On the afternoon of March 20th, 2024, the Global Jewish Modernism lab invited scholars Annette Joseph-Gabriel, Emma Bond, Felwine Sarr, and Max Czollek for a dialogue on archives, exhibits, and literature. Throughout the presentations, the idea of actively addressing absences in the archives emerged as a crucial theme. Pulling from various objects of study and interdisciplinary perspectives, the talks called for rethinking archival methodologies and our engagement with history. Furthermore, the speakers’ presentations and the audience questions that followed underscored the need to critically question how we approach the past and its preservation.
Felwine Sarr discussed the historical process of transmitting collective memory orally in the West African Sahel region. Sarr emphasized the need to question the conventional understandings of what constitutes a ‘cultural’ good and a ‘collection.’ He challenged the traditional Western definitions of the archive, which he called “the scriptural paradigm,” as it gives more credence to the written word than to the orality that was most prominent within West African epistemology, and which was often dismissed as an archival methodology. Sarr argued for a profound shift in how we understand and value cultural heritage. This shift acknowledges historical injustices and seeks to create a more inclusive and equitable framework for appreciating and preserving cultural goods. He made clear that it is necessary to make an active effort to make visible those histories and cultural productions that have been overshadowed or suppressed by dominant western and colonial narratives.
The guiding question for Max Czollek’s presentation was, “What kind of methodology does the archive imply?” In his talk, Czollek discussed the limitations of traditional archival methods in capturing the full scope of history, particularly focusing on events and experiences that have not been documented. Czollek began by highlighting how certain cultural and artistic contributions, like migrant literature in Germany, have been largely excluded from the archives despite their significance to German history. Like Sarr, he argued that what is preserved in archives often reflects the biases of those curating them, leading to a distorted historical record. Czollek spent much of his talk focusing on the challenge of preserving memory as living witnesses to events, such as the Holocaust, passed away. With the loss of these witnesses, archives become the primary source of historical truth. Yet, they cannot represent everything that occurred, especially events with no survivors or documentation. This creates a gap in our understanding, as many acts of resistance or persecution that left no trace are effectively erased from history. Czollek emphasized the need for new methodologies to address these gaps, proposing that we must move beyond a positivist approach that only values recorded events. He suggested that counterfactual narratives and alternative forms of storytelling, such as literature and documentary theater, could help fill these gaps and provide a more comprehensive understanding of history. By exploring the “things that did not happen” and the emotional impact of inaction, particularly through the experiences of second-generation survivors, Czollek insisted that we can develop a richer, more nuanced memory culture. Ultimately, Czollek called for expanding the archival paradigm to include these overlooked aspects of history, using creative and speculative methods to ensure that the full complexity of the past is recognized and remembered.
Emma Bond explored the evolving role of museums and literature in the context of object accumulation and the challenges of memory preservation. She began her talk by recounting the 2023 scandal at the British Museum, where thefts of thousands of items from the museum exposed systemic weaknesses in cataloging and the overwhelming scale of unregistered artifacts. This situation highlighted the broader issue of museums in the Global North, where inadequate funding and an excess of objects make comprehensive cataloging nearly impossible. Bond introduced the concept of the “post-museum,” a shift from traditional accumulation towards a focus on the use and enjoyment of objects. She argued that this crisis of object accumulation has affected contemporary literature, much like museums. Literature, particularly novels, has become a storage medium for the remnants of history, reflecting the overwhelming burden of memory. She discussed the idea that in a digitized world where everything can be archived, the ability to forget has become increasingly valuable. Bond suggested that selectively letting go of the past and associated objects can lead to creative responses and new ways of understanding history. Referencing In Memory of Memory, Bond highlighted Maria Stepanova’s novel as a great illustration of the generative capacity of loss and the importance of letting go of material remnants. Bond also considered the implications of the post-museum, where the traditional functions of collecting, ordering, and preserving memory are being re-evaluated. She suggested that making difficult decisions about deaccessioning and disposal of objects can lead to more sustainable practices and new modes of remembering. To conclude her talk, Bond highlighted literature and museums’ potential to envision post-object futures, where memory and meaning are not tied to physical objects but are found in intangible heritage and stories. Calling for reimagining care and preservation practices, she suggested that leaving spaces un-curated can spark creativity and allow for exploring new possibilities in both literature and museums.
Annette Joseph-Gabriel’s presentation delved into the complexities of representing and understanding the experiences of enslaved children through the lens of the term “exhibit.” Using the story of Suleiman Capsune, an enslaved Sudanese boy exhibited at an anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1883, she explored how both historical and visual documentation frame his narrative. Capsune’s early life, marked by violence and displacement, and his eventual captivity and exhibition highlight the dehumanizing aspects of colonial anthropology and the exploitation of black bodies. In her talk, Joseph-Gabriel examined how Capsune’s scars and his presentation in photographs were used to perpetuate racial stereotypes and serve colonial interests. She discussed the dual meaning of “exhibit” as both a verb and a noun. As a verb, it refers to the act of displaying Capsune’s body for anthropological and voyeuristic purposes. As a noun, it symbolizes the painful evidence of black subjugation and the exhibition of his suffering. Joseph-Gabriel emphasized the need to move beyond these representations by focusing on Capsune’s own agency and perspective. She insisted that his letters and how he navigated his encounters with power reveal his resistance and the complexity of his identity. As such, Joseph-Gabriel argued for a storytelling approach that honors the lived experiences of children like Capsune and respects their agency, rather than reducing them to mere objects of study. In her conclusion, Joseph-Gabriel advocated for a narrative that acknowledges the historical and visual documentation of Capsune’s suffering and engages with his own vision and resistance. By considering what Capsune saw when he looked at others, we can better honor his legacy and the broader history of enslaved children.
The Archives, Exhibits, and Literature Dialogue underscored the need to critically engage with the control of narratives and address the absences in archives. The scholars’ presentations and the discussions during the Q&A session called for a rethinking of methodologies to avoid perpetuating power imbalances. An audience member’s question about the obsessive nature of collections in institutions like the British Museum, where, despite their extensive holdings, there remain significant gaps in the narratives they present opened a conversation about the how the repetitive act of collection often fails to address the fundamental absences within archives. In responding to the question, Felwine Sarr suggested that methodologies “often act as veils that obstruct genuine inquiry.” Like the other panelists, Sarr insisted that archives do not speak for themselves but require active interpretation. In this sense, then, it’s essential to critically examine who is allowed to be seen and who controls the narrative.
Responding to another question about the overburdened concept of archives, Annette Joseph-Gabriel reflected on the overuse of the term “archive,” arguing that it is being made to do more than it can or should. She suggested that storytelling offers a more “elastic” way to engage with the past and warned against positioning creative practices merely as antidotes to history. Adding to Joseph-Gabriel’s response, Sarr introduced the concept of “Oraliteche,” and emphasized the need to create spaces that allow for reconsidering ways of knowing. He advocated for a more protean approach to knowledge and history, one that is adaptable and inclusive.
