What are our museums for?
To highlight the arts, culture, history, to make all of this available to ordinary mortals, in the light of scholarly work integrating progress and developments in research and knowledge over the years?
No. Not anymore. That was yesterday. That was before.
The world of museums, for twenty years, has been conscripted in a mission that should never have been its own: we wanted to put it at the service of the “decolonization” of the West.
We will have understood that the decolonization of the West does not refer to the historical period that has been called decolonization, associated with the end of the European empires, but to the deconstruction for our time of our civilization, accused of having in its roots white supremacy and large-scale discriminatory social structures. This is the mission of what I call the Diversity Regime.
Museums are therefore integrated into the ideological system of the diversity regime and must create a new imaginary for society, produce a new mental space.
In a word, museums were invited, and even obliged, in this perspective, to revisit their collections and their exhibitions in the light of the radical criticism of Western civilization, in the name of the diversity ideology and the minorities it claims liberate, whether it is women, ethnic minorities resulting from immigration and supposed social minorities. Everything will have to pass through the filter of this ideology, which will also claim anti-racism.
This is the meaning of the woke revolution.
It was not only a question of opening up to these groups or, at least, of taking their sensitivities into account. It is a question, by claiming to speak in their name, and for this, by giving a voice to the most radical militants and activists, to undertake a deconstruction of the museum universe to make it an instrument at the service of the process of civilization. western.
For example, to take up an example that has become commonplace, we will no longer be interested in Picasso himself, but we will be interested in his “sexism”, in order to deconstruct him, and put him in the school of “body diversity”.
The other artists will pass there, of course. Nothing will be spared.
The case of Quebec and Canada
We are only just beginning to realize this in Canada and Quebec.
In the name of “decolonization”, its new acting director intends to revolutionize the museum (we understand that this was also the objective of the previous director).
Some note that she has no skill to run the museum other than her religious adherence to the Diversity creed – the problem being that fanatical adherence to this ideology is the first of the skills required to function in the Diversity regime. Incidentally, her previous job was a political commissar, as it used to be called – she was “vice president of strategic transformation and inclusion”.
You had to hear her in an interview with Alain Gravel speaking the wooden language of the diversity regime to convince herself that she has nothing to do there. Alain Gravel seemed dismayed, dumbfounded, almost sorry to have such a troublesome interlocutor. You really have to listen to this interview to see how far this delirium goes, which operates in a self-referential and bureaucratic universe.
One day we should take an interest in these apparatchiks of the diverse regime, in this nomenklatura maintained with public funds to re-educate a population accused of bathing in prejudices and stereotypes.
These apparatchiks often have no culture other than their ideology. They are now very present in the field of human resources, which they submit to the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion approach, which is a form of diverse neo-Sovietism.
The new management even thought, before turning back, of canceling an exhibition devoted to Jean Paul Riopelle to mark his hundredth birthday. Why? Too white, Jean Paul. Clear. Or at least he’ll back off next time.
If we hadn’t lost the true meaning of the words, it would seem that this anti-white discourse is pure and simple racism.
purge the impure
Be that as it may, to carry out this revolution at the museum, a lot of people had to be fired. Qualified experts. But they were associated with the Old Regime, that of culture.
But how react the liquidated of the revolution, interviewed by The duty?
Are they angry? Are they rebelling? Well no. They have had their heads cut off professionally but they still profess their adherence to the diversity revolution.
In other words, they applaud those who curse them, and even hunted and humiliated, they reaffirm their adherence to this totalitarian ideology.
Because they believe in it despite everything? Because they hope to be socially reintegrated one day and, for that, believe it necessary to maintain their official adherence to the diversity regime? Because they are afraid of losing what they have left if they dare to show public defiance of this ideology? Because they keep their true reflections for their loved ones, hoping however not to be denounced?
We may also see a neurosis in it: they adhere to a revolution which cuts off their heads professionally, which condemns them to the social death penalty, and is sorry about it – they would have hoped to be spared. The revolution always devours its children and works to purge those who do not follow its rhythm.
Let us quote this extract from a text published on Radio-Canada which represents this logic well.
“The former curator at the National Gallery of Canada and signatory of the letter sent to Pablo Rodriguez, which raised concerns about dismissals at the NGC, Diana Nemiroff, says she is not against the decolonization of works in our museums. “It’s more the rhythm that worries us.” (Note that these words were suggested to him by Alain Gravel.)
I would also take the liberty of quoting at length from the article by Stéphane Baillargeon, from the To have to. It gives us a good idea of this state of mind.
“UQAM museology professor Jean-Philipe Uzel sees in this upheaval “a perfect example” of decolonization. “All institutions are moving towards inclusion, diversity and inclusion (EDI), universities and museums alike, but the NGC is going even further by adding the dimensions of justice and accessibility […]. We must make this observation: museums are colonial institutions and they must be transformed. Which creates tension, that’s for sure. It is a painful process.”
The professor approves of this transfer, but is surprised by the dismissal in mid-November of Greg A. Hill, senior curator of Aboriginal art, which seems to contradict the foundations and objectives of the strategic plan.
Mr. Hill also sees a paradox in it, and he finds it hard to explain. He says to To have to to have been consulted and to have participated like many other employees in the definition of the revolutionary project.
“I still believe in it,” he said. I believe the Museum is moving in the right direction, even in turmoil. I also believe that the elimination of my position is contradictory. There is no public statement from the Museum to explain how the disappearance of my position helps the implementation of the strategic plan. I have been wondering for days about leadership for Indigenous ways and decolonization.”
Note, however, the notable and significant dissidence of Marc Mayer, the former director of the Museum, who accuses the new administration of carrying out a revolution in the spirit of the Russian revolution. He is absolutely right. It could also have referred to the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Because it is a real revolution that is sweeping the Western world, and which imposes, through the diverse regime, an experience of ideological and social re-education on a large scale, of a totalitarian nature.