Looking Closely at Decolonisation in Museum Practice
Museums are careful places. Everything is arranged to feel considered. The lighting, the spacing, and the tone of the text beside the objects remain calm, even when addressing colonial brutality.
This carefulness has shaped museum practice for a long time. At the British Museum’s former Museum of Mankind, objects from Africa, Oceania, and the Americas were once presented merely as ethnography. They were classified, compared, and interpreted through labels that presented them as cultural evidence. Although later efforts to reframe these objects as art changed how they were perceived, not who was speaking. The interpretive voice firmly stayed institutional.
Museums today speak differently about these collections. Language associated with decolonisation has changed. Exhibition texts acknowledge colonial histories as institutional responsibility while relying on careful management. Even exhibitions designed to be self-critical manage how objects should be encountered. Interpretation is guided. Uncertainty is reduced. This rarely feels exclusionary but responsible. Management helps make difficult history accessible for visitors without feeling overwhelmed.
Yet these arrangements also set limits in shaping how much discomfort is allowed to be felt, and how far historical complexity can be extended. These limits are especially perceivable in debate around restitution. The discussion often shifted toward moral responsibility and universal value when museums are asked to return colonial objects.
In postcolonial Congo-Belgium relations, struggles over cultural heritage were never only about returning objects. They were about who had the authority to define what restitution meant. Returns were described as a symbol of partnership, rather than an obligation stemming from colonial brutality. Even after the objects changed hands, their meaning remained strictly managed.
These situations begin to feel familiar, placed side by side. Museums adjust their language and acknowledge the history, but continue to control how colonial objects are explained and understood. Voice is redistributed carefully. That being said, decolonisation in museums does not arrive as a clean break. It appears through subtle adjustments in language and in how objects are introduced. When the meaning of objects is managed, what feels harder is noticing that interpretations start to close things off. Wondering what it would be like to stay with an object without being told what it means. Is it even possible to allow colonial objects to exist without being spoken for?
Background Note
This column is inspired by readings on museum decolonisation and restitution, including Dominic Burt’s work on the British Museum’s Museum of Mankind, James Thompson’s reflections on cultural property and moral value, and Sarah Van Beurden’s research on postcolonial struggles over heritage between Congo and Belgium.
Author: Hailey Tai
“Hailey’s Comet” is where I write about what moves us. The art, books, and ideas that orbit our daily lives. From Tarkovsky’s films to banned books, and the logic of colour to questions of belief, each piece follows a spark of curiosity and lets it unfold into something humanly shared. It is a space to slow down and look closer. And to notice what usually slips past and the small things that end up meaning everything. Like a comet, each story passes through for a moment but leaves a trace of light behind.