Smithsonian Sept. 11 Exhibit Honors Victims, “Impoverishes” Public
Contact: Amy Fried, 581-1797, George Manlove, 581-3756
ORONO — The Smithsonian Museum’s exhibit commemorating the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 reveres victims and their families but may shortchange the public, according to an assessment of the exhibit by a UMaine political science professor.
After visiting “September 11: Bearing Witness to History,” in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in 2003, Amy Fried, associate professor of political science, concludes in a paper to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal “Political Communication,” that the decision to omit historical perspectives deprives the public of an understanding of the significance and consequences of the terrorist attacks. “Political Communication” is an official publication of the American Political Science Association and the International Communication Association.
“I have to say, personally, the exhibit is very moving,” says Fried, who undertook the research project because of her interest in studying how people commemorate the past or reinvent it through memorials. “It was extremely emotional, especially having it open a year afterwards.”
Curators designed the exhibit as a temporary commemorative project reflecting the nature of the attacks, accompanied by witnesses’ reactions. It initially was to run four months but the exhibit is now in its third year. To the frustration of several curators, the exhibit is now a traveling display, being shown well beyond its intended shelf life and without the historical companion programs curators created to add historical perspective.
“September 11: Bearing Witness to History” is a collection of artifacts collected from Ground Zero and the Pentagon. Displayed items include a twisted steel I-beam from the Trade Centers, articles of clothing left behind by fleeing victims, American flags, cell phones, photographs and audio-video clips of 25 witnesses telling their own stories. The exhibit includes booths for visitors to contribute to the exhibit by filling out cards expressing additional personal reflections. The exhibit has more than 20,000 cards.
Fried contends that the exhibit is successful as a powerful and poignant memorialization of the nation’s shock and grief. Immediately after the attacks, Americans felt united and shared in their love of country, and this was well-represented by the exhibit, she says.
But the exhibit does little to explain how and why the terrorist attacks happened or what led up to them. There is no mention, for instance, of the hijackers who commandeered passenger airlines to use as navigable bombs, their ideology or an assessment of the aftermath. Curators told Fried in confidential interviews that the exhibit, void of historical context, was meant to be apolitical and never a final representation of the Sept. 11 event.
“Most people said this is fine for what it was,” Fried says, “but it was not supposed to last a long time.” Curators and Smithsonian researchers also objected to the decision to go on the road with it, she says.
Museums, Fried argues in her manuscript, “The Personalization of Collective Memory: The Smithsonian’s September 11 Exhibit,” are designed to be informational archives of history and interpret historic events. But, Fried explains in the article, the complexion of museums have changed over the last five or six decades as the focus shifted away from spotlighting politicians and decision-makers to showcasing events as seen by the layperson. Museums lately have become more susceptible to the wishes, even mandates, of the public at the expense of detailed and rigorous historical analysis, she says.
“History museums communicate the past and thereby contribute to a society’s collective memory,” Fried writes. “In the past, curators used their professional standing to convey information and analysis. However, history museums increasingly take account of individuals’ and groups’ views of the past, and are ever more wary of politically charged criticism.”
Fried says curators were gun-shy after the controversy over the Smithsonian’s exhibit in the 1990s of the Enola Gay, the World War II airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. After searing criticism from veterans groups, the museum cut from that exhibit a discussion of the effects of the atomic bomb. So, a politically safe 9/11 exhibit can be understood, she says. By making personal recollections from witnesses the major focus of the exhibit, the museum averted political pressure.
Curators told Fried that families of Sept. 11 victims played a significant role in determining the content of the exhibit. Smithsonian administrators and curators insisted that the exhibit was non-political. Yet, Fried argues, “a political perspective could be discerned.”
For instance, an exhibit placard states that President George W. Bush and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani helped the nation mourn and galvanized national pride. Fried writes, “These interpretive statements have the effect of portraying the American public in a way that burnishes the leaders’ reputation. Perhaps this is why, as several NMAH staff told me, Smithsonian administrators and political officials are pleased with the exhibit. ‘It will keep the this message about Bush going and keep the public’s paranoia and anxiety going through the 2004 election,’ said one NMHA staff member.”
Curators’ choice to avoid larger geopolitical contexts to Sept. 11 “shows how a personalized approach seems to respect citizens, but ultimately impoverishes public knowledge and collective memory,” Fried concludes.