Jan Scheunemann’s dissertation explores a hitherto largely neglected topic in the study of the “Herrschafts- und Loyalitätssicherung im SED-Staat”: the role of local museums (“Heimatmuseen”) as institutions of a national “Geschichtspolitik”. The main conclusion seems to be that despite several efforts these museums hardly played a significant role as instruments of fostering a new (socialist) consciousness. In this respect it is interesting to note that in the Enquete-Kommission “Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Diktatur in Deutschland” (1995) and in the Enquete-Kommission “Überwindung der Folgen der SED-Diktatur im Prozess der deutschen Einheit” (1999) museums are only mentioned indirectly.1 Scheunemann’s general conclusion may clarify that this neglect is justified. However, Scheunemann’s study focuses on the period 1945-1971 (and exclusively on local museums). A comparable study of the period 1971-1989 may show to what extent local museums continued to fail to apply SED ideology in a satisfactory way, as Scheunemann suggests. Such study may also show to what extent the promising perspective at the end of Scheunemann’s dissertation, i.e. the emergence of a museum specific theory, succeeded.

Scheunemann’s extremely well researched and well documented study aims to map out the limiting conditions in the transformation of museums as media for bourgeois signification into places of marxist-leninist history propaganda (p. 28). His general perspective is defined by the interaction between the official ideological discourse and the professional discourse in a museum, with a special role of the Fachstelle für Heimatmuseen and its director Heinz A. Knorr. It is a pity that in his analysis of the professional discourse in a museum Scheunemann pays little attention to dissident voices. Critical opinions, for example expressed by museum directors during conferences, are rarely mentioned. An exception is his description of the conference on the representation of the history of the workers’ movement in museums at Plauen in 1955 (pp. 182-187). During the conference many directors showed reluctance adopting the topic of the history of the workers’ movement in their museums. In general, throughout the book the opinions of museum directors who supported the regime (for example Rudolf Donnerhack, Plauen) are given more attention than the opinions of “dissidents” (for example Clement Toepel, Gera).

The study’s information is presented chronologically in six chapters: 1945-1948, 1948-1953, 1954-1957, 1957-1959, 1959-1963, and 1963-1971. Even though this structure is well substantiated, it does not provide a clear picture of the general developments, especially because of the time usually needed to implement new policies. The intrinsic inertia of museums conflicted with the ad hoc solutions of a regime that was still in search of an appropriate administrative structure. In this respect the situation in the period 1945-1971 was obviously more dynamic and more complex than in the period 1971-1989. Additionally, the implementation of new policies suffered from specific post-war problems. Museum buildings had been damaged or occupied by other institutions (such as schools). Collections were destroyed or confiscated by the Russian army as compensation. Museums were forced to take care of property of expropriated landowners and others. Most museum directors were elderly (58 years on average in Sachsen-Anhalt in 1948), had bourgeois background, and, worst of all, had been former members of the NSDAP. Many of them were fired, but, mainly because of the war. Qualified young professionals with a proletarian or at least socialist background to replace former directors were hard to find. In the past, museums were supported (and often owned) by local historical societies. The new regime disbanded most of these organizations. Local authorities took control of the museums, however without appropriate expertise.

As museums were not considered to have political relevance for the workers’ movement, the KPD did not have a clear notion in 1945 of a museum policy that could serve as guideline on a local level. Scheunemann describes that SED cadres developed little interest in museums on a local as well as on a national level. This lack of interest was mixed with a deeply felt mistrust towards the intellectual elite. Throughout the dissertation there are many references to the widely held belief that local museums continued to show their exhibitions with a bourgeois background. Even Heinz A. Knorr, who as director of the Fachstelle für Heimatmuseen played a dominant role in the development of a socialist perspective on museums, was accused of “subjective Orientierung und Beziehung” on occasion of his formal leave as director in 1961 (p. 281).

Apart from the hesitation of museum directors to include the history of the workers’ movement (which was considered to correspond with the history of KPD/SED), the problem in the transformation of museums was the lack of a museum specific methodology to visualize the new perspectives on history. In this respect Scheunemann’s case study is highly relevant and very interesting to read. His analysis of the transformation of Schloss Wernigerode into a “Feudalmuseum” (pp. 104-123), the creation of the first DDR exhibition on the history of the workers’ movement in the “Vogtländische Kreismuseum” Plauen (pp. 172-179), and especially the creation of the “Museum für die Geschichte der revolutionären Arbeiterbewegung” (initially conceived as Stalin Museum) in Gera (pp. 195-212) illustrate the epistemological problem of using objects to visualize processes, and the general lack of objects which document the history of the workers’ movement.

In 1959 the official celebration of the 100th anniversary of 1848 in 1948, and the 10th anniversary of the DDR (together with the 40th anniversary of the KPD) was used by the political SED cadres as a tool to encourage local museums to exhibit topics which the SED considered necessary, but also to develop expertise in appropriate methods of visualization. In general, the political SED cadres were disappointed with the results. Many museums showed lack of competence or even lack of willingness. The disappointing results also showed weakness in the supporting infrastructure. Among local SED cadres there was a lack of museum specific competencies and it was impossible for the Fachstelle für Heimatmuseen to support museum with adequate practical knowledge.

Scheunemann’s study ends with the analysis of two initiatives founded in the 1960s to find answers to the “Museumskrise”. First, museums were asked to be more efficient and more effective by focusing on topics from the history of the workers’ movement (including contemporary history) specific for the region (“Profilierung”). Second, further professionalization should have been supported by a “marxistisch-leninistische Museumswissenschaft”. It is a pity that Scheunemann does not go into detail about professionalization as such and the role of professional training in the field of museums. After 1971 a developing theoretical conceptualization of museum work became one of the driving forces behind an increased professionalization of work in museums.

Note:
1 Materialien der Enquete-Kommission “Aufarbeitung von Geschichte und Folgen der SED-Dikatur in Deutschland”, Baden-Baden 1995; Materalien der Enquete-Kommission “Überwindung der Folgen der SED-Diktatur im Prozess der Deutschen Einheit”, Baden-Baden 1999.