Kaitlyn Rabach, Fall 2019Department of Anthropology, University of California IrvineAnthro 215A / “Ethnographic Methods” / Professor Kim FortunThe Brotherhood of Freemason Sisters: Gender, Secrecy, and Fraternity in Italian Masonic Lodges By Lilith Mahmud / The University of Chicago Press, 2014What is the text “about” -- empirically and conceptually?What modes of inquiry were used to produce it?How is the text structured and performed?How can it circulate?What is the text about – empirically?What phenomenon is drawn out in the text? A social process; a cultural and political-economic shift; a cultural “infrastructure;” an emergent assemblage of science-culture-technology-economics? Mahmud uses feminist ethnogrpahic methods to interrogate the inherent contradictions--being both responsbile for many of the Enlightenment’s tenets, while simultaneously exlucing women from their ranks-- of freemasonary in Italy and beyond. The text focuses on the gendered processes of discretion, transparency, and privilege in philosophically-liberal nations. The main intervention of the book reveals the contradictions and limitations inherent in the promise of fraternity and freemasonry, as well as the limitations of European liberal humanism more broadly. Where is this phenomenon located – in a neighborhood, in a country, in “Western Culture,” in a globalizing economy?post-Enlightenment Italy and Europe more broadly; mid-2000s Florence; four masonic temples in Italy (GLMFI, GOI, ES, GLDI) What historical trajectory is the phenomenon situated within? What, in the chronology provided or implied, is emphasized -- the role of political or economic forces, the role of certain individuals or social groups? What does the chronology leave out or discount? post-Enlightenment Italy (emphasis on freemasonaries role in a unified Italy); post-1946 democracy and new constitution in Italy; history of freemasonry’s marginalization in Italy (Mussilini’s era, P2 scandal of 1981 and subsequent legislation); Italy’s Lead Years; perhaps the American feminsit movement of the 60s is in the backdrop, BUT Mahmud addresses how this movement did not catch steam in Italy; post-colonial contexts (very present in the literature she engages); freemasonry in a global context What scale(s) are focused on -- nano (i.e. the level of language), micro, meso, macro? What empirical material is developed at each scale? Nano scale: subjectivity of female freemasons, ultimately that they embody an “oxymoronic subjectivity” - “when their existence was recognized at all, they were accused of simply imitating men’s Freemasonry and of not being “real” Freemasons (80); intersubjectivity - the ambiguity of humanism, how do we produce humanism and fraternal subjects? Empirically, we read examples of how women freemasons both embody and contest this “oxymoronic subjectivity,” especially after some of the public scandals in the 1990s. Mahmud asks, what does it mean to be a “freemason within?”Micro scale: Economic and social elitism, most freemasons in this book (both male and female) hold social weight in their respective communities, even outside of the space of freemasonry. Mahmud makes sure to highlight their occupations (politicians, lawyers, professors, etc), involvement in other organizations, and other means of social capital. The tension of their social and economic elitism in the “profane” is problematized throughout the text, especially as many freemasons navigate the post P-2 scandal in ItalyMeso scale: freemasonry organizations in Italy and beyond; international fraternity and connections of these organizations which often include many high profile political and economic players (elite global institutions). This is demonstrated when freemasons travel to different conferences throughout the textMacro scale: Post P-2 legislation and scandals underscore much of the text, Eurocentric ideologies of humanism; citizenship and immigration policies within Europe; modes of transparency (a new world order??). Due to global shifts in the late 90s/early 2000s “transparency” became a new ideal or requirement for liberal democracies. In this book, we see the blindspots of this shift and we see some empirical consequences Who are the players in the text and what are their relations? Does the text trace how these relations have changed across time – because of new technologies, for example? Italian elites (elites in their economic and social capital, HOWEVER, internally they feel marginalized because of their secret freemason status); Freemasons in four very diverse lodges in Italy: Grand Women’s Masonic Lodge of Italy (women only, headquartered in Florence); Grand-Orient of Italy (men only, headquartered in Rome); Subsidiary Order of the Eastern Stars (for female relatives of the GOI, headquartered in Rome); Grand Lodge of Italy (mixed gender, headquartered in Rome); the relations (friendships, kinships, professional connections, etc.) and the politics of recognition between these four groups are the crux of the book; broader relations to freemasons across the worldWhat is the temporal frame in which players play? In the wake of a particular policy, disaster or other significant “event?” In the general climate of the Reagan era, or of “after-the-Wall” globalization? Post P-2 era and the Italian Lead Years where freemasons were often (justly or unjustly) accused of many terror activities. The book centers on one key date, Sept. 1993, in this era. During this time, major newspapers in Italy published a list of the first and last names, places of