposition. Populated by Asian and African peoples in simulated
'native' villages, the colonial city functioned as the showpiece of French
anthropology and, through its influence on delegates to the tenth Congres
Internationale d'Anthropologic et d'Archeologie Prehistorique held in association
with the exposition, had a decisive bearing on the future modes of the
discipline's social deployment. While this was true internationally, Rydell's
study of American world fairs provides the most detailed demonstration of the
active role played by museum anthropologists in transforming the Midways into
living demonstrations of evolutionary theory by arranging non-white peoples
into a 'sliding-scale of humanity', from the barbaric to the nearly civilized, thus
underlining the exhibitionary rhetoric of progress by serving as visible
counterpoints to its triumphal achievements. It was here that relations of
knowledge and power continued to be invested in the public display of bodies,
colonizing the space of earlier freak and monstrosity shows in order to personify
the truths of a new regime of representation.
In their interrelations, then, the expositions and their fair zones constituted
an order of things and of peoples which, reaching back into the depths of
prehistoric time as well as encompassing all corners of the globe, rendered the
whole world metonymically present, subordinated to the dominating gaze of the
white, bourgeois, and (although this is another story) male eye of the
metropolitan powers. But an eye of power which, through the development of
the technology of vision associated with exposition towers and the positions for
seeing these produced in relation to the miniature ideal cities of the expositions
themselves, was democratized in being made available to all. Earlier attempts to
establish a specular dominance over the city had, of course, been legion - the
NEW FORMATIONS
camera obscura, the panorama - and often fantastic in their technological
imaginings. Moreover, the ambition to render the whole world, as represented
in assemblages of commodities, subordinate to the controlling vision of the
spectator was present in world exhibitions from the outset. This was
represented synecdochically at the Great Exhibition by Wylde's Great Globe, a
brick rotunda which the visitor entered to see plaster casts of the world's
continents and oceans. The principles embodied in the Eiffel Tower, built for
the 1889 Paris Exposition and repeated in countless subsequent expositions,
brought these two series together, rendering the project of specular dominance
feasible in affording an elevated vantage point over a micro-world which claimed
to be representative of a larger totality.
Barthes has aptly summarized the effects of the technology of vision
embodied in the Eiffel Tower. Remarking that the tower overcomes 'the
habitual divorce between seeing and being seen', Barthes argues that it acquires a
distinctive power from its ability to circulate between these two functions of
sight:
An object when we look at it, it becomes a lookout in its turn when we visit it,
and now constitutes as an object, simultaneously extended and collected
beneath it, that Paris which just now was looking at it.50
A sight itself, it becomes the site for a sight; a place both to see and be seen
The Chicago Columbian Exposition, 1893: view from the roof of the Manufactures and
Liberal Arts Building
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 97
from, which allows the individual to circulate between the object and subject
positions of the dominating vision it affords over the city and its inhabitants. In
this, its distancing effect, Barthes argues, 'the Tower makes the city into a kind
of nature; it constitutes the swarming of men into a landscape, it adds to the
frequently grim urban myth a romantic dimension, a harmony, a mitigation',
offering 'an immediate consumption of a humanity made natural by that glance
which transforms it into space'.51
It is because of the dominating vision it
affords, Barthes continues, that, for the visitor, 'the Tower is the first obligatory
monument; it is a Gateway, it marks the transition to a knowledge'.52
And to the
power associated with that knowledge: the power to order objects and persons
into a world to be known and to lay it out before a vision capable of
encompassing it as a totality.
In The Prelude, Wordsworth, seeking a vantage point from which to quell the
tumultuousness of the city, invites his reader to ascend with him 'Above the
press and danger of the crowd/Upon some showman's platform' at St
Bartholomew's Fair, likened to mobs, riotings, and executions as occasions
when the passions of the city's populace break forth into unbridled expression.
The vantage point, however, affords no control:
All moveables of wonder, from all parts,
Are here - Albinos, painted Indians, Dwarfs,
The Horse of knowledge, and the learned Pig,
The Stone-eater, the man that swallows fire,
Giants, Ventriloquists, the Invisible Girl,
The Bust that speaks and moves its goggling eyes,
The Wax-work, Clock-work, all the marvellous craft
Of modern Merlins, Wild Beasts, Puppet-shows,
All out-o'-the-way, far-fetched, perverted things,
All freaks of nature, all Promethean thoughts
Of man, his dullness, madness, and their feats
All jumbled up together, to compose
A Parliament of Monsters.53
Stallybrass and White argue that this Wordsworthian perspective was typical
of the early-nineteenth-century tendency for the educated public, in withdrawing
from participation in popular fairs, also to distance itself from, and seek some
ideological control over, the fair by the literary production of elevated vantage
points from which it might be observed. By the end of the century, the
imaginary dominance over the city afforded by the showman's platform had
been transformed into a cast-iron reality while the fair, no longer a symbol of
chaos, had become the ultimate spectacle of an ordered totality. And the
substitution of observation for participation was a possibility open to all. The
principle of spectacle - that, as Foucault summarizes it, of rendering a small
number of objects accessible to the inspection of a multitude of men - did not
fall into abeyance in the nineteenth century: it was surpassed through the
development of technologies of vision which rendered the multitude accessible
to its own inspection.
