Applied History

This week’s readings regarding the role of museums in responding to current events centered around ideas of social justice all came from a progressive, activist stance within the museum field. A fundamental question to the readings was “what is the role of museums?” in addressing social justice, current events, race, activism, etc. In this regard, they were all in agreement that museums do have a role. No one argued that they don’t. I thought the articles/blog entries were inspiring, but only a few times did they mention the landscape they are up against. Perhaps it is difficult in this time to find anything written from a staunchly opposite viewpoint, but I am interested in the type of resistance proponents of socially conscious institutions face. One roadblock that was mentioned surrounded funding, a reoccurring and discouraging aspect of museum work for us this semester. Writing about the invisible histories of privileged institutions which are linked to infrastructures of colonialism and slavery, Trivedi remarks, “Now that I’ve worked at a museum for some time, I have a better understanding of why these histories aren’t included in museums’ narratives. Museums and cultural institutions in the U.S. function in an economic system that requires us to make decisions that will lead to reliable monetary outcomes.” This theme of brushing difficult or disruptive subjects under the rug as to not upset the precarious balance of traditional values and big-name endowments to an institution is a reality in the field at large. How can it be overcome to allow for the type of engaging, productive, community-focused education that the institutions in these articles advance?

That said, I do agree that museums have a social responsibility to address difficult issues that are happening in their environment, rather than act as a utopian space of humanity and enlightenment. They should serve as forums for community discussion, key players in community building, provide opportunities for continuing education, and a safe space for questioning and healing.

Two articles or examples stood out to me the most. First, the Northwest African American Museum’s #Ferguson PechaKucha stood out as an innovative way to build community and address pertinent national issues in locally-driven way. The featured panelists didn’t act as authorities on a topic, but were chosen to open discussion and introduce ideas from a broad range of perspectives. The use of the hashtagging continued the conversation locally, allowed participants to broadcast their perspectives during and following the event, and allowed them to participate in a national conversation. In this event, the museum served as a safe space for people to connect with the issue, engage each other in addressing it, shape a broader conversation, and provide tools for activism. It can be easily replicated in other institutions, dealing with a variety of issues. It allows the institution to participate in community building and in social justice in a democratic way, making their resources available without defining the way they will be used. Heeding the advice of Adams in “Practical and Compassionate Advice on Museums and Community Conflict,” however, this model can go even further. Adams cautions against reactionary engagement,  arguing that “Exhibits and programs with a community focus should not happen only after a tragic community event, but take place throughout the year.  By providing a space for difficult conversations on issues of race, class, gender identity, and immigration, museums establish themselves as a place where communities can come together to discuss conflict and begin to find resolution.” This is in the same vein as dialogic musuems and something that Sites of Conscience especially keep as part of their mission, but I think it is something both important and possible for a variety of cultural institutions, which broadly aim to serve the public.

(As a preface, I ended up reading a larger scattering of online blogs throughout this process so I’ve inserted links when I quote something rather than just referring to the author because I think a couple were actually linked in the readings but not the actual assigned readings)

Museums should be neutral institutions and they should reflect the public they serve and the communities in which they lie. Unfortunately, neither of these is true. First, I offer a definition of neutral that differs from the traditional concept. Here, neutral does not mean silent. It does not mean complicit. Neutral means providing the public with the opportunity to engage with all sides of an issue. Museums should not be afraid to engage with difficult issues and should certainly be venues for public discussions on such issues. “By providing a space for difficult conversations on issues of race, class, gender identity, and immigration, museums establish themselves as a place where communities can come together to discuss conflict and begin to find resolution.” (Melanie Adams) As public institutions they need to serve the public in a democratic (equitable) manner. I am hesitant to support the idea that museums should take a stand on one side of an issue or another because, in so doing, I wonder, is half of the dialogue shut down or turned away? I do not mean to suggest that museums should not challenge their visitors’ beliefs. Rather, they should be facilitating the public dialogue that challenges long-standing prejudices, on both sides of an issue. In order to have true democratic deliberations on tough issues, all sides must be represented. In the past, one side dominated the other and public institutions (schools, museums, libraries) served to perpetuate that side’s viewpoint. Museums must be sites for open dialogue. A neutral territory is needed. Museums are capable of filling this need. “How do we facilitate a conversation that may include opposing, and heated, perspectives? How do we maintain a safe space while allowing people to disagree? How do we correct misunderstandings and faulty assumptions that emerge in conversation? How do we guide these conversations to help people better understand each other and the world we live in?” (Rebecca Herz). By remaining neutral and by training frontline staff in facilitation of difficult discussion, museums can begin to answer these questions and begin to create safe spaces for conflict conversations.

