The Postmodern Cathedral:

Race and History in Texass New Museum

Whoever is of the rabble, thinks back as far as the
grandfather; with the grandfather, however, time ends.
- Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

In the 19
th
century Nietzsche lamented that the Tragedy of History is that is necessarily
contingent and open to interpretation, public will and memory would define the presents
conception of an idea of the Past. History is far from transcendent, rather is lived and an
immanent part of the present. The Past is in the Present insofar as it is conceived in the Present
and affects that conception while also being affected by such conceptions. Here the intricacies of
Nietzsches theory are irrelevant, what is important to recognize at the moment is that History
and the Public share a symbiotic and mutually constructive relationship The Public is defined
by History as it defines itself by History. History has basis in facts but not Truth, that is defined
by the strength of a Publics interpretation of such facts. Said another way, History is not an
objective record but it is a story, and what story is being told is a function of power. From this
(anti-)Historical viewpoint this paper will seek to interrogate certain stories and affectations of
power as they are present in the cotemporary forging of History as it occurs in the New
Museum - a space where History (as interpreted) is offered to the Public as an interactive
experience to be impressed upon the Public as immersive to inspire the individuals self-
reflection/interpretation. Walter Buenger notes that for historians the museum offers a puzzle
and a chance to reflect on the making of public history or memory in the twenty-first century
(481). Specifically, and following Buenger, this paper focuses on the Bob Bullock Texas State
History Museum in Austin, Texas and how this museum can be seen as emblematic of the New
Museum and in general contemporary Americas relation to its past.
While some might object to this understanding of History it is curious that the
Museum itself seems to concede us this fact. Unlike the museums of earlier times which sought
to make History an objective and transcendent monolith, the New Museum in true postmodern
fashion is fully self-aware of its own postmodern condition. The Museums mission statement:
The Bullock Texas State History Museum engages the broadest possible audience to interpret
the continually unfolding Story of Texas through meaning educational experiences (emphasis
mine). In the 20
th
century Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote in The Culture Industry
that society was heading to a point where the sophistication of the entertainment industry would
be able to entirely commodity Culture, now in the 21
st
Century that process is nearing its
completion.
One of the main architects of the New Museum, the cathedral of postmodernism, the
father of the New Museum, is Bob Rogers a former Disney Imaginer and head designers of the
Bob Bullock Museum. Rogers tours the nations giving business seminars that preach the good
news of the New Museum, here Rogers reveals his Secrets of The Experience Museum: 10 Rules
for Revolution. From the cultural mountain top of Disney Rodgers hands down the Sacred
Testaments:
1) SCHOALRSHIP MEETS SHOWMANSHIP
2) EMOTIONAL BEFORE INTELLECTUAL
3) VISUAL OVER VERBAL
4) TOTAL IMMERSION
5) CINEMATIC
6) STORY EMPOWERS ARTIFACTS..SO STORY PRECEDS ARTIFACTS
7) A. TELL LESS, INTRIGUE MORE
8) B. HOW MANY STORIES DO YOU TELL? FIND ONE.
9) SHORTER ATTENTION SPANS
10) EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT IS THE NEW INTERACTIVITY
In another postmodern turn, one gets the impression that Rodgers himself read Horkheimer and
Adorno and said yes, these guys have it exactly right, this is why we need to do!. Late-society
exists as the effect of the unification of consumption and entertainment. For the Museum History
is nothing more than a continuous and undefined Story to be experienced and interpreted by the
audience/public. In this current historical/cultural System power no longer justifies itself
through privileging the relative Truth of ideology (meta-narratives), instead power justifies itself
through the ideology of non-ideology by privileging all narratives as equally valid. The System
itself has given up any claim to a Reality Principle, a troublesome burden which got it in far to
much political danger with both Revolutionaries and Post-structuralists.