98 NEW FORMATIONS
CONCLUSION
I have sought, in this article, to tread a delicate line between Foucault's and
Gramsci's perspectives on the state, but without attempting to efface their
differences so as to forge a synthesis between them. Nor is there a compelling
need for such a synthesis. The concept of the state is merely a convenient
shorthand for an array of governmental agencies which - as Gramsci was among
the first to argue in distinguishing between the coercive apparatuses of the state
and those engaged in the organization of consent - need not be conceived as
unitary with regard to either their functioning or the modalities of power they
embody.
That said, however, my argument has been mainly with (but not against)
Foucault. In the study already referred to, Pearson distinguishes between the
'hard' and the 'soft' approaches to the nineteenth-century state's role in the
promotion of art and culture. The former consisted of 'a systematic body of
knowledge and skills promulgated in a systematic way to specified audiences'.
Its field was comprised by those institutions of schooling which exercised a
forcible hold or some measure of constraint over their members and to which
the technologies of self-monitoring developed in the carceral system undoubtedly
migrated. The 'soft' approach, by contrast, worked 'by example rather than by
pedagogy; by entertainment rather than by disciplined schooling; and by
subtlety and encouragement'.54
Its field of application consisted of those
institutions whose hold over their publics depended on their voluntary
participation.
There seems no reason to deny the different sets of knowledge/power
relations embodied in these contrasting approaches, or to seek their reconciliation
in some common principle. For the needs to which they responded were
different. The problem to which the 'swarming of disciplinary mechanisms'
responded was that of making extended popula'tions governable. However, the
development of bourgeois democratic polities required not merely that the
populace be governable but that it assent to its governance, thereby creating a
need to enlist active popular support for the values and objectives enshrined in
the state. Foucault knows well enough the symbolic power of the penitentiary:
The high wall, no longer the wall that surrounds and protects, no longer the
wall that stands for power and wealth, but the meticulously sealed wall,
uncrossable in either direction, closed in upon the now mysterious work of
punishment, will become, near at hand, sometimes even at the very centre of
the cities of the nineteenth century, the monotonous figure, at once material
and symbolic, of the power to punish, (p. 116)
Museums were also typically located at the centre of cities where they stood as
embodiments, both material and symbolic, of a power to 'show and tell' which,
in being deployed in a newly constituted open and public space, sought
rhetorically to incorporate the people within the processes of the state. If the
museum and the penitentiary thus represented the Janus face of power, there
was none the less - at least symbolically - an economy of effort between them.
For those who failed to adopt the tutelary relation to the self promoted by
THE EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX 99
popular schooling or whose hearts and minds failed to be won in the new
pedagogic relations between state and people symbolized by the open doors of
the museum, the closed walls of the penitentiary threatened a sterner instruction
in the lessons of power. Where instruction and rhetoric failed, punishment
began.
NOTES
1 Douglas Crimp, 'On the museum's ruins', in Hal Foster (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic;
Essays on Postmodern Culture (Washington: Bay Press, 1985), 45.
2 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans, by A. Sheridan
(London: Allen Lane, 1977), 115-16; further page references will be given in the
text.
3 Jeffrey Minson, Genealogies of Morals: Nietzche, Foucault, Donzelot and the
Eccentricity of Ethics (London: Macmillan, 1985), 24.
4 This point is well made by MacArthur who sees this aspect of Foucault's argument as
inimical to the overall spirit of his work in suggesting a 'historical division which
places theatre and spectacle as past'. Jphn MacArthur, 'Foucault, Tafuri, Utopia:
essays in the history and theory of architecture' (unpublished MPhil thesis,
University of Queensland, 1983), 192.
5 Graeme Davison, 'Exhibitions', Australian Cultural History, no. 2 (1982/3), Canberra:
Australian Academy of the Humanities and the History of Ideas Unit, A.N.U., 7.
6 See Richard D. Altick, The Shows of London (Cambridge, Mass. and London: the
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1978).
7 Dean MacCannell, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (New York:
Schocken Books (1976), 57.
8 See Dana Aron Brand, The Spectator and the City: Fantasies of Urban Legibility in
Nineteenth-Century England and America (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms
International, 1986).
9 For discussions of the role of the American state in relation to museums and
expositions, see, respectively, K. E. Meyer, The Art Museum: Power, Money, Ethics
(New York: William Morrow & Co., 1979), and Reid Badger, The Great American
Fair: The World's Columbian Exposition and American Culture (Chicago: Nelson Hall,
1979)-
10 Nicholas Pearson, The State and the Visual Arts: a discussion of state intervention in the
visual arts in Britain, 1780-1981 (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1982),
8-13, 46-7.
