Abstract
With repatriations increasingly discussed, planned, feared, and enacted by cultural and research institutions, the act of return is morphing into a carefully choreographed ritual—one that, in its standardisation, risks losing necessary nuances. While formulaic approaches can streamline repatriation processes for both institutions and campaigning/recipient communities, such homogenisation raises important questions about the transformation of returns into bureaucratic rituals. Most particularly, questions are raised over the ways in which this trend may diminish the cultural depth and historical complexity that each object and community rightfully deserve. Here, I ask whether the growing formulaic nature of repatriation processes reduces the agency of recipient communities and serves to (re)centre institutional priorities rather than fostering true reconciliation or cultural healing. I place this analysis in conversation with other modes of cultural reconciliation, such as creative reactivation, to place repatriation and its processes on a spectrum. I consider whether homogenisation erases the very essence of what repatriation should embody—a process of reconnection, reconciliation, respect, and meaningful exchange. Through an analysis of institutional practices, then, this paper interrogates the potential consequences of such institutional ritualisation, challenging an oft-held assumption that standardisation is a marker of best practice.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Repatriation, Revitalisation, Reconciliation, Museums, Custodianship, Care