birth, occupations, and current residences of freemasons in Italy. Next to this biographical information, a column titled masonic affiliations was also listed. These affiliations were published in the name of transparency, but all women freemasons were left out of the newspaper, undermining their very existence. This is both a key event for Mahmud in centering her research questions, but is also an important and emotional event for her female interlocutors for two reasons: the “outing” of their male counterparts and the complete exclusion of female freemasons.What cultures and social structures are in play in the text? Euro-American kinship and gender structures, Euro-American elitism, humanism, European freemasonry, liberalism, “Europeannes”What kinds of practices are described in the text? Are players shown to be embedded in structural contradictions or double-binds? The book is centered around the paradox of freemasonry--at once pushing forth ideas of egalitarianism, while structuring excluding women. Women freemasons are then caught in a double-bind. They are either not recognized in the masonic structures or they are recognized only as mimicking male freemasons. Structures of transparency and secrecy are also caught in this double bind. Secrecy is inevitable in the organization of democracy (freemasons secretly met to unify Italy), but it’s also detrimental to democracy. Transparency feeds into paranoia (feedback loop). How are science and technology implicated in the phenomenon described?New expectations for transparencyNew regimes for transparencyDesire for a politics of disclosureIn this case, in particular, new databases where masonic temples have to register with the Italian government in the name of transparency What structural conditions– technological, legal and legislative, political, cultural – are highlighted, and how are they shown to have shaped the phenomenon described in this text? Post Lead Years in Italy shaped by terror that became associated with Italian masonic temples. This terror then shapes the practices of discretion Mahmud focuses on in the book. Gender and racial formation in the “profane” world structure institutions in the masonic world. How – at different scales, in different ways – is power shown to operate? Is there evidence of power operating through language, “discipline,” social hierarchies, bureaucratic function, economics, etc? Power operates very clearly in the hierarchies of the lodges, each lodge has varying levels of freemasonry and masters/maestras. Power operates between the lodges through politics of recognition. In Italy, for instance, certain lodges do not recognize each other, BUT, internationally they may be recognized. This type of power is clearly gendered. Power operates within the state of Italy, especially in its push to police and expose freemasons. On a global scale, freemasons in this text operate within the Eurocentric model of liberal humanism, discounting racial/class/world hierarchies. On a very macro level, a new global order of transparency operates over Freemasonry in all contexts. Does the text provide comparative or systems level perspectives? In other words, is the particular phenomenon described in this text situated in relation to similar phenomenon in other settings? Is this particular phenomena situated within global structures and processes? This phenomenon is situated within larger gendered discourses of elite groups and institutions, especially those rooted in liberal philosophies. It exposes the inherent contradictions in any sort of liberal humanism--the very foundation of Western democracy. Really, this book leaves cracks in any mission or vision of the “West,” especially if we see this space not in a geographical sense, but rather as a set of processes that can exist in “Non-Western” places. Power is not clear cut in these alignments, but in this book, Mahmud shatters (or at least imposes a few cracks) on the ground we all walk. What is the text about – conceptually?Is the goal to verify, challenge or extend prior theoretical claims?Investigating and confronting profound paradoxes in both Italian freemasonry, as well as the Enlightenment’s key tenets of liberty, equality, and fraternity What is the main conceptual argument or theoretical claim of the text? Is it performed, rendered explicit or both? (going to answer the latter part of this question in the following paragraph… easier to answer once the ancillary concepts are articulated) Not all lodges recognize women and the most prestigious lodge in Italy, the GOI, does not include female members. This becomes the central paradox of Mahmud’s book and of Italian Freemasonry itself. Why do members, specifically female members, of Masonic orders strive to become a part of this “fratellanza” (94) or “intersubjectivity” (79) when it is exclusionary even by definition (its masculine nature of using “brothers”). Instead of simply dismissing this journey as a never-ending project, Mahmud encourages us to view this type of fraternity as a “set of promises” rather than a “fait accompli” (115). A promise that carries so much meaning her interlocutors—defined by their seemingly rationale project—keep pursuing the “impossible” (115). She argues, “we must recognize fraternity as an intentional project, something never quite achieved, but powerful precisely because of the unfilled potential with which It seduces people into devoting their lives to its pursuit” (197).Therefore, the paradox doesn’t undermine the project, but is an essential component of it. What ancillary