As for the idea that museums should reflect and serve their communities – it is fairly clear from the readings this week that many museums struggle with this. First, the history of museums are tied up in the institutionalization that perpetuate many of the problems between races, ethnicities, genders, and classes. Museums began as the wealthy white man’s collections and many museums still maintain this depiction, although they are open to an increasingly multicultural public. “Oppression plays a role in the history and acquisition of all the works in our collections, and if we are to grow with our communities we need to move towards a place where we can honestly talk about even the unpleasant aspects of all our histories.”(Nikhil). Multiple blogs called for top-down self-examination to ensure that museums are not just preaching equality, but also truly practicing it. “Most museums are largely staffed by white people. They often evidence a difference in the color of administrative and support staff. They are run by boards made up of the “One Percent”. Until we can make change in our own institutions, any effort to address issues such as the Ferguson grand jury verdict will be artificial, and will be perceived as such.” (Rebecca Herz). This is the first step in the process of ensuring that museums become institutions of the public as well as for the public. The next step is to include the public. As Melanie Adams said, we need to begin talking “with the community” and not “to the community”. How can we hope to serve the community if we do not know what the community needs? Museums must begin by engaging the public before a crisis arises. Museums should be inviting the public to participate and partnering with local groups to build relationships. This must be part of the vision and mission of the museum and involve the entire museum, top to bottom. Jeanne Vergeront states, “Nothing less than a whole-hearted, sustained effort, guided by an aligned vision and mission and community outlook; with committed resources and activities; and support all across the museum from leadership to the newest hire is essential for relevant and meaningful action to issues like Ferguson.”

As a slight aside, but relevant to this discussion, did anyone else hear any of NPR’s This American Life this weekend? (I tried to find a link to the actual episode, but their website wouldn’t load on my computer. There is a free podcast you can subscribe to if you are interested.) It discussed police and policing across the US in light of the events in Ferguson, New York, and elsewhere. One of the points that struck me while I was reading for this class, is the simple fact that the police in the interviews were constantly talking about “public engagement” and building trust within the communities they serve. It was interesting to find out what that engagement entailed and if any part of it included addressing institutionalized issues and prejudices.

Also, this David Fleming tweet.

Q1: Should museums be involved in current politics/movements & should they be taking a stance? If so, in what ways?

This week’s readings are difficult to respond to because they are just so easy to agree with. If I’m remembering correctly, the goal of early museums was to strengthen the community, promote deeper thought, and encourage civic engagement. As women and people of color have started to become more equal participants in our society, this early museum goal should simply extend to include them.

Additionally, I agree that museum employees should seek to create meaningful relationships in their community, not just crawl out of the woodwork whenever it becomes convenient and marketable to support minority groups. The advice that museum management should strongly encourage their employees to spend time volunteering is fantastic. The time spent building camaraderie within the community will undoubtedly pay for itself tenfold.

I wonder how much the educational requirement of working in public history (i.e. requiring advanced degrees) hinders our ability to truly become democratic institutions within the community. As it stands now, the situation is tied deeply to economic privilege and creates a top-down power dynamic.

Q2: If they want to address current politics without taking a stance what would a neutral version of interpretation look like?

A neutral interpretation would be a nearly impossible challenge. Perhaps, poising two sides of the argument against one another in the interpretation and then leaving the conclusion up in the air for each person to determine for their own selves could create a neutral position.

Critics would still find a way to find fault in the interpretation. You would have to be meticulous in making sure that one “side” of the interpretation has an equal number of words and artifacts as the other.

Q3: Find somebody who’s arguing for museum neutrality/not taking a stance in modern times? Include a link if you can find one.

I was unable to find an article or link arguing this, so I’m looking forward to seeing with other people can dig up.

