1

S. Hollis Mickey
Prof. Steve Lubar
AMCV2220
April 21, 2011

Re-imagining the Haffenreffer: Interviews with Faculty in Theatre Art & Performance Studies

The Haffenreffer, Brown University’s anthropology museum, is an underutilized—and, to

some unknown—resource for professors and students. Currently, it has two locations: a remote

storage and conservation facility and a small exhibition space on campus. Despite the Museum’s

remarkable collection and its status as Brown’s only museum, neither of its spaces has significant

traffic from those affiliated with the University or community members. The dearth of attendance

in the on campus space located in Manning Chapel is particularly regrettable since not only is

admission free, but the unique objects presented have potential relevance to many Brown classes.

This short paper summarizes a range of perspectives on how the Manning exhibition space might

be creatively re-imagined to increase the use and engagement of students and professors.

I interviewed three faculty members of the Theatre Arts and Performance Studies

Department at Brown. The ‘TAPS’ department may at first seem an odd choice; to many

performance studies seems to be a discipline invested in immaterial culture rather than the

material objects held in the Haffenreffer collection. However, as these interviews suggest, this

department is very much invested in the material object: as evidence, as inspiration, and as

foundation for research. I believe that the excitement and enthusiasm within TAPS demonstrates

that a range of departments at Brown might make use of the Haffenreffer. I would like to note, that

many TAPS faculty were interested in discussing the Haffenreffer but could not schedule meetings

due to sabbatical, maternity leave, performances, etc. So, as this project moves forward, it seems

important to return to this group keen to be involved.

In my interviews, I presented the faculty with how the Museum currently functions, and

proposed that the Manning exhibition space was potentially being re-crafted into a study center. I
 2

suggested this study center might act as a kind of laboratory for many different kinds of

engagement by the Brown and Providence community. I asked them to suggest what objects might

be useful in such a study center, and how they imagined such a space being useful to their

research, as well as to their classes and students. I have summarized their insights below, and

followed each summary with a few of my own thoughts.

− Erik Ehn, Head of Playwriting and Professor of Theatre Arts and Performance Studies

Generally, Erik focused upon creating the study center as a communal space. Though his

vision was relatively fanciful, he also had many generative concrete ideas. He was quite interested

to learn if the Haffenreffer might already have relevant objects such as puppets, costumes and

masks. He also suggested that it would be valuable to his students if the Haffenreffer acquired and

made available pieces of sets, props, models, etc. from ritual and performance. Much of Erik’s

own playwriting and humanitarian work focuses on Africa; in fact he often takes student groups

there during the summer. He expressed particular interest in African objects which might

contextualize historic and contemporary performance practice. He also encouraged the Museum to

consider collecting objects that might be relevant to the work of his graduate students, citing one

of his MFA playwrights whose work focuses on Mexican-American border culture. He suggested

that having material objects expressive of border culture for that playwright and actors working on

his plays to see and manipulate would enrich the creative experience.

Erik also communicated that historical documentation of performance through sound,

photograph, and moving image is lacking in Brown’s libraries, and wondered if the Haffenreffer

might be a site for the growth of such a collection. Erik encouraged some sort of screening room

as well as listening kiosks, perhaps for archival performance footage or for relevant contextual

material for the objects. He also encouraged some sort of communal space, such as a café or eating
 3

area, that might encourage students to linger and share across disciplines. When I asked about

how he envisioned the space being relevant for him, he immediately offered a sort of ‘mining the

Haffenreffer’ assignment for his classes. He suggested that a collection of objects—either curated

by himself or selected from Bristol by students—would serve as the springboard for a creative

writing exercise, which might eventually manifest as plays to be performed in the space, or

elsewhere. He then proposed thinking about the study center as a site for performance, whether

academic lectures about objects, site-specific plays, or dance. The conversation ended with him

expressing his gratitude for being reminded of the resource of the Haffenreffer, and his excitement

to see how the Manning space might be used in the future.

I was pleased that Erik, whose writing and classes are rather avant-garde, had some

productive ideas for how the space might be used. It does seem that opening the possibility of the

TAPS department ‘mining’ the collection—either for puppets, props, and costumes, or for the

purposes of the playwriting exercise Erik envisions—is quite rich, engaging an unexpected

audience with the Museum. His documentation collecting aims, however, seem perhaps something

better suited to the Brown library system, though I am attracted to his idea that there might be

screenings of relevant footage based on certain object displays. Likewise, I like the impetus for his

ideas about communal space, but think that perhaps that space of interdisciplinary engagement

might be best facilitated through some sort of online blog or interactive website. Admittedly, I am

hesitant to put food and museum objects together. As well, I like the idea of making the space

‘alive’ through performance, but I wonder if that might primarily be lectures by students and

faculty researching objects, or courses presenting their finding to the public. There are many

spaces for theatrical performance on campus, so I would be reluctant to transform the function of

this space into theatre unless the performance was truly site-specific and did not pose significant
 4

threat to the objects. I feel strongly that Erik offers creative insight as this project moves forward,

for even his more outlandish ideas are grounded in meaningful perceptions of the Haffenreffer’s

potential which might lead to more practical plans and programs.