concepts are developed to articulate the conceptual argument?Mahmud conceptualizes masonry more generally:Discretionary practices:Rather than referring to these masonic temples as “secret societies,” Mahmud uses the term discretionary practices which she defines as a “set of embodied practices that simultaneously conceal and reveal valued knowledge” (28). This tool allows freemasons to “pass” in the profane world. Only those who are trained, by means of initiation, can recognize certain esoteric symbols and practices. This allowed Freemasons to navigate the profane world, a place where negative undertones, ranging from alt-right conspiracy theories to shadow governments, plague the image of Freemasonry. These practices are learned. And are part of the intersubjectivity of freemasons. They are also considered sacred in many ways, creating debate over who has access to this knowledge… do women?(INTER)Subjectivity of freemasons/Desire for fraternity:Once a freemason is initiated, he/she is initiated for life (61). Their self-cultivation path is always ongoing and being a freemason is innate--they can’t ever stop being one. Being a freemason becomes part of them. This categorization becomes naturalized. Mahmud makes it clear that their subjectivity is always relational. There is a desire to be one of them. A desire to become a brother--by definition a relational term. Genderded Transparency:Mahmud problematizes the idea that transparency creates a different kind of social imaginary or justice. What does this new information do for us? For her interlocutors, there was this unique double bind when it came to transparency. Many had the desire for this visibility not because they wanted to occupy those spaces, but rather because they wanted the recognition. Women freemasons were in the “blindspot” of the Italian state and its push for transparency. In her writing practice, Mahmud addresses these concepts theoretically and empirically, while also emulating a discretionary practice by including “passcodes” throughout the book. To “enter” each section of the book, we first read an ethnographic story. Only after gaining the tools in the following chapter do we realize the significance of the story. A very common practice in pedagogy more generally, but also in the different initiation stages of freemasonry. How is empirical material used to support or build the conceptual argument? Ethnography (at galas, bars, theaters, private homes, masonic temples, etc); auto-ethnographic sections/reflexive sections enhanced the overall theoretical project (by sharing the “intellectual itineraries” (1) that led her to this fieldsite, we actually see how many freemasons enter the practice in similar ways, usually through some kinship tie, and Mahmud’s used her own race and how it was negotiated in the context of freemasonry and Florence to explore issues of “passing,” the contradictions in universal humanism, etc); interviews How robust is the main conceptual argument of the text? On what grounds could it be challenged?It’s extremely robust, mostly because the ancillary concepts are so well articulated and lead into the development of the overall argument. Ultimately, it’s a study of the gendered elite and their fraught relationship with other masonic lodges and mainstream feminism. It challenges homogenous assumptions of elitism and those who occupy those spaces. Mahmud talks about this “burden of representation” (189). She is not an anthropologist giving a “voice to the voiceless” but attempting to show the “social suffering” of Freemasons in Italian society, while simultaneously presenting their privileged status and complacency in other contexts and systems. I think her delicate handling of this actually pushes the limits of anthropology’s project of cultural relativism, but I could see how this delicate balance both could be of challenge/could be challenged. How could the empirical material provided support conceptual arguments other than those built in the text?Actually, the ancillary arguments in the text could each be supported as their own conceptual frames. More could be written on transparency and terrosim, discretion and aesthetics, and even epistemology and just forms of knowledge production more broadly. Modes of inquiry? What theoretical edifice provides the (perhaps haunting – i.e. non-explicit) backdrop to the text? Post-colonial theorists, feminist theorists, secrecy studies. In the backdrop, is this uneasiness--or at least what I feel is an uneasiness--that not all women only spaces or movements come from a place of feminism. I think we see Mahmud grapple with this and I think as readers we do as well. What assumptions appear to have shaped the inquiry? Does the author assume that individuals are rational actors, for example, or assume that the unconscious is a force to be dealt with? Does the author assume that the “goal” of society is (functional) stability? Does the author assume that what is most interesting occurs with regularity, or is she interested in the incidental and deviant? Mahmud assumes the desire for freemasonry is rooted in this desire for intersubjectivity. What kinds of data (ethnographic, experimental, statistical, etc.) are used in the text, and how were they obtained? Ethnography (at galas, bars, theaters, private homes, masonic temples, etc). She brings us on this intellectual journey with her and we learn the ways she navigated her own data collection in a space centered around secrecy and discretion. She conducts interviews in the private homes of her