was reflected in the public role of collections and museums in the Netherlands? Can an
answer to these questions perhaps even contribute to a more nuanced explanation as to why
public, state-funded museums only emerged in the Netherlands so much later than they did in
neighbouring countries?
So as not to raise expectations: within the confines of this study, an exhaustive treatment of
these fundamental and far-reaching questions was not possible. Neither could the existing
literature concerning them be included in its entirety.1 Ultimately, the analysis of just one
museum also provides too narrow a perspective on history than that it could provide the basis
for cast iron conclusions about all other contemporary museums from the same region.
Nevertheless, what did transpire over the course of this study is that it can be highly revealing
not to take the term “public” at face value — i.e. as some sort of ahistorical category — but
rather to “deconstruct” it, in Clifford Geertz’ sense of the word. Clarifying how “public life”
was defined in the Netherlands can help come to terms with many of the unique features of
Dutch 19 century history — such as, for example, the curiously late appearance of large
educational museums.
In other words, the term “public” should be questioned in a similarly fundamental manner as
the term “museum” was throughout this study, or as the term “science” has been
deconstructed by historians of science over the past decades.
A good starting point for such a fundamental “deconstruction” of this particular term can be
found in the work of sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Richard Sennett.2 Habermas’ book
Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, first published in 1962, in particular is generally considered
to be part of the canon of literature cultural historians work with. However, the analysis he
presents in this book is all too often reduced to the somewhat simplistic idea that after 1800 a
“public sphere” had emerged, and that this is somehow equatable with the premise that during
the 19 century the term “public” was used in much the same way as it might be in the 20th or
21st century. However, this does not only ignore the subtleties and the complexity of
Habermas’ analysis (“public sphere” is in no way equitable with “public” for instance), but
also avoids confronting the ways in which public life changed over the course of the 19th
century, i.e. avoids an actual “deconstruction” of the term.3
Richard Sennett’s work, particularly his book The Fall o f Public Man which was first
published in 1976, is less frequently referred to. As far as literature on the history of science is
concerned, it is virtually absent. Yet it is Richard Sennett’s analysis of the ways in which
public life was restructured after 1800 that seems to provide a particularly good framework
A good starting point is: J.J. Kloek and W. W. Mijnhardt, 1800: Blueprints fo r a National Community (Assen;
London: Royal Van Gorcum; Palgrave Macmillan, 2004); or, from the perspective o f a historian o f science: Ad
Maas, “Civil Scientists: Dutch Scientists Between 1750 and 1875,” History o f Science 48 (2010): 75-103.
Jürgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen
Gesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1990); Richard Sennett, The Fall o f Public Man (New York;
London: W.W. Norton, 1992).
On some o f the problems o f misinterpreting Habermas’ work see for instance: Harold Mah, “Phantasies o f the
Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas o f Historians,” The Journal o f Modern History 72, no. 1 (2000): 153—
182; Hanco Jürgens, “Habermas for Historians: Four Approaches to His Work,” vol. 5, Forschungsberichte Aus
Dem Duitsland Instituut Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Duitsland Instituut Amsterdam, 2009), 158-170.
within which to analyse Dutch modem history and understand some of its unique features.
Admittedly, Sennett’s claims have been discussed critically and must be deemed controversial
- but in essence the pivotal claims he makes have not been refuted or disproven.4
Sennett identifies three forces that led to a fundamental recalibration of what was deemed
“public” and sees these as the root causes of “modernity” . The first of these forces lies in the
traumatic effects of 19th century capitalism: distraught by the ruthlessness of market forces,
people began to seek refuge in private - i.e. family - life. This inevitably meant that people
retreated from public life, which in turn meant that public life became less important for each
individual’s formation of his own personality. In addition to this, people’s behaviour in public
was increasingly judged in terms of morals that had previously been restricted to the private
realm. The second force identified by Sennett is that of secularism: he defines this very
generally, not just as the diminishing role of religion in society, but rather as the way in which
the immanent became more important than the transcendent in people’s search for meaning.
Sennett links this to the increasing importance of the material realm and the emergence of
“commodity fetishism”, to use the term coined by Marx. This resulted in every person taking
a completely different stance with regard to the world that surrounded them. Thirdly, Sennett
points out that the two previous forces had the potential to uproot society and foster
revolutions, but that this did not happen because the social order that had emerged in the cities
of the Enlightenment remained in place. This created the impression of a certain continuity:
the distinction between the public and the private realm, as it had emerged in cities before
1800, seemed to remain in place, but the balance between the two was completely disrupted,
and the public sphere in particular was “hollowed out” and changed fundamentally.
With regard to the definition of public life in the Netherlands and - by extension - the public
role of collections and museums, the decisive point is that all three forces identified by
Sennett had far less of an impact on Dutch society than they did on other societies (such as
those of France or the Anglo-Saxon regions, which Sennett focuses on). As far as the first
point is concerned, it is only a slight caricature to say that capitalism was invented in the
Netherlands. As a trading nation and with their history as Europe’s economic powerhouse
during the Golden Age, the onset of 19th century capitalism would have been far less
traumatic for the Dutch than it was for other nations. Secondly, the Netherlands had a long
tradition of religious tolerance. The term “Christian Enlightenment” had even been used to
describe developments during the 17th and 18* centuries.5 Increasing secularisation and its
undermining of religion would therefore have constituted less of a break with the past than it
did in other countries. Thirdly and finally, during the Golden Age the Netherlands had
become one of the most densely populated and urbanised regions of the world. One can
therefore assume that the social structures as they had emerged in the cities of the
Enlightenment were engrained in Dutch society to a far higher degree than in other regions.
All this can help explain the relative continuity between the 18th and the 19th century that
characterises Dutch history. Put differently, almost until the end of the 19th century Dutch
4 For a summary o f some arguments against Sennett’s analysis see for instance: Hans van der Loo and Willem
van Rijen, Paradoxen van Modernisering (Bussum: Coutinho, 1997), 213-214.
5 H. H. Zwager, Nederland en de Verlichting (Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck, 1980), 11-12.