This paper attempts to explore the theme of Trauma and its representation
in the Contemporary World; in particular, the logic and argumentation of having
museums presenting the sorrow side to people the “trauma”, is unfolded with the
rationale of comparison of two cases the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia
(MOL) and the National Museum of Qatar mainly dealing with the emerging message
of new Qatar National Trauma Museum. The current political incident came to
proof the necessity to remind people about historical events and their link to
the recent incidents. The museums as a contact zone provide public lessons from
the past that is a creative and stored memory. The analysis of the concept of
trauma touches on questions such as why Latvia and Qatar need such Trauma
Museums, how this museum builds the traumatic
narrative and discusses the potential effect on the local people. The aims of this comparison
focus on the value of safeguarding of the nation through remembrance and that
although museums presenting trauma may seek to educate and evoke pride in
visitors for fellow residents, the main task is to avert the recurrence of what
led to the trauma, which could be blockade, war or occupation that cut
aggressors loose. The methodological tool of the theme follows properly
designed exhibitions and making use of new technologies, by contextualizing museum
exhibits and practices as made by both Latvia and Qatar on the basis of
national identity triggered from the past atrocities, on a holistic approach.
This includes, especially, the social effects and movement associated with the
blockade in Qatar and the War with Nazi-Russian occupation for Latvia, viewed
as the development of presentation of traumatic memories that addresses and
understands the interrelationships between politics and culture, political
culture and cultural politics.
References
[1]
Al-Hammadi, M., Exell, K., & El-Menshawy, S. (2020). Camel, Blockade and a Historical Memory Perspective: A Theme of Historical Memory Portrayed at Qatar National Museum. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, 26, 185-198.
[2]
Apor, P. (2014). An Epistemology of the Spectacle? Arcane Knowledge, Memory and Evidence in the Budapest House of Terror. Rethinking History, 18, 328-344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2014.890371
[3]
Archer, P. (2010). The Quotable Intellectual: 1,417 Bon Mots, Ripostes, and Witticisms for Aspiring Academics, Armchair Philosophers... and Anyone Else Who Wants to Sound Really Smart. Simon and Shuster.
[4]
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2014). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Research and Application. Sage.
[5]
Bassanelli, M., & Postiglione, G. (2003). Museography for Traumatic Memories: Re-Enacting —The Past. Interventions/Adaptive Reuse: Int/AR, 4, 6-13.
[6]
Bishop Kendzia, V. (2010). Clichés Reinforced, Clichés Challenged. In Cultural Representation of Jewishness at the Turn of the 21st Century (pp. 43-57). EUI Working Papers HEC 2010/01, Department of History and Civilization.
[7]
Bishop Kendzia, V. (2014). Jewish’ Ethnic Options in Germany between Attribution and Choice: Auto-Ethnographical Reflections at the Jewish Museum Berlin. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 23, 60-70. https://doi.org/10.3167/ajec.2014.230205
[8]
Black, G. (2011). Museums, Memory and History. Cultural and Social History, 8, 415-427.
https://doi.org/10.2752/147800411X13026260433275
[9]
Brown, T. P. (2004). Trauma, Museums and the Future of Pedagogy. Third Text, 18, 247-259.
[10]
Davoliute, V., & Balkelis, T. (2012). Maps of Memory: Trauma, Identity and Exile in Deportation Memoirs from the Baltic States. Part of the Lithuanian Literature and Folklore Institute Project Entitled “Maps of Memory: Transcription and Transference of the Experience of Displacement in the Memoirs of Deportation”, and the Lithuanian Research Council’s “National Development Programme for Lithuanian Studies 2009-2015”, Vilnius.
[11]
Gollin, A. E. (1965). Sociological Research in Response to Crisis: The Case of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. In The Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society. Bureau of Social Science Research.
[12]
Greenberg, R. (2007). Museal Representations of Genocide. Healing or Reactivated Trauma? Gradhiva, 5, 1-7.
[13]
Gundega, M., & Koknevièa, T. (2008). The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia. The Public Historian, 30, 163-165.
[14]
Kulasekara, D. (2016). Representation of Trauma in Contemporary Arts. Journal of Humanities and Arts, 4, 35-60. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajha.4.1.3
[15]
Luke, T. W. (2002). Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition. University of Minnesota Press.
[16]
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power the Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
[17]
Pollock, P. (2013). After Affect—After Image: Trauma and Aesthetic Transformation in the Virtual Museum (p. 2). Manchester University.
[18]
Salazar, A. (2015). Trauma, Memory, and Representation: The Role of Collaboration in the Development of the Museum Exhibit “Remembering the Killing Fields”, Collaborative Anthropologies (pp. 83-106). University of Nebraska Press.
[19]
Sherman, A. L. (2016). Sharing God’s Heart for the Poor: A Personal or Small Group Bible Study. World Vision Canada.
[20]
Silk, A.-de S. (2016). Mediating Memory in the Museum: Empathy, Trauma, Nostalgia. Palgrave Macmillan.
[21]
Silverman, R. (2015). Museum as Process. Translating Local and Global Knowledges. Routledge.
[22]
Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Addison-Wesley.
[23]
Witcomb, A., & Message, K. (2015). Contentious Politics and Museums as Contact Zone. In A. Witcomb, & K. Message (Eds.), The International Handbooks of Museum Studies (pp. 253-282). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[24]
Wolfgang, M. (2013). Does War Belong in Museums? The Representation of Violence in Exhibitions. Majuskel Medienproduktion GmbH.