interlocutors, especially about more sensitive issues like 1993 “outing.” Her inclusion of this personal experience enhanced the overall theoretical project. In fact, all of her reflexive stories, which she weaves throughout the chapters, are a glimpse not only into her own positionality, but actually shape the very space she is researching. Some of these stories are placed in her “password” sections, a creative tool she uses to represent her own learning process while in the field. As a “native anthropologist,” raised north of Bologna to Eritrean parents, she discusses how her racial makeup was sort of a conundrum for many Italians wanting to “place her” in a certain nationalist discourse or history (35-36). So effortlessly, though, she shifts this reflexive anecdote into a larger discussion on the Enlightenment, liberal humanism, and the ways her Freemason informants interacted with her “racial otherness” (37). Her ability to shift between personal, theoretical, and ethnographic data in creative ways is one of the many lessons we should take from this book.If interviews were conducted, what kinds of questions were asked? What does the author seem to have learned from the interviews? In the interviews, Mahmud was able to ask very direct questions about the impact the 1993 “outings” had on her interlocutors and their families. It also created a space for Mahmud to directly ask questions about feminism, relationships/attitudes with other Masonic temples, histories of various temples, and more of the intimate conversations about what being a freemason meant for them individually. These interviews allowed Mahmud to really get at the paradox of not only the brotherhood, but also the contradictions and subjectivities of these elite women themselves. How was the data analyzed? If this is not explicit, what can be inferred? Juxtaposed the lived experience of freemasons, especially elite women, with the desires and freemasonry ideals rooted in the Enlightenment. How are people, objects or ideas aggregated into groups or categories?Elite Italian men/women; freemasons - male/female; the state; provincial Europe/EuropeansWhat additional data would strengthen the text? It’s tricky because Italian freemasonry is so unique in its secrecy, especially because of its associations with terror and the Lead Years, but I would love to learn more about these global connections with freemasonry more generally. Some masonic temples aren’t recognized by their Italian counterparts, but are by some international counterparts. Those global connections and relationships might be interesting to explore, especially in areas outside of Europe. Structure and performance? What is in the introduction? Does the introduction turn around unanswered questions -- in other words, are we told how this text embodies a research project? In “Introduction to the Path,” a play on the concept of freemasonry initiations, we learn there are two lines of inquiry throughout the text--one of fraternity and one of secrecy. We also learn this book is centered around a profound paradox that ultimately “expose(s) both the enduring appeal of liberal humanism and its inherent failures, even with the geopolitical boundaries of Europe” (17). To end the introduction, Mahmud writes, “over the course of this research, I had to train myself to see differently, speak diffeently, and move differently, as my informants did” (19). Mahmud had to rearticulate her habitus to navigate this project. Her own embodiment, then, becomes an integral part of the empirical and theoretical arguments.Where is theory in the text? Is the theoretical backdrop to the text explained, or assumed to be understood? This is the highest praise I have for the book, Mahmud’s ability to shift from personal to theoretical to ethnographic data is seamless. I wrote this earlier, but will put it here again: As a “native anthropologist,” raised north of Bologna to Eritrean parents, she discusses how her racial makeup was sort of a conundrum for many Italians wanting to “place her” in a certain nationalist discourse or history (35-36). So effortlessly, though, she shifts this reflexive anecdote into a larger discussion on the Enlightenment, liberal humanism, and the ways her Freemason informants interacted with her “racial otherness” (37). Mahmud does this throughout the entire book. Theory is included throughout, but it doesn’t overpower her own arguments and empirical evidence. Theory is used as a way to situate her own argument. What is the structure of the discourse in the text? What binaries recur in the text, or are conspicuously avoided? The book emulates the path of a masonic initiation. It’s not entirely linear, sometimes we learn things in “hindsight,” just as a freemason would. I believe it also has a lot of repetition which I would argue again emulates the masonic path or really any sort of learning path. There seems to be a character development throughout the text as well. Something quite rare in ethnographies. Transparency vs. secrecy (she problematizes this binary); profane vs. lived world (problematized this as well); antifeminism vs. feminism (the crux of the book, why are we so shocked by the term “women freemason?” Why does it seem like an oxymoron?; humanism vs. individualism How is the historical trajectory delineated? Is there explicit chronological development? The history of freemasonry and its relationship with the Italian state is introduced in the first chapter, but this historical relationship is further articulated in later chapters. We probably see