− John Emigh, Professor Emeritus, Theatre, Speech & Dance

John Emigh was very eager to speak with me about the Haffenreffer. For John, the

Haffenreffer offers an important resource for opening students to other cultures. Overall, John had

very strong sentiments about the Haffenreffer. He does not want to see the Manning space become

a study center, and he firmly believes that Bristol should be re-opened to the public. He feelsthat

the transformation of the exhibition space in Manning into a study center signals a growing

disinterest in the arts at Brown. The loss of this space, he said, is the loss of one more forum for

the arts on campus. Importantly, he expressed that should the space primarily show objects that are

more modern or point to globalization it reinforces an apathy amongst students for cultures outside

their own as well as the past, an apathy which John said is pervasive amongst Brown students.

John commented that, “America is too insular.” Speaking of the department of Anthropology in

particular, John proposed that Brown enacts that dialogue through an increasing fascination in

research and study with ourselves and our own discourse, a trend which he also sees more

generally in the University. To that point, he said, “I would hate to see people give up the

ethnographic project altogether.” For John, the demise of the Haffenreffer as he once knew it

seems indicative of a complete indifference to ethnographic approaches to scholarship,

methodology central to his own work.

For John, the closure of Bristol to the public and the possible changes to Manning do not only

point to changing academic persuasions, he has a significant personal investment in these shifts.

The Haffenreffer inspired his own, now seminal, work on Non-Western masking traditions, and in
 5

turn, he has donated some items to the Haffenreffer from his travels and research. John told many

fascinating stories—legends even—about the Haffenreffer and its importance to him. These very

personal stakes were quite evident throughout our conversation.

When I asked him how he might imagine enlivening the Haffenreffer spaces to engage a

broader audience, he had several proposals. Fundamentally, he wants the Manning space to remain

an exhibition space. He envisioned the exhibitions changing more frequently to bring more

interest to the space. He also offered that the exhibitions might be coordinated by Museum

curators to meet the interests of what he described as “a constellation of faculty”—a network of

professors that might have interrelated research pursuits. John also suggested that exhibitions

might be curated to correspond to a specific class being taught. Most important to John was

community outreach. He believes more efforts online and in print should be made to draw Brown

students to the Manning space, and that they should be brought to that space during orientation.

He suggested more well-publicized lectures and curatorial talks, as well as programming for local

school children. John lamented the relative inability of Brown to receive grants from the State

Council of the Arts for such programming, but encouraged innovative thinking about how to fund

such events. John also voiced that Bristol should re-open with some modest exhibitions. When

questioned about the accessibility of such exhibitions, John responded that organizing exhibitions

around a class would ensure that professors would require students to visit Bristol. John concluded

our time together by re-iterating his personal investment in the changes underway, and by

expressing his deep hope that the Haffenreffer would once again become a dynamic space on

campus.

I was somewhat surprised to learn of John’s resistance to the idea of the Manning space

transforming, but after learning of his intimate past with the Haffenreffer, I understand his
 6

sentiments. I tried to suggest to John how the study center might still have many of the qualities of

an exhibition space, but I feel he has particular ideas about the institutional value of ‘study center’

versus ‘museum.’ I think that for John, it signals a lessening of interest rather than a

reconsideration of how the existing and future collections might be most useful. I must say that I

disagree with John and believe that the transformation of the Manning space in fact signals a

reinvestment in the Haffenreffer. And, I feel strongly that its re-imagination will in fact inspire

some students to pursue other cultures and the ‘ethnographic project’ who might not otherwise

have been interested in doing so, simply due to lack of exposure. His points are well-taken though;

the study center should balance narratives of past and present and care should be taken to be sure

that discourse theory does not thoroughly overpower the wonder and magic of material objects. As

well, his concern with outreach to the broader community also seem relevant. At least initially,

arranging cases and displays around specific classes would ensure a base of attendance. It seems

also that the study center might indeed serve as a hub for other local colleges and universities to

engage with material culture, and perhaps, as well a site for interested local collectors and

connoisseurs to meet, engage, discuss and maybe share their particular—and often peculiar—

passions amongst themselves and even the University research community. I do not think that at

this early stage reaching out to local school children is feasible or even germane, but should the

study center flourish, how the Haffenreffer might be useful to them could be a pertinent issue to

raise in the future. Though I disagree with some of John’s assessments of what should be done

with the Haffenreffer, his dissenting voice is important to remember in this dialogue of change. In

ongoing conversations, John Emigh certainly represents a larger demographic who feel similarly,

and the Haffenreffer would do well to remember the voice of some of their long-term

stakeholders. The reasons for which he wants to restore the Haffenreffer to what it was in the
 7

1980s are still relevant to consider when embarking on this contemporary quest to make the

Museum a meaningful resource. Finally, I wonder if some of the tales that John knows about the

Haffenreffer might be collected and presented in some way, perhaps at the opening of the new

space. This might offer an opportunity to connect what the Haffenreffer was with what it is

becoming.