The insidious nature of this (non)ideology is that while it concedes the tangential
continuously-constructive nature of History it, in the same movement, positions the public as
participating only as passive audience/witness and not continuous-constructers. This process can
be easily observed in 21
st
century American politics both in a reliance on pragmatic realism in
foreign policy and (most importantly for this paper) the prevalence of a color-blind approach
when it comes to issues of Race (we are all the same, and for you to say we are different
because I am White and YOU are not, well THATS RACIST!). This color-blind approach s
often paired with a pragmatic-realist vision itself often times proclaiming that the past is the
past, its not like I owned the slaves! I have no responsibility to anybody but myself. This
approach to racial issues does a few things a) it distances the individual from structure, b) it
normalizes the historically constructed present (a present which targets bodies for violence
through Racialization) as unchangeable Fact, and c) accuses however points structures of Race
are the ones being ideological and the Real Racists. This approach works through the idea
that racial violence is an issue of the American Past Slavery was Abolished, Civil Rights
Happened, Something mumbled about the Black Panthers, Now Have a Black President and
Blacks in other prominent positions, racism is Solved. This (non)ideologys sinister move is that
it both recognizes both Race and racial violence as existent but then regulates them to the
historicized and factualized Past, evidenced in the abusurd gesture of denying Race exists and
then pointing to prominent figures of said Race (dont tell me Latinos have it hard,
Latinowhiteblack were all the same, heck that Latino Ray Ramono is twice as rich and half as
funny as me!). This idea of a post-Race society while seemingly a function of the right is
often also found among the Left and (especially) liberals. This finds its political expression in the
current Lefts insistence on Coalitions of diverse and multicultural individuals and groups
which neutralizes the possibility for any Revolutionary politics because it must be voiced within
the radical democracy of narratives.
It is in this political and intellectual milieu that the Museum exists within. Texas, as a
Settler Nation, was constructed on Land stolen by Native genocide and made wealthy through
the bodies of African Chattel Slaves as such the axis which Texas history has always revolved
around is that of Race, specifically the construction and protection of White Supremacy/Mastery.
Buenger notes that by emphasizing the history of women, cultural topics, prominent Tejanos,
and African American Texans the museum clearly reflects post-1950s historiography (482-
483). Keeping with the trends described above the Museum does not try and make this past
invisible but rather attempts to re-represent these as part of the broader Story or non-narrative
narrative of the New Museum. Buenger continues, yet their approach to the Texas past is just
as much form the top down and just as simplistic and celebratory as fifty years ago. The
consensus approach looks different on the surface because it includes minorities and women, but
in key areas it remains the same. Over time everything grew bigger and better. Texans lived
happily together (485). Here we again rub against the contemporary post-racial discourse in
the sense that there is never any mention of White Texans in the museum, rather the emphasis
is that there are ONLY Texans united in their Texan identity - BUT THEN ALSO, on the side,
there are these hard to deal with Other-Texas, these strange hyphenated Texans, the Black-
Texans and Latino-Texans and Texas-Women. This color-blind double speak reveals that when
the Museum says Texans they implicitly mean White Texans. For the Bob Bullock these
histories of violence become subsumed into the Story of Texas. While Buenger points out
what is happening he dosent quite capture the how. How are these histories of violence able to
be contained? What process must occur for this to be effective for the audience? What is the
effect, or affect, that occurs when this violence is re-presented in such and way? In other words,
how can be better understand the specific affective labours of the New Museums historiography
and method (as defined by Rogers) as it applies to gratuitous racial violence? To answer these
questions I turn to Saidiya Hartman and her studies on performance, law, literature, and Slavery.
When touring the Museum during class I was struck by our tour guides very specific
rethoric. During questioning the local preist made specifc note of how all exhibitions that were
shown in the Museum corresponed first and foremost to their ability to tell the larger Story,
that is (again) a Texas united in Texan Identity. When asked about certain stories that
problematize the neat image of Texas unity such as Native genocide or Texans militaristic
defense of Slavery we were informed that these were sad stories (opposed to the happy
stories of colonial victories). Being that the Museums goal was to not make museum goes
sad but instead happy (could one not be more banal) it was necessary that such sad stories
(lynching, torture, rape, the buying and selling of humans, and other sad things) were
packaged inside of happy stories as to not disturb the fragile coherence of the Texas
narrative. In this way oppression becomes obstacles and things like a town petitioning for
the State to make an exception to Texas law which defined black as legally non-Free becomes
progress and opportunity. What does it mean to say Slavery is/was a sad story? Hell, what
does it mean to say Slavery is a story? HOW MANY STORIES DO YOU TELL? FIND ONE
- this is the Museums project. Harman replies that project is something I consider obscene: the
attempt to make the narrative of defeat into an opportunity for celebration the desire to look at
the ravages and the brutality of the last few centuries, but the still find a way to feel good about
ourselves (185-186). Hartman makes not of the affective register, these stories do not just
confirm our suspicions and justifications about ourselves they also exist for the purpose of
catharsis and pleasure, a means for White folk to (once again, or continue to) gaze at the world
created by wounds they made and be perfectly happy.
