France this week passed a law to simplify the restitution of art and artefacts looted from its former colonies and now held in public collections, a move designed to speed up the response to requests from countries in Africa. Senegalese philosopher Souleymane Bachir Diagne reflects on what the reform means in practice – and why he believes there's a case for some objects to remain in France.
The new law, approved by parliament on Monday, allows returns to be authorised by decree.
Until now, each restitution required MPs to vote on legislation allowing objects to be released, on the principle that national collections are inalienable and cannot be broken up.
The law aims to speed up the return of artefacts taken during the colonial period, a process that has often been criticised as slow and cumbersome.
Momentum around restitution has been building in recent years. Since President Emmanuel Macron pledged in 2017 to return looted heritage, France has received demands from Algeria, Mali, Benin and other countries.
Diagne, professor emeritus of philosophy and French at Columbia University, welcomed this week's reform – but told RFI why he doesn't think it will, or should, lead to all objects going home.
RFI: What do you think of the new restitution bill?
SBD: It was about time. This bill removes an obstacle which, until now, in the face of potential restitution claims, allowed people to say: "Listen, there is a principle of inalienability. So we don’t touch it, we don’t raise the issue." That, incidentally, is what had been said for years to avoid the question of restitution.
Now the field is open, if you like. This means that negotiations can begin between actors on the ground – negotiations from museum to museum, ultimately, from French museums to African museums or from museums in the North to museums in the South – provided, of course, that a list of requests is drawn up based on provenance research.
How an RFI investigation helped return an ancient treasure to Benin
RFI: Do you think everything should be returned?
SBD: That’s where the negotiations come in. To say that everything must be returned is to fall into a form of identitarianism that would amount to saying cultural property is property that must be preserved within our identity-based borders. Basically, “everyone to their own. Go home. Let all the works produced by humans end up in the cultural areas that produced them, and that’s that.” I’m exaggerating a little, but that is the principle behind saying everything must be returned.
I don’t believe in it. The reason is this: today there are museums that can be called universal museums, that is to say, museums whose purpose is to showcase the creativity of humanity as a whole.
RFI: For example?
SBD: The Louvre has become a truly universal museum, where there are not simply works from Europe or works considered to have paved the way for European creativity, such as Egyptian or Mesopotamian works. There are also works from the four other continents, which is why you have the Gallery of the Five Continents.
A state may consider it in its interest to have a cultural presence in museums such as these, and therefore wish for works representative of its culture and history to be present in such places. That is why we must not fall into the trap of identity politics. And we must also recognise the value of having museums where humanity, in its creativity, is represented and presents its own image for contemplation.
France hands stolen colonial-era 'talking drum' back to Côte d'Ivoire
RFI: Are you drawing a distinction between universal museums and ethnographic museums?
SBD: Exactly. The anthropologist Benoît de l’Éstoile made this distinction between “museums of others”, where we look at cultures we used to regard as primitive or exotic, and “museums of the self”, where we tell our own stories about our own culture. And it is perhaps this division that we must put an end to.
From this perspective, there is a contrast between universal museums, which in a sense weave together the works of humanity, and ethnographic museums, where one goes to satisfy one’s curiosity about others rather than oneself. We should put an end to this gaze that distances, that exoticises, that confines others within their otherness.
RFI: Among the objections to restitution is the argument that the countries of origin do not have the museum infrastructure needed to house returned artefacts. What do you think of that?
SBD: This is an excellent opportunity to develop cooperation between museums in the North and museums in the South, and the first step towards such cooperation.
It may also help to build museums in the South that can house not only works that might eventually be returned, but also works from other eras and other continents, so that, thanks to international circulation, universal museums can also develop in what is known as the Global South.
Senegal buys back library of poet-president Léopold Senghor from France
RFI: Do you think that France will see a flood of restitution claims now that it has passed this law?
SBD: I do not see a huge wave of claims on the horizon because this law has been adopted for a very simple reason: the restitutions that have already taken place are genuinely acts of war reparations. The restitutions that have taken place concerned objects that had been looted following extremely violent colonial expeditions.
For example, the one that brought an end to the last Kingdom of Dahomey, or the one by the British who ransacked and destroyed Benin City, the capital of the Kingdom of Benin. The Benin Bronzes, which are found all over the world today, were subjected to this exile and exodus because of that colonial expedition and plundering. These were works that were easy to identify and, obviously, had to be returned at all costs as reparations.
There are plenty of other works to be found in museums, and often in storerooms, where there are far more works than those on display. And so there is scope for patient, scientific research into provenance. Not all works were taken by force. The colonial era was, of course, a violent period, but it was also a time of exchange. Whenever cultures meet, as [Senegalese president and writer] Léopold Senghor said, they clash, but they always end up blending. We always end up talking to one another. We always end up exchanging ideas. There is always that aspect which must also be taken into account.
Consequently, the idea that there are now waiting lists with thousands and thousands of objects, which African states will present as a sort of bill, I do not see that happening.
This interview has been adapted from an radio interview in French by RFI's Charlotte Idrac and edited for length and clarity.
