Dismantling the concepts of fetish and of modernity

Interview  with Anne-Marie Bouttiaux
Head of the Ethnography section of the MRAC Royal Museum for Central Africa (Tervuren, Belgium), ethnologist and writer*
by Hegel Goutier

Anne-Marie Bouttiaux is co-curator of the Fetish Modernity exhibition which symbolises the new vision of European museums of ethnography, in particular those involved in various Europe-wide projects such as RIME (Réseau International des Musées Ethnographiques – International Network of Museums of Ethnography). This exhibition dismantles the concepts of fetish and of modernity in art and life itself. Bouttiaux, a renowned expert in the field who has been committed for a long time to advancing the perception of the western ethnologists of ‘Others’, analyses below the major shift  that is underway. She was interviewed by the Courier during the ‘Fetish Modernity’ exhibition at the MRAC Royal Museum for Central Africa, of which she is one of the curators.

HG –You have been advocating an aggiornamento of museums of ethnography in the sense of an artistic vision of non-Western cultural works rather than giving them solely an ethnological interpretation. You must hence be pleased about the new developments within European museums of ethnography which are now moving in your direction?

A-M B – It would be wonderful if this were completely true. That said a lot of progress has been made in bringing about a better appreciation of all cultures. The displaying of objects from European art alongside those of other cultures at Sweden’s Etnografiska Museet in Stockholm is a good example of this integration. It is a fitting way of putting across that human beings go through similar things.

A museum of ethnography should embrace the whole world. It should not use rhetoric in observing others from above. Stockholm’s ethnographic museum has taken the step. Vienna’s Museum für Völkerkunde too is keen to bring Europe into its collection so that it’s no longer a case of the West observing the rest of the world.

HG – In this context, where do you position the Fetish Modernity exhibition?

A-M B – Fetish Modernity is aiming to take a close look at certain things such as the concept of modernity. From the moment that human beings are alive, they are modern. Everyone is a contemporary of himself and of the world. Societies influence one another and whatever you do has a bearing on others. There are even changes in so-called traditional societies change because everything changes and influences from elsewhere are naturally absorbed.  

Current duality: globalisation and the construction of limiting identities

HG – Is this process becoming more marked with globalisation?

A-M B – Of course. But at the same time, smaller identities are being constructed. We are regrouping and positioning ourselves in relation to Others. On the one hand, we are moving towards a diverse society. On the other hand, it’s difficult to envision oneself in the wider world; you want to stay at home with those closest to you.  Amin Maâlouf ** who is against the tribalist concept of identity explains this duality in "Muderous identities". In fact, no individual has a single identity. The exhibition shows just to what extent we are a sum of identities, both hidden and revealed. This is particularly reflected in the works of modern artists in Europe and those of the African diaspora who show that one’s vision of the Other is influenced by numerous biases such as the stigmatisation of skin colour reflected, for example,  in the following everyday conversation:  “You’re black-skinned where do you come from ? – I am Belgian.”

Museums of ethnography, fetish positions

HG – Wouldn’t you say that stigmatisation starts with our closest neighbours?

A-M B – That’s what is most worrying. And especially the fact that whatever you enemy, it’s not given a human identity. The starting point is finding notions to reject the other from humanity. The Jews hence became the rats of the Nazi world and during the Rwandan genocide, the Tutsis were cockroaches etc. People are given animal names to make oneself appear more human. In building one’s identity, care has to be taken to ensure that this isn’t done in a way that denigrates the other.

In a similar way, the term ‘modernity’ is an extraordinarily revealing stigmatisation. For the exhibition we assembled what is considered to be modern alongside that considered as antithetical: fetish. We took the widest sense of the word fetish including the way in which the West perceives museums and works of art, a manner which is paradoxically none other than fetishism. Integrating an element of another society has always been a fetish way of appropriating virtues. This is what the Jivaros Indians did. They thought that by acquiring the shrunken heads of enemies they would gain powers. The fetish object hence becomes an object of desire. Museums of Ethnography haven’t acted any differently…

Fetishism, simply modernity

On the other hand, creators of fetish objects have continually behaved as Modern by integrating things from outside to avoid standing still. For example, in the exhibition features a Mpungu statue of the Nkanu people to which the ritualist added at each consultation a padlock to symbolise the sealing of a contract with his client. There’s also the example of the headgear of an Indian chief from the Amazon’s Kayapo tribe where rare bird feathers are replaced by coloured plastic straws.

HG – Wasn’t the aim of this dehumanisation of the other necessary in ontological terms for the colonist who in the name of Christianity violated the very essence of Christ’s teachings that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God?

A-M B – A justification for colonisation had to be found:  We are there to civilise, stop slavery and evangelise. Nothing was said about the removal of goods, territories and labour. The greedy way in which the West brought back the objects of others without attaching any aesthetic value to them was a sort of proof of its duty to civilise and of the savage nature of the other.

HG – Finally, where does your passion for your work come from and what drives the direction of your ethnological work?

A-M B – From the very outset my thinking was stirred by the political debates taking place all around me on the evolution of societies. I have also taken inspiration from my contacts with the African diaspora and my travels in Africa. This enabled me to see that in different environments, human beings encounter the same profound realities.

This spawned an eagerness to reflect whilst becoming more circumspect about my deep convictions. When one says that something is good, you have to ask why. When you say that other things are not good, you also have to ask profound questions about this and avoid catholic atavism over the existence of good as something in opposition to something bad.

Publications of Anne-Marie Bouttiaux :

Anne-Marie Bouttiaux and coll. ‘Afrique : Musées et Patrimoines pour Quels Publics ?’  Karthala éd, 2007 ;
Anne-Marie Bouttiaux, Frédéric Dehaen, Roger-Pierre Turine ‘Persona Masks of Africa: Identities hidden and  revealed’,  Cinq Continents éd. 2009 ;
David Adjaye, Anne-Marie Bouttiaux ‘Geo-Graphics: A Map of Art Practices in Africa, Past and Present’ Silvana éd, 2010
Anne-Marie Bouttiaux, Présence de L'Art Naïf en Afrique ‘  Siloë éd, 2005 ;

**   Amin MAALOUF, Les identités meurtrières, (Grasset & Fasquelle, 1998), (Le Livre de poche, 2001)