However, I think museums with really niche topics can absolutely get away with not making a stance about hot topics. For example, in my hometown sits the Cowgirls of the West Museum. While they could probably manage to tie women’s history and representation to Ferguson, their lack of funding and expertise on issues of race would likely result in a very superficial interpretation. A rushed interpretation might do more harm than good. In these cases, Craig Ferguson’s advice about voicing your opinion seems apropos. [Warning: Video contains cursing.]

However, this does not excuse niche museums from working towards a more inclusive overall story. The Cowgirl museum can (and should) still work towards including a diverse collection of cowgirl stories in their exhibit, but they don’t necessarily need to be front and center when it comes to Ferguson or other trending news.

—

If anyone is still interested, here’s the link to the mock border crossing I mentioned in class last week.

A few years ago, my former roommate and I were talking about our crazy college escapades.   I began reminiscing about how fun it was to have friends over every Sunday for dinner and a drive in my Volkswagen Bus to the foothills.   Turns out, those people who came over were MY friends and that, in fact, my roommate couldn’t stand them.   She was just being polite and put up with them because she did not want to cause strife. I was shocked!   I had no idea that she had a different perspective from my rosy memories. All these years, I had assumed that she had the same view.

Every rural museum seems to have the same type of exhibits – the general store, a blacksmith shop, and an early American living space, such as a kitchen or living room.   So with this week’s question of politics in museums, I was wondering what political statement bland and boring exhibits are making. Initially, my thoughts turned to the idea that stale exhibits are a critique on the lack of state funding given to historical endeavors – but then, after the readings, I thought about WHAT collections are displayed and realized what these exhibits are “saying.” Whose history is being portrayed with the lavish living room, the general store, etc.? And even though I assumed that they reflect our collective history, more than often, they reflect MY history as a white, middle-class American. And just like my roommate, I assumed that these type of collections speak to everyone’s experience.

When I was looking for political neutrality in museums, a few interesting points emerged. Museums have been using the same model for so long that the underlying messages are not considered political, even though inherently they are. For example, a museum chock full of ancient goodies usually don’t mention that many of the artifacts were looted by a 19^th century rich European man.   Or, if pieces are donated to the museum by a wealthy benefactor (with a prominent acknowledgement to said benefactor), what message does that give to the masses that live at the bottom of the hill?   My quest for an article about museum neutrality continues.

My favorite articles this week came from the Incluseum and Museum Commons. I felt that these articles gave great concrete ideas on how to bridge racial gaps in America’s narrative within the museum paradigm.   While other articles encouraged people to show indignation via social media or by wearing a T-shirt, it seems like those ideas are a tiny and temporary Band-Aid for a gaping wound. The Museum Commons acknowledged the importance of giving people a chance to voice their concerns, but stressed the importance of having a trained discussion leader in charge of the meeting, lest the meeting makes things worse. In turn, the Incluseum actually gave people a voice to many community members, so they could work through the feelings together. Also, the Incluseum has tried to foster a long-term relationship with the community so that when a controversial event happens, they are already seen as a compassionate place in which to discuss, not an entity that is trying to seem relevant and “cash-in” on tragedy. Finally, their programs that show the various ways that Seattle is becoming more inclusive and collaborative between groups is a great way for people to learn about the many positives that are going on.

This type of collaboration is imperative in order to create a museum space that reflects all of our histories

I believe a history museum or historical site is a perfect location to discuss Ferguson and race issues in the US.   It is the history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and institutional racism that has created an African American underclass that is daily reminded that their place is still at the back of the bus.  They are bombarded with media images of the wealth, abundance and success that is unattainable to so many people that are marginalized through discrimination.  Is it any wonder that many young African Americans turn to anti-social behavior when the approved path to success and respect is closed to them?  What affect does it have on young African Americans to know they will be followed in stores, are unwelcome outside of their neighborhoods, will be pulled over for DWB, and are generally suspect?  How can a person not internalize at least some aspects of society’s rejection?