interpretations from the present to the past more than we really learn about the past. The subjectivity of these freemasons are particularly shaped by events that happened in the 1980s and 1990s, so these events are recounted almost as if they were yesterday for some of these women. And these events continue to shape the infrastructure of the various temples. How is the temporal context provided or evoked in the text? In clear writings as a means of setting the scene; in conversations of interlocutors recalling certain events in the past How does the text specify the cultures and social structures in play in the text? Elite, white-middle class men and women freemasons, secret society with clear traditions and hierarchies; Italian government and its history of deeming freemasons as undemocratic How are informant perspectives dealt with and integrated? So seamlessly! This is where Mahmud had to really balance how she represented her subjects and their own interpretations of their discrimination. She asks “what about the unsympathetic subjects of ethnographic studies, whose right-wing or religious views on gender, class, race, sexuaity, labor, nationalism, or the military, for instance, might push anthropologists to the limits of our own cultural relativism?” (191). Mahmud had to integrate the perspectives of her interlocutors, but she had to strike a delicate balance of not being too sympathetic or too condemning of their practices.How does the text draw out the implications of science and technology? At what level of detail are scientific and technological practices described? They aren’t described, HOWEVER, Mahmud conducted her ethnography in the mid-2000s, I wonder how her discussion of transparency and discretion would change today? Would technology be discussed more? These are apparatuses that are informing not only the orders of nation-states and beyond, but also individual lives. How are they informing the freemasons’ lives? Have they had to develop new discretionary practices?How does the text provide in-depth detail – hopefully without losing readers? Mahmud’s ethnographic detail is extremely rich throughout the book, but the three “passwords” she includes are detailed anecdotes that serve as a precursor to the coming chapter. In hindsight, we then learn how these anecdotes related to the themes/concepts of the chapter, but these passwords are extremely detailed and often recall a specific event/interaction. What is the layout of the text? How does it move, from first page to last? Does it ask for other ways of reading? Does the layout perform an argument? It’s layout emulates the path of a masonic initiation, especially with the three “password” chapters. Like a masonic initiation, the book can be repetitive. The concepts are almost like building blocks that ultimately lead the reader to the main arguments on fraternity and secrecy. As a bit of inside knowledge, I know Mahmud used resources in fiction writing to help format the book and it’s recognized throughout the text.What kinds of visuals are used, and to what effect? No visuals are used. I imagine this more has to do with concerns from her interlocutors. She was asked not to share any masonic rituals or “secrets”--information that was the most valuable to them. Sharing these images would widen their discretionary images to the profane. For Mahmud, though, the relationalities and subjectivities of these practices were of the most importance to her. I think her writing is extremely visual, especially in those “passcode” chapters. I do wonder how visuals could be used in this book without falling into the realm of something like a Dan Brown novel. What kind of material and analysis are in the footnotes? The footnotes were extremely detailed. They not only provided further information on the historical context of events like the P2 scandal, but also added depth/context to the freemasons themselves. In terms of theory, Mahmud uses the footnotes to address theoretical debates over themes like “sisterhood” and “fraternity,” as well as situate the text within broader academic debates in anthropology. How is the criticism of the text performed? If through overt argumentation, who is the “opposition”? It’s performed by illustrating the inherent contradictions of freemasonry itself. The empirical evidence sits within these contradictions, so the argumentation becomes natural by the conclusion. How does the text situate itself? In other words, how is reflexivity addressed, or not? This is most definitely a feminsit ethnography, but it also situates itself in the anthropology of secrecy literature. I wrote about her reflexivity before, but here it is again:Starting on her very first page, Mahmud goes against “convention” (1) and chooses not to begin her monograph “in the field,” but instead shares some of the “intellectual itineraries” (ibid) that led her to this particular project and object of study. The shock she experiences, and later shares with us, when she discovered both her aunt and uncle were Freemasons is reflective of the many “outing” stories of her informants (64). Her inclusion of this personal experience enhanced the overall theoretical project. In fact, all of her reflexive stories, which she weaves throughout the chapters, are a glimpse not only into her own positionality, but actually shape the very space she is researching. Some of these stories are placed in her “password” sections, a creative tool she uses to represent her own learning process while in the field. As a “native anthropologist,” raised north