‘On a Knife Edge: the Ethics of Weapons Display’
Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds
21st October 2008
Following a tour of the museum, delegates and speakers were welcomed by Graeme Gooday who outlined the aims of the seminar and those of the Centre for Heritage Research. Delegates represented a wide range of institutions including:- The University of Leeds, Regia Angolorum, The Institute for Medieval Studies, Salford University, The Royal Engineers Museum, York Museums Trust and the Royal Armouries Museum.
In the first paper, ‘Beyond Technology’, Rob Lawlor (CETL, University of Leeds) addressed the possible accusation facing museums such as the Royal Armouries that the display of arms and armour serves to glamorise violence. The paper argued however that the displays at the Royal Armouries did not glorify war but rather generated an interesting tension in the visitor between admiration for the craftsmanship involved in their production and their aesthetic quality juxtaposed with reflection on the pain and suffering that they caused. It was felt that these conflicting feelings were a positive factor serving to invigorate the experience of visiting the museum.
In order to highlight one area in which the Royal Armouries could perhaps improve its displays, the paper cited a quotation from one of the exhibits stating that the aim of history was to learn from the mistakes of the past. If we accept this premise, it was argued that far more could be done to place displays of arms and armour in a historical, political and ethical context in order to improve the educational content of the exhibits. More information could be given on who was fighting whom and why? Questions could be addressed such as whether some weapons are more ethical than others? Examples offered were the contempt felt for use of the longbow which at the time was considered to be the weapon of a coward since it enabled its user to remain at a distance from the enemy, together with more contemporary (not to mention highly topical) examples such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
In the second paper ‘Who calls the shots’, Peter Smithurst (Curator of Firearms, Royal Armouries) questioned the term ‘gun culture’, arguing that this alleged phenomenon has largely arisen from distortion and misrepresentation of crime statistics by an alarmist media. Nevertheless, the term has become sufficiently embedded in the national consciousness to now cause significant complications for museums such as the Royal Armouries in terms of their display of firearms. It was argued that there is actually no ethical dilemma about presenting firearms as objects of aesthetic interest. The ethical question arises not from the display of firearms but rather how they are displayed. Using examples from displays in the hunting gallery, it was also pointed out that ethical standards change over time. While we may very well find displays of weapons used in the hunting of elephants and whales distasteful, this response may prevent us from a more complete understanding of the historical context in which the weapon was used at a time when such practices were considered to be perfectly acceptable.
Debate has also surrounded whether displays of firearms should be accompanied by information about the effects of such weapons. One concern is that this might actually evoke a kind of ghoulish voyeurism and thus serve to glorify violence. Whilst admitting this possibility, Peter Smithurst argued that it might also instil a respect for the power of a weapon and thus cultivate a healthy sense of caution and restraint. Furthermore, he questioned whether the public really needed to be made aware of the effects of firearms when they were served a daily diet of news media reports from the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This paper also questioned why it should be that firearms in particular have come under the spotlight for scrutiny. Given that knives and poisons have been put to equally violent use over the centuries, did not similar ethical concerns arise over the display of surgical implements and the Victorian pharmacy in medical museums such as the Thackray Museum? Furthermore, at what point do we consider the display of a firearm to prompt ethical questions and concerns? As an example, Peter Smithurst cited a famous Gainsborough portrait depicting a country gentleman with his dog and hunting gun – should we be asking similar ethical questions about the prominence of the firearm in this painting? The paper concluded that firearms are an integral part of our heritage and the true breach of ethics would be for museums to attempt to deny this fact.
Phillip Abbott’s (Royal Armouries) paper provided an engaging introduction to the ethical issues surrounding loot and war booty by opening with a painting depicting the chaotic aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo. Battlefield looting became endemic in the early 19th century and was in particular promoted by Napoleon as his armies marched across Europe. Following his defeat, the Congress of Vienna was the first time that restitution of plunder to respective nations was given consideration. The paper went on to consider what constitutes legitimate seizure in times of war, an issue which had parallels with questions raised by Peter Smithurst about how hunting weapons need to be understood in the context of their own time. The point was also made that seizure of weapons may often have served the very practical purpose of hindering or neutralising an enemy’s capacity for future conflict. The paper also made the point that distinctions need to be drawn between booty, trophies and battlefield souvenirs based upon whether it is military equipment, private property or cultural artefacts that are acquired. The paper concluded by revealing that the largest display in the Royal Armouries collection, the Indian War Elephant, was not captured at the Battle of Plassey as had been believed for a long time, but had come to the museum by a far less dramatic route – a story greatly enlivened and made highly engaging by the speaker’s thespian delivery.
The final paperby Jamie Dow (CETL, University of Leeds)took a directly opposing stance to that of Peter Smithurst’s presentation on the display of firearms. Whilst the latter had advocated that our appreciation of firearms displays was now obscured by emotions generated by a media frenzy and thus that we should try to distance ourselves emotionally from such displays, this paper advocated that curators should seek deliberately to evoke an emotional response from the viewer. A typical accusation against the deliberate elicitation of emotional responses is that this inappropriate manipulation of a viewer and also obscures access to truth through rational analysis. The paper however went on to argue that eliciting such a response need not necessarily lead to manipulation and moreover that emotional responses could lead us to truth. The paper defended the this claim by citing the example of the film ‘Schindler’s List’ in which viewers were led to historical truths about the Holocaust through an emotional experience. Typical feelings that might be aroused in a museum such as the Royal Armouries might include admiration, horror and fear, fascination, revulsion and respect for the courage of the user.
In the concluding discussion, Sharon MacDonald (University of Manchester) questioned Jamie Dow’s invocation of the film ‘Schindler’s List’ as an example where the elicitation of an emotional response was justified. She suggested that an alternative interpretation of the film’s power was that it satisfied a need at the time of its release for the image of a ‘good German’. However she agreed that it was the role of the museum to unsettle audience expectations and prompt debate.
Ed Spiers (University of Leeds) pointed out that a museum curator actually has very little control over how a viewer experiences an exhibit and therefore expressed scepticism that a museum curator could ever design an exhibit which evoked precisely the intended emotions. He illustrated the point with an insightful and humorous anecdote about a famous Scottish battlefield where, despite the best efforts of curators to carefully design information boards and displays, visiting Scottish families were still determined to interpret the site in terms of a ‘Braveheart’-type ‘heroic Scots versus vile English’ narrative.
The speakers were asked what might qualify as desirable emotions to elicit from a museum display and Peter Smithurst hoped that visitors might leave with a sense of the many different ways in which a weapon can be viewed citing as an example the colt revolver, the manufacture of which had given rise to the Bessemer process and stainless steel production. Philip Abbot concluded by musing that visitors might have a more rewarding experience of the Royal Armouries if their visits were limited to 45 minutes. Although a light-hearted suggestion, the point was that visitors often become saturated with information to the extent that this hinders their appreciation of the museum.
One surprising feature of the discussion was that none of the historians in the audience questioned the assertion made in the quote cited by Rob Lawlor that the purpose of studying history is to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Graeme Gooday concluded the seminar by thanking the delegates, speakers and Kate Vigurs for organising the event and drawing attention to the opportunities for funded collaboration made available by schemes such as those of the AHRC.