11 See Debora Silverman, 'The 1889 exhibition: the crisis of bourgeois individualism',
Oppositions: A Journal of Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, spring (1977), and Robert
W. Rydell, All the World's a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International
Expositions, 1876-1916 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
12 See H. Seling, 'The genesis of the museum', Architectural Review, no. 131 (1967).
13 MacArthur, op. cit., 192-3.
14 Cited in Neil Harris, 'Museums, merchandising and popular taste: the struggle for
influence', in I. M. G. Quimby (ed.), Material Culture and the Study of American Life
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 144.
15 For details of the use of rotunda and galleries to this effect in department stores, see
John William Ferry, A History of the Department Store (New York: Macmillan, i960).
16 Manfredo Tafuri, Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976), 83.
IOO NEW FORMATIONS
17 For further details, see Edward Millar, That Noble Cabinet: A History of the British
Museum (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1974).
18 A. S. Wittlin, The Museum: Its History and Its Tasks in Education (London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul, 1949), 113.
19 Cited in Millar, op. cit., 62.
20 Altick, op. cit., 500.
21 See David White, 'Is Britain becoming one big museum?', New Society (20 October
1983).
22 See Audrey Shorter, 'Workers under glass in 1851', Victorian Studies, 10, 2 (1966).
23 See Altick, op. cit., 467.
24 Cited in C. H. Gibbs-Smith, The Great Exhibition of 1851 (London: HMSO, 1981),
18.
25 Cited in Toshio Kusamitsu, 'Great exhibitions before 1851', History Workshop, no. 9
(1980), 77.
26 A comprehensive introduction to these earlier forms is offered by Olive Impey and
Arthur MacGregor (eds), The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). See also
Bazin, below.
27 I have touched on these matters elsewhere. See Tony Bennett, 'A thousand and one
troubles: Blackpool Pleasure Beach', Formations of Pleasure (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1983) and 'Hegemony, ideology, pleasure: Blackpool', in Tony Bennett,
Colin Mercer, and Janet Woollacott, (eds), Popular Culture and Social Relations
(Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986).
28 Hugh Cunningham, Leisure in the Industrial Revolution (London: Croom Helm,
1980). As excerpted in Bernard Waites, Tony Bennett, and Graham Martin, (eds),
Popular Culture: Past and Present (London: Croom Helm, 1982), 163.
29 Burton Benedict, 'The anthropology of world's fairs' in Burton Benedict (ed.), The
Anthropology of World's Fairs: San Francisco's Panama Pacific Exposition of 79/5
(New York: Scolar Press, 1983), 53-4.
30 For details, see McCullough, World's Fair Midways: An Affectionate Account of
American Amusement Areas (New York: Exposition Press, 1966), 76.
31 See Colin Davies, 'Architecture and remembrance', Architectural Review (February,
1984), 54-
32 See Stephen Bann, The Clothing of Clio: a study of the representation of history in
nineteenth-century Britain and France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
33 G. Bazin, The Museum Age (New York: Universal Press, 1967), 218.
34 Bann, op. cit., 85.
35 Bazin, op. cit., 169.
36 For details of these interactions, see Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils:
Episodes in the History of Palaeontology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).
37 I draw here on Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences (London: Tavistock, 1970).
38 Cuvier, cited in Sander L. Gilman, 'Black bodies, white bodies: toward an
iconography of female sexuality in late nineteenth-century art, medicine and
literature', Critical Inquiry, 21, 1 (autumn, 1985), 214-15.
39 See David K. van Keuren, 'Museums and ideology: Augustus Pitt-Rivers,
anthropological museums, and social change in later Victorian Britain', Victorian
Studies, 28, 1 (autumn, 1984).
40 See S. G. Kohlstedt, 'Australian museums of natural history: public practices and
scientific initiatives in the 19th century', Historical Records of Australian Scienc >., vol.
5 (1983)THE
EXHIBITIONARY COMPLEX IOI
41 For the most thorough account, see D. J. Mulvaney, 'The Australian Aborigines
1606-1929: opinion and fieldwork', Historical Studies, 8, 30-1 (1958).
42 Peter Stallybrass and Allon White, The Politics and Poetics of Transgression (London:
Methuen, 1986), 42.
43 Davison, op. cit., 8.
44 Cited in Kusamitsu, op. cit., 79.
45 Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism
(London: New Left Books, 1973), 165.
46 See Neil Harris, 'All the world a melting pot? Japan at American fairs, 1876-1904', in
Ireye Akira (ed.), Mutual Images: Essays in American-Japanese Relations (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975).
47 Rydell, op. cit., 4.
48 Iain Chambers, 'The obscured metropolis', Australian Journal of Cultural Studies, 3, 2
(December, 1985), 9.
49 John M. MacKenzie, Propaganda and Empire: the manipulation of British public
opinion, 1880-1960 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 101.
50 Roland Barthes, The Eiffel Tower, and Other Mythologies (New York: Hill & Wang,
1979), 4-
51 ibid., 8.
52 ibid.,
53 VII, 684-5; 706-18.
54 Pearson, op. cit., 35.
102 NEW FORMATIONS