of Bologna to Eritrean parents, she discusses how her racial makeup was sort of a conundrum for many Italians wanting to “place her” in a certain nationalist discourse or history (35-36). So effortlessly, though, she shifts this reflexive anecdote into a larger discussion on the Enlightenment, liberal humanism, and the ways her Freemason informants interacted with her “racial otherness” (37). Her ability to shift between personal, theoretical, and ethnographic data in creative ways is one of the many lessons we should take from this book. Circulation?Who is the text written for? How are arguments and evidence in the text shaped to address particular audiences? Definitely an academic audience at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Because it exposes the failures of liberal humanism, and these processes are found throughout the globe, I don’t think it fits neatly into European studies, its contributions are much broader than that. The text may not necessarily be written for those who want to study elite groups, but it is certainly a great tool to think about just research practices when studying with people who are in positions of power. How do we strike that balance? What does it mean to be accountable to these groups? Does Tallbear’s studying with instead of giving back work here? Does it need to be altered? I think these questions are in the backdrop of Mahmud’s text, but I think they have extreme relevance to anyone wanting to study alt-right political movements, elite institutions, etc. What all audiences can you imagine for the text, given its empirical and conceptual scope? Academic audience at both the undergraduate and graduate level - cuts across a variety of disciplines and subdisciplines. Also, imagine it being used to describe reflexicity done in an innovative and useful way. Maybe even in a methods class? What does it mean to represent the global elite ethnographically? How might how method change? What new knowledge does this text put into circulation? What does this text have to say that otherwise is not obvious? She’s the first to study women freemasons in the Italian context, so a lot of this knowledge, especially around intersubjectivity, is quite new. It’s relatable to other organizations and contexts, but it’s new. Embodied discretionary practices are also described in a new way throughout this text, a tool that can be transferred to different contexts, especially in the realm of secrecy studies. Because so few ethnographies have been written about women’s involvement in conservative spaces, this book fractures the imaginary of a “conservative women.” These women are contradictory and fractured. They have longings that are incongruent with their actions. They long for a liberal humanism that doesn’t fully let them in while simultaneously excluding people of color. I don’t know how obvious this in the everyday, but it is made obvious here. How generalizable is the main argument? How does this text lay the groundwork for further research? I think the promise of fraternity is generalizable. I think promise is applicable across many spaces. I think situating a project deep within this paradox is also a fascinating space to think and play in. How are people dealing with these contradictions? How are they internalizing them? Ignoring them? Navigating the structures? Working against them? In terms of the study of elite groups, this research is an example of some of the difficulties associated with this type of project- what does this representation look like? How do we gain access? What kind of “action” is suggested by the main argument of the text? Reexamining the very foundations of the Enlightenment. Other modes of expression? Describe how the material and arguments of this text could be presented in a form other than that of a conventional scholarly book -- as a graphic novel, museum exhibit, activist stunt, or educational module for kids, for example? In some ways this is difficult BECAUSE of the limitations I’m sure her interlocutors placed on photographs, sketchings, etc. Visuals could be a sort of “misdirect” for Mahmud’s argument because the core concepts of her book aren’t in the secret or symbols themselves, but rather in the relationality and subjectivity of the freemasons she studied. Even if she was allowed access to these visuals, how do you capture the embodiment of discretionary knowledge without the esoteric symbols themselves becoming the point of fascination? So, I think the exhibit would have to focus on both fraternity and secrecy. And because the 1993 “outings” were so intense and emotional for these freemasons, a visual exhibit with these documents (the newspaper clipping themselves, headings, etc) enlarged in one space juxtaposed by their raw and emotional reactions might be effective. Some of Mahmud’s quotes from her interlocutors could be seen around the clippings. It would be a space for freemasons to anonymously respond to this day in 1993. Maybe voice recordings of them recalling that day might be interesting. Some lost their jobs due to the “outing,” maybe those letter of termination could be included in the exhibit. There would be no master narrative to the exhibit. It would have news clippings, government documents, etc. more or less “on the side” of this transparency, but would be juxtaposed with their responses and reactions, giving the audience the ability to take it all in--the terror the public felt toward the freemasons, but also the very human reactions of the freemasons themselves.
Text
Language
English
English