Griffith-Exhibiting Others response (week 2)

Alison Griffith's "Wondrous Difference (Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator) discusses the reasoning behind exhibiting the "ethnographic Other" for the entertainment and education of the "paternalistic and cultural elites" at the museum of Natural History (Griffith 3). Throughout history, anthropologists have attempted to represent the Other cultures for the amusement of the Western world, which were often given a one-sided perspective on the lives of people much different than themselves. Due to the lack of modern technology and specific philosophy of time, the spectators were given a very skewed truth of the anthropology of Others (non-Westerners). The exhibition of the Non-Western world presents the information in an inappropriate way, not un-like the comical and exaggerated ways of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum. The Orientalism, which fascinated Westerners, was presented through the modernization of technology such as film, which gave museums the chance to "make science and natural history more accessible to the masses through visual spectacle" (Griffith 5). The museums enabled people to become a spectator who were able to gain access to new information, as well as the ability to feel as if they were "a member of a civilized race who was a privileged spectator, as opposed to the passive object of a scrutinizing gaze" (Griffith 12). Regarding the debates of the accuracy and presentation of the cultures in the museums, some defended "the groups exhibit's 'capacity to convey scientific accuracy while at the same time to be aesthetically pleasing" (Griffith 50).

The strengths of Griffith's "Life Groups & the Modern Museum Spectator" include the history of the museums and descriptions of how the new access to information affected the people of the 19th century. It was helpful in which Griffith discussed the debate of whether or not the museum's presentation of information was accurate in expression the truthful information of the Other, as opposed to increasing the sense of the "Other" minority to the Western world, and giving them too much of an empowered feeling. It seems that although the presentation of the exhibits were one-sided and not necessarily presenting the truth of Other cultures, the museums were more concerned with entertaining the public, as well as keeping Americans satisfied with their own personal identities in society (in comparison to Others). Griffith explains that the museum exhibits attempt to attract spectators using "an instrument of scientific edification: in order that a habitat or life group be instructive and impart even a limited number of scientific precepts, it had to be inviting to the museum visitor" (Griffith 30).

Were the museums too focused on giving people a Nationalist sense of pride when they presented the anthropology exhibits of the "Other" cultures? Were they designed to purposely belittle the cultures of others or can the lack of information/modern technology be to blame for lack of accurate representation?