− Kym Moore, Assistant Professor of Theatre Arts and Performance Studies

Kym teaches classes which engage with transnational performance practices and directs

plays which often deal with issues around the creation and negotiation of cultural narratives of

race, gender, and history. Kym, however, was completely unaware of the Haffenreffer Museum.

Having been here for three years, she still had never visited the Manning space, which is visible

from her office window. Kym is incredibly plugged into the larger Brown and Providence

communities, so this ignorance is quite alarming. She was very enthusiastic to learn of this

potential resource for her own creative practice, and for her students.

She expressed interest in exposing her students to objects which might be emblematic of

global cultures as well as objects that might be representative of vernacular life in various periods

and places. She spoke specifically of a recent scene in an acting class in which a student was

unfamiliar with the prop called for—a bedpan. She suggested that such seemingly mundane

objects of daily life would be incredibly useful to her acting students. For Kym, any objects that

represent a way of life unfamiliar to the “contemporary upper middle class” could potentially be of

great service. Like Erik, she was also interested in the Haffenreffer making available any puppets,

costumes, props, and set pieces of performance. She expressed that through material culture she

believes her students can gain a greater understanding of how to undertake their roles, and more

importantly, an understanding of other cultures and peoples.

 8

Kym communicated strong interest in the idea of the Manning space as a study center.

Kym emphasized that though ‘anthropology’ may now be a term loaded with valences of

imperialism and colonialism, she hopes that the study center might continue to use the word

anthropology when describing its purpose. She believes that this term can and should be

recuperated from these negative connotations, and restored as a word that Brown associates with a

rich and enriching study of culture. Kym suggested that the study center should focus on the

collections and the material objects. Unlike Erik, she does not envision the space as a site for

public performance. Instead, Kym suggested it might be more like an archive of material

objects—a quiet, protected space for contemplation of material things. She said that she hoped

there would be a certain uniqueness about what students might do there. Beyond the occasional

docent-style lecture, she did not articulate programming as important. She was interested rather, in

offering students and professors the opportunity just to “sit with stuff” and to allow questions to

arise in that way. Kym ended our conversation with a promise to go visit the exhibition in

Manning, and expressed her enthusiasm for the opportunities the study center might present.

In my view, Kym has an inspiring, yet realistic, perspective on what the Haffenreffer study

center might become. Her interest in using material culture to activate her creative work and the

work of her students demonstrates the Haffenreffer’s untapped potential beyond the Anthropology

department. It seems that her ideas might pair well with some of Erik’s thoughts, particularly the

‘mining the Haffenreffer’ exercise, which opens the potential for professors and students to use the

Haffenreffer’s objects to inspire new works of art and scholarship. I was particularly struck by her

interest in keeping the Haffenreffer a singular and unique space. I believe that she is right—in

order for the Haffenreffer to draw audiences and excite interest it must distinguish itself from

other nearby resources, namely the Brown libraries and the RISD Nature Lab. I believe that the
 9

opportunity to privately examine objects could be a component, but I do differ with Kym on the

note of programming. I think that richly programming the study center would also serve to

distinguish it from surrounding facilities, and would offer multiple points of engagement for the

College Hill community.

After completely just these three interviews, I have become intensely aware of the

potential, and potential controversy, of the study center. If these three faculty within the same

department offer such diverse thoughts on how the study center might (or might not) be best

executed, certainly a greater diversity of perspectives in the University community. As a result of

these conversations, my strongest recommendation is that the dialogue should continue. It seems

like the creation of the study center itself offers a powerful potential discursive space for opening

up dialogue within and between departments. Such dialogue may possibly serve to generate the

kind of creative, interdisciplinary engagement with the idea of culture that the study center aims to

do, even before its actualization. It seems to me that this kind of community conversation might

ultimately produce a more meaningful, accessible, and usable space, and simultaneously produce a

wider breadth of invested stakeholders and potential users. It seems also that there is great value in

documenting the process of such conversations and debates that might be a part of the study

center’s creation. As the Haffenreffer re-imagines its mission and its spaces, I feel that the most

important thing it can do is remember the heteroglossia, to take a term from Bahktin—the

multiplicity of voices and meanings—which inform its past, present, and, eventually its future.

John might express concern that my recommendation is symptomatic of an interest in discourse

rather than things. But, I would counter that this dialogue offers a unique opportunity to create an

interpretative model. I believe that ongoing conversations might generate a community-informed

framework that would help us all to re-value, and re-evaluate our relationship to material culture.