bmgn — Low Countries Historical Review | Volume 137-1 (2022) | pp. 1-4
Reply to Gertjan Plets
and Marin Kuijt1
As curator of Rijksmuseum Boerhaave, I researched the history of energy in
the Netherlands in the context of the exhibition entitled Verborgen Krachten
(Hidden Powers) in 2011/2012 and the accompanying collection of essays
Verborgen Krachten: Nederlanders op zoek naar energie (Hidden Powers: the Dutch in
search of energy, 2011).2 This research proved to be a veritable eye-opener for
me. Whereas the Dutch regard themselves as inhabitants of a country defined
by water and wind, windmills and sails, our history was actually largely
marked by fossil fuels in a special way – ever since the sixteenth century, when
the Dutch started to systematically extract peat as a fuel on a national scale.
Based on a literature study, I claimed that the Netherlands must even have
been the first fossil fuel-based economy in the world.
By focusing on the entwinement of the Netherlands with fossil fuels,
which was eventually continued by the Koninklijke Olie/Shell company
and the natural gas production at Slochteren, I aimed to expand existing
historiography in the hope that historians would delve deeper into this
matter, whether by agreeing with this entanglement, by qualifying it, or by
criticising it, based on substantive arguments. That is how historiography
progresses.
Now, ten years later, there is a reaction in the form of Gertjan Plets and
Marin Kuijt’s article, but unfortunately, it is not one that addresses the actual
content of my work for Museum Boerhaave in 2011/2012, but one that doubts
the integrity of my intentions. Their critique boils down to the suggestion
that, as a staff member of Rijksmuseum Boerhaave, I have presented a
favourable view of fossil fuels because I would have been influenced by the
Shell company, which sponsored the exhibition Verborgen Krachten (pp. 10-13).
In science, calling into question a researcher’s independence is regarded as a
serious accusation, which should require a robust underpinning. Yet, I detect
six problematic aspects in the authors’ argumentation.
The first is their use of sources. The authors diligently report that their
analysis is based on a ‘close reading’ of exhibitions, interviews and analyses of
exhibition-related documents (p. 1). However, for their analysis of Verborgen
Krachten they never spoke to any of the people involved3 and consulted none
Published by Royal Netherlands Historical Society | knhg
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
doi: 10.51769/bmgn-lchr.11658 | www.bmgn-lchr.nl | e-issn 2211-2898 | print issn 0165-0505
1
reply – repliek
of the exhibition documents, and there is nothing in their article to indicate
they have even seen the exhibition. Their analysis of Verborgen Krachten appears
to rest almost entirely on one single source: the aforementioned booklet
Verborgen Krachten: Nederlanders op zoek naar energie.4 The authors apparently
assume that this booklet is a direct representation of the exhibition. That
is curious, as it is no more than a collection of essays compiled by Tiemen
Cocquyt and me about various topics from the Dutch energy history.5 Based
on their flawed source analysis, Plets and Kuijt create a lopsided image of the
exhibition. For instance, they fail to mention that the protests in the 1970s
and 1980s against nuclear energy and companies like Shell were extensively
highlighted in a separate pavilion.6
By garbling quotations and paraphrases – and this is a second
problem – the authors arrive at the conclusion that ‘the exhibition discursively
connected fossil fuels to Dutch citizenship or “Nederlanderschap”’ (p. 11).
1
This reply is based on the ‘online first’-version
in the Dutch museum world’. As a curator, I am
of the article ‘Gas, Oil and Heritage: Well-oiled
obviously not involved in such matters, so I asked
Histories and Corporate Sponsorship in Dutch
a colleague with expertise in funding to answer
Museums (1990-2021)’, bmgn – Low Countries
this question. Plets’ e-mail contained no reference
Review (Online first 2021) 1-28 by Plets and Kuijt,
to Verborgen Krachten nor to any other exhibition-
published in September 2021. The page numbers
related topics.
and footnotes mentioned in this reply therefor
4
erroneously to the Verborgen Krachten booklet,
this version here, https://bmgn-lchr.nl/article/
while it is derived from a newspaper interview that
view/7028/online-first. An amended version of
they ultimately mention in note 34. In note 28 they
also refer to a radio interview. More on this below.
Plets and Kuijt’s article was published in March
2022, both online and in print, DOI: https://doi.
2
5
The booklet was published as part of the
org/10.51769/bmgn-lchr.7028.
exhibition, but it was not a catalogue providing
In this project I collaborated with my colleague
a survey of the content of the exhibition. For the
at Rijksmuseum Boerhaave, Tiemen Cocquyt,
compilation, we invited academics and journalists
who was also co-editor of the booklet Verborgen
to reflect on topics of their own interest related to
Krachten. Since I was responsible for the
Dutch energy history. The contributions written
historical part of this project, I am writing this
by Cocquyt and myself in the volume only partly
overlapped with the conclusion of the exhibition.
reply. Plets and Kuijt’s paragraphs dedicated to
Verborgen Krachten (pp. 10-15) especially refer to
3
Moreover, the authors link one statement
refer to the online first article. You can find
6
The Verborgen Krachten exhibition consisted
the introduction of the booklet and three short
of six pavilions covering the entire history of
essays written by me entitled ‘Schop in eigen
energy in the Netherlands. Two were dedicated
bodem’ (‘To dig one’s own ground’). See Tiemen
to fossil fuels (one on peat and one on coal, oil
Cocquyt and Ad Maas (eds.), Verborgen krachten:
and gas). The other four concerned the origin of
Nederlanders op zoek naar energie (Hilversum 2011).
the scientific concept of energy, nuclear energy,
A note to this: in my inbox I found a message by
the protest movement of the 1970s and 1980s and
Gertjan Plets, dating from 21 May 2019, requesting
the contemporary search for alternative energy
an interview about ‘changing funding structures
sources.