Sad, is an emotion, and thus implies identification with that which one is sad-towards
or sad-for. Thus a narrative connection is made to an object, here History, in a way that makes it
coherent and emotionally legible as a subject - something which can be felt for, Hartman calls
this empathic identification (184). Slavery cannot be told as-is (if that is even possible) instead
the incoherent and irrational violence of Slavery is transmuted through the Museums Story. But
since a narrative has to have a subject what happens when this narrative frame attempts to tell
the story of that which is the ultimate or essential Object in the (White) American imaginary
the figure of the Slave, who by even the tour guides account was not free in Texas even if
freed. Insofar as this is a CINEMATIC and VISUAL STORY being told Adorno and
Horkhemier note that within the cinematic frame,
Specific content of the entertainment itself only appears to change. The details
are interchangeabledetails, ready-made clichs to be slotted in anywhere; they
never do anything more than fulfill the purpose allotted them in the overall plan.
Their whole raison dtre is to confirm it by being its constituent parts. As soon as
the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and how will be rewarded,
punished, or forgottenonce the trained ear has heard the first notesit can
guess what is coming and feel flattered when it does comegags, effects, and
jokes are calculated like the setting in which they are placed (3)
Hartman locates her project inside this contradiction this problem of crafting a narrative for the
slave as subject, and in terms of positionality, asking who does that narrative enable? (184).
To make it a Story, to make it make meaning, there has to be Good Guys and Bad Guys, there
can be obstacles upon the journey, but ultimately we know the Texan Hero will prevail. And as
in the tour guides example of the Slave woman who had her ownership simply transferred from
an individual deed of ownership to the collective ownership of the township, the Slave
disappears and the town of White folk and their assuredly-Texan hospitality becomes the Hero.
She continues, every attempt to emplot the slave in a narrative ultimately resulted in his or her
obliteration, regardless of whether it was a leftist narrative of political agencyor whether it was
about being to able to unveil the slaves humanity by actual finding oneself if that position
(184). The New Museum smoothes over and normalizes the racial hydraulics of public memory
and history-making, in other words, THE TECH IS BECOMING INVISIBLE.
Just as the Slaves body and labour was made fungible for Master, this narrativzing
discourse of the tour Overseer (once again) makes the Slave fungible and INTERACTIVE for
the (White) audience through EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMNET and enjoyment of the (White)
audience. Since there can be no sad stories every mention of racial violence must be
accompanied by narrative, and thus emotional, closure.
The Good Guys of Oppurtunity, Hospitality, and Diversity have defeated the Bad Guy of
Racism/Slavery and Texas lives happily ever after. Thus the status quo is redeemed through
the reflexive historical narrative, or as Hartman says, our political vocabulary/imaginary/desires
have been implicitly integrationistultimately the metanarrative thrust is always towards an
integration into the national project (185). Our interview with the tour guide makes it seem like
it would be unmanageable and unfair to force people to feed sad, after all lines dont move
quickly when people are weeping, nobody wants to by toys when grieving. For the Museum to
attempt to present racial injustices they can never be allowed to stand in their incoherent
singularity, the imposition of the narrative frame incorporates the suffering of the Slave to
produce pleasure for the (White) Texan audience/imaginary and to justify this integrationist and
supremacist function of the Museum.
The CINEMATIC STORY as told by the New Museum privileges the VISUAL and the
EMOTIONAL to seduce the audience into spectation and reflection upon the suffering of racial
minorities for the purposes of self-reflection upon ones own Texan Identity. ARTIFACTS of the
Museum are transposed into scenes of the larger movie. And as mention the Museum seeks to
display scenes which are at once visual and happy when attempting to discourse on racial
issues. One of the main tropes used is the celebration of opportunity, so much so that the entire
3
rd
floor of the museum is filled with displays of the achievements that Texas minorities have
made.. But is the scene of slaves dancing and fiddling for their masters any less inhumne than
that of slaves sobbing and dancing on the auction block? If so why? Is the effect of power any
less prohibitive? Or coercive? Or does pleasure mitigate coercion? Is the boundary between
terror and pleasure clearer in the market than in the quarters or at the big house? Are the most
enduring forms of cruelty those seemingly benign? Is the perfect picture of the crim the one in
which the crime goes undetected? (Hartman, 42). When it comes to Blacks, these
achievements are mostly represented by examples of success and access of Blacks into
differing segments of the entertainment industry, notably Sports, Music, and Cinema. These are
displayed are presented with a celebratory air, championing the prevalence of Black people in
industries that ultimately depend on White Spectation as evidence of the Post-Racial milieu. In
an ironic and doubling process the White audience derives enjoyment from spectating the
spectacle of Black spectation for a White audience, in the end they only find themselves in their
historical spectating counterparts.
