Audi confronts what troubles many: the repetitive, stagnant nature of cultural property debates. Restitution certainly falls into this mold. So do other topics. He is also right that the debate is barely legal, carried on more in the press and media than in the courts. He is equally insightful that the Elgin Marbles play an inordinate role in these debates, and often set the framework for discussion even when not directly noted. What is unclear is whether calling attention to the debate as counter-balanced argument-bites will get beyond the constraints of past thinking and formulaic argument.
To begin, I do not believe that restitution or even the debate over the Elgin Marbles is quite as repetitive and stagnant as Audi would have it. There has been movement since John Merryman wrote his seminal article. The argument has moved from legal to moral and is now, for want of a better description, contextual. Each side argues that the marbles are better understood either in the context of the British Museum, among the remains of other cultures and times, or in a new museum in Athens, among other remains from the Parthenon and Acropolis. This contextual argument is a subset in the debate whether cultural property is best viewed as the heritage of humankind or as Greece's patrimony, universal or national, cosmopolitan or communitarian.
Audi conceives cultural property debates as the repetitive use of argument-bites. He is concerned to deal with the larger issues and his focus on argument-bites is intended to clear the field for more meaningful debate, in particular the debate over restitution that is affected by the vestiges of imperialism. Cutting through the stagnant, muddying debates of argument-bites, Audi forcefully states:
Simply put, a wrongfully taken object should be returned, including objects taken by virtue of an imperial, exploitative apparatus that is widely abhorred today…. The starting point must be a recognition of past wrongs and present aspirations of the victims of past (and often continuing) injustice…. Viewed as a whole, the legal arguments predictably tended to cancel each other out, muddying the field enough to entrench a status quo in which … Western museums are rarely, if ever, compelled to questioned their vast holdings…. [T]he Elgin Marbles contribute to the status quo in favor of continuing ownership of looted art in Western museums in that they're still in London. (italics in original)
Audi is right: We must think outside the box of argument-bites, the bad arguments they represent (return would not be to the originating culture and objects would not be properly cared for if returned); avoid the preemptory rejection of restitution; and deal with individual claims. But saying that wrongfully taken objects should be returned and that colonial exploitation is wrong is not creating a new argument or framework but bald assertion. The situation is complex, of course, and a forceful statement may seem what is needed to break the log jam; but it is doubtful that clearing the muddying waters of argument-bites followed by such assertion will do the trick. It seems we are back to, if not argument-bites, choosing sides, which, as in discussions of religion and politics, will likely lead nowhere. More is needed than a focus on unhelpful arguments and a stultifying structure, a plea for openness, and then reassertion of one of the underlying positions.
The problem is that the discussion is fixed in the context of old dichotomies. It tends to remain limited to matters of ownership, which only one side can win. What is needed is discourse that encompasses nationalism and internationalism, a present-day cultural identity and a colonial past, where neither side believes it has trump. After all, isn't nationalism part of humankind's heritage and likely to last, and won't the local remain however cosmopolitan we get? The challenge is to create a context where these perennial differences can be discussed and mediated.
Perhaps it is unfair to ask those who did not create and deplore the current state of affairs to find a way to advance beyond them. What is needed is not to take sides, to neither accept the boundaries of current ownership nor to expect new moral insight into where cultural property should be. It is to be open to the possibility that what is in London might better be in Athens, or the reverse, or someplace else instead. The point is that there is no final place for culture property. Like culture itself, it is the constant rethinking and reevaluation that is important for which there is no one time solution. It is the process that counts.
Unfortunately, this is little more than preaching. There is much real work to be done. Large issues and differences need to be worked out. Hopefully Audi's article and, most importantly, those to follow will begin this process.