I started the booklet with a plea for greater interest in Dutch energy history, as
it has had a great impact on Dutch national history and landscape (quarrying,
gas-heated greenhouses, windmills, etc.). My claim was that there had
been relatively little interest in this subject in the existing literature and I
continued as follows:
The struggle against the water is seen as the quintessence of Dutchness, while
the feverish search for energy is in no way represented in our self-image.
Nevertheless, it does have typically Dutch characteristics, as will be shown by
authors erroneously report, AM)
The authors represent this quote as follows in their article on page 11:
fuels to Dutch citizenship or ‘Nederlanderschap’ (Verborgen Krachten, p. 8).
Throughout, the exhibition’s narrative perpetuates the image that searching
for energy and fossil fuels is an intrinsic part of the Dutch national identity: a
‘typical Dutch characteristic’ (Verborgen Krachten, p. 8).
It is particularly the authors’ insertion of ‘fossil fuels’ at strategic places which
misrepresents the content.
The third shortcoming is presentism. Whereas 2011 is only eleven
years ago, views on fossil fuels have changed considerably since then,
especially in recent years. In 2011, hardly anybody was surprised by the
neutral tone of the exhibition, in which the nature of the topic inherently
meant that Shell received a prominent position. The exhibition was actually
opened by the eco-conscious Diederik Samsom of the social-democratic party
PvdA. The view expressed in the exhibition that the Netherlands would be
relying on fossil fuels for decades to come was one that was widely shared.
Plets and Kuijt implicitly apply today’s standards to support their suggestion
that our story was influenced by Shell.
The fourth problematic aspect is that their entire argumentation is
based on hineininterpretieren: a biased reading of the texts.7 Their method of
‘close reading’ apparently gives them the right to make assertions (‘Reading
between the lines of the exhibition, however, we find that’ ... etc.) without
further substantiation. At the same time, nowhere in their argumentation is
there any direct evidence for their key observation.
7
One example concerns the authors’ quotation
fossil fuels. Although this statement is almost a
of the exhibition’s concluding message (i.e. the
truism (and this was definitely the case in 2011),
booklet’s, but in this case they do correspond)
the authors use it as evidence for the influence
stating that geographic conditions make it
of Shell.
difficult for the Netherlands to dispense with
3
reply
(...) [T]he exhibition [meaning the booklet, AM] discursively connected fossil
maas
the stories presented in this book. (Verborgen Krachten, p. 7, and not p. 8 as the
reply – repliek
The fifth problem is the authors’ selective use of historiography,
which interestingly is precisely one of the accusations the authors level at the
museums under discussion and at their staff in the publicity for their article.8
Yet, in the radio interview from 2011 mentioned in note 28, I extensively
answered (starting at 15:25) the interviewer’s question about the development
and content of the exhibition and the relationship with the sponsor: crucial
information that relates to the core of Plets and Kuijt’s research.9 While the
authors of course could have used arguments to criticise my assertions – one of
which is that Shell had no influence on our story – they opted to mention the
interview in a footnote while completely ignoring its content. And finally, the
authors have decided not to give us the chance to present our side of the story.
The aim of my reply does not concern the authors’ general research
question, nor have I wanted to discuss the more policy-related aspects their
article addresses, as this is beyond my expertise. I have replied in my capacity
as a professional historian.
I invite the authors to reconsider their argumentation as it
insufficiently substantiates their assertion that I have presented a biased view
of Dutch energy history in Verborgen Krachten, under the direct or indirect
influence of the sponsor. I also invite readers with an interest in scientific
methods and research integrity to form their own judgement. With the
publisher’s consent, I have made the original booklet Verborgen Krachten
available on my Academia.edu page.10
In the meanwhile, more serious attention to Dutch energy history
remains more than welcome.
Ad Maas
8
podcast/59379/historici-shell-beinvloedt-
See: ‘Besmeurd verleden: De fossiele industrie
tentoonstellingen-nederlandse-musea.
schetst een zo positief mogelijk beeld van zichzelf
in musea’, Utrecht University, 13 September 2021,
9
Botte Jellema, ‘Verborgen krachten’, vpro, 6
https://www.uu.nl/nieuws/besmeurd-verleden-
October 2011, https://www.vpro.nl/speel~POMS_
de-fossiele-industrie-schetst-een-zo-positief-
VPRO_196671~verborgen-krachten~.html,
mogelijk-beeld-van-zichzelf-in-musea; ‘Historici:
Shell beïnvloedt tentoonstellingen Nederlandse
accessed on 30 October 2021.
10 https://www.academia.edu/63338601/Verborgen_
musea’, npo Radio 1, 19 September 2021, https://
Krachten_Nederlanders_op_zoek_naar_
www.nporadio1.nl/podcasts/ovt-fragmenten-
energie?sm=b.