Even more disturbing is the Museums acknowledged mission to make this lush affective
environment, structured on the suffering of the Slave, fully INTERACTIVE and embodied. The
combination of the CINEMATIC, VISUAL, and EMOTIVE frames produces an EXPIERENCE
of TOTAL IMMERSION. Seemingly prescient, Horkheimer and Adorno could easily be talking
about the affective labour performed by the New Museum and its stories when they note:
that they are so designed that quickness, powers of observation, and experience
are undeniably needed to apprehend them at all; yet sustained thought is out of the
question if the spectator is not to miss the relentless rush of facts. Even though the
effort required for his/her response is semi-automatic, no scope is left for the
imagination. Those who are so absorbed by the world of the movie by its
images, gestures, and words that they are unable to supply what really makes it
a world, do not have to dwell on particular points of its mechanics during a
screening. All the other films and products of the entertainment industry which
they have seen have taught them what to expect; they react automatically
(emphasis mine, 4)
Thus when it encounters the problematic of representing the facts of Texass history the New
Museum is able to rely and its mechanics (Rogers Rules) to render the meaningless,
unrepresentable, and inchoate violence of racial violence into visual and narrative cohesion
which privilege the audiences EMOTION OVER INTELLECT even in the fact of
contradictions. A perfect example of this process is to be found in the middle of the Story of
Texas interactive movie when the narrative of the short film mentions that Texas became
engaged in Civil War turning brother against brother and then that war ended with the signing
of the Emancipation Proclamation which voided Confederate law and freed the Slaves which of
course opened up many new opportunities to newly freed African-American Texans. What is
never mentioned is what side Texas actually took during this war or the climate of terrorism that
newly freed slaves faced in the South during Reconstruction thats some mental gymnastics.
These acts of historical reflection in the New Texas Museum [act] to normalize the scene and
deny the presence of violence by characterizing it as withing the context of the socially
endurable; and , accordingly, the scene shifts form one of despair to one of contentment and
endurance (Hartman 34-36). Elsewhere in this film we here first hand accounts from Black
Texans as authentic and positive (more tour guide words) representations of the Black
experience in Historical Texas, of course the only accounts used are ones which align with the
overall integrationist narrative, dissenting voices are policed out and just like that individual
stories of success are re-imposed as the universal marker of racial progress. This is not just a
problematic relation to history but is an actively violent one because the emotional resources,
animal needs, and limited affectations of the enslaved are made responsible for this shift. Worse
yet, the liberal extension of feeling to those shacked like a herd of cattle or strung together like a
line of fish only serves to efface violence and circumscribe the captives sentience through such
attributions of contentment or evaluations of the bearable (Ibid.).
In conclusion this visual and narrative ordering that the New Museum takes as its
approach to History, this making sense of no-sense, is an effect of racial power, violence, and
memory as it is both constructed and consumed by the public. The technologies of the New
Museum, specifically those found inside the Bob Bulluck Texas State Museum perform an
emotional labour upon the audience that when combined with scenes of racial violence and/or
jubilation have the effect of both inspiring the White/Masters gaze and solidifying that
gaze/interpretation as correct. As Adorno and Horkheimer say, the so-called dominant idea is
like a file which ensures order but not coherence (3). In short it makes White
Supremacy/Mastery seem natural and celebratory for the audience, and thus despite its
inclusion of minorities and other-interpretation the from or conceptual frames used in the
deployment of the New Museum cant help but telling the same old story in a slightly new
fashion. At the end of the day the Story of Texas still depicts white and blacks as one big
happy family headed up by a paternalistic white master (Buenger 486) and that White Master is
Texas, and Texas is You.

Works cited
Bob Bullock State Museum, About Page, official webpage, http://www.thestoryoftexas.com/about
Buenger 2002, Walter L., The Story of Texas? The Texas State History Museum and Forgetting and
Remembering the Past, The Southerwestern Historical Quartely, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Jan., 2002). Pg. 480-
493
Rogers, 2006 , notes from presentation by Bob Rogers, founder and chairman of BRC Imagination Arts,
presented to TAM Leadership Symposium, October 27, 2006. The rules relate to lessons learned in
planning exhibits for the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield, IL.
Hartman 2003, Saidiya. Position of the Unthought: Interview with Frank Wilderson III. Qui Parle, Vol.
3, No. 2, (Sping/Summer 2003), pg. 183-201
Hartman 1997, Saidiya. Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century
America. Pg. 34-6, 42
Horkheimer and Adorno 1944. Max and Theodor. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass
Deception. Class Document. Pg 3-4