According to Adrianne Russell‘s writing in Cabinet of Curiosities (December 11, 2014),  every museum “should commit to identifying how they can connect to relevant contemporary issues irrespective of collection, focus or mission.”  Writing in Museum Commons (December 16, 2014), Melanie Adams concurs, because for her museums are supposed to be places of learning and therefore should provide educational opportunities for the entire community.  She addresses four points to facilitate successful community engagement: (1) Have inclusive exhibits/programs throughout the year so addressing a current event does not appear reactionary, (2) partner with organizations that have experience and expertise in fostering dialog with diverse groups, (3) communicate with stakeholders and, (4) as much as possible have museum employees at all levels active in the community.  For those who may ask why a museum, whose mission has traditionally been viewed, in a conservative mindset, to collect, preserve and present, should discourse on current events, Deborah F. Schwartz replies in Museum (January 4, 2015) with “history is a vital modality for understanding the dilemmas of contemporary life,” for the past helps us comprehend our now and our tomorrow.

But before museums jump headfirst into issues that may be controversial Rebecca Herz cautions in Museum Questions (December 5, 2014), that museums need to look at their own make up and strive for greater diversity particularly at the senior level and in terms of the museum board’s make up.  If not, communities may perceive so called public engagement as privileged people going through the motions of compassion without really caring.  Moreover, if museums tackle controversial topics they need to have “strategies for facilitating politically loaded conversations” to provide a safe space with conversation that is geared toward learning and empathy rather than one that degenerates to name calling and further misunderstanding.

I think for history museums it is reasonable to host any current event that can be linked to our country’s history.  Therefore, most hot button issues that raise the hackles or cheer the soul, depending on your outlook, are possible topics.  But if a museum does address current issues how does it ensure it isn’t unfairly favoring one point of view over another?  In August 2014 the Missouri History Museum hosted a town hall meeting concerning youth and community in the aftermath of Ferguson.  It was moderated by African American civil rights activist Kevin Powell, whose message is understanding, reconciliation and justice.  By some standards he would be called a “liberal,” so does this mean the MHM should offer a “conservative” speaker the opportunity to talk about the same topics?  If a museum gave space to a group discussing historical discrimination against women and how it relates to disparate pay today, should it have to offer space to a group whose counterpoint is that it was not, and is not discrimination, but divinely assigned gender roles that everybody should embrace?  Should a publically funded science museum have to allow an exhibit on creationism if it has one on evolution?

I asked some conservatively minded friends about the MHM’s town hall meeting and they wanted to know if the Police Officers’ Benevolent Association wanted to use the MHM to present a talk on the difficulties and dangers of policing in an armed society if they would have been given the space to do so.  Others felt that public museums are supposed to be apolitical and any kind of current event dialog is going to engender disputes between extremes taking away from the museums learning agenda.  These were the reasonable comments.   Some, recounted how Michael Brown had robbed a convenience store and assaulted the owner, had a rap sheet as “long as your arm” and either assaulted the police officer or tried to kill him.  I asked, “regardless of the circumstances” doesn’t it seem like law enforcement is institutionalized to “protect and serve” in wealthy or middle class neighborhoods, somewhat indifferent to poor white communities, but focused on “policing” poor African American neighborhoods?  I was told the police go to where the trouble is and if people were obeying the law, they’d have nothing to worry about.  It’s always interesting to note, that poorer white Americans have, on an economic level more in common with poorer black Americans than they have with wealthy white Americans, but seem to be the demographic most stridently opposed to any empathy for African Americans (arguably my own middle class bias or condescension on display here).  Another legacy of slavery perhaps, where even if you were the “lowest of the low” in white society, at least you were not black.  More than one person thought of museums as moribund places where “old stuff” is, and they found it inconceivable that a museum would host something like the MHM had.  They saw an abuse of government funding and assumed the event was designed to inflame passions in another act by race hustlers who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

In an AP story on January 2, Jim Salter reported that the MHM was collecting artifacts from Ferguson’s public protests after the shooting in order to document history as it occurs.  He reported the MHM Library and Collections director as saying an exhibition is not currently planned, but these are artifacts of a significant political event in our history that should be preserved.   After the AP story appeared several conservative websites, such as Before It’s News and The Black Sphere, misreported this as “creating a museum of Ferguson” and stating “If this guy believes a black guy being a thug, then being killed by the cops is history, then that better be one HUGE museum.”  And you can only imagine the comments on the site in relation to this.

According to ProPublica’s website (October 13, 2014), young black men are twenty-one times more likely to be shot by the police than are young white men.  How many white parents who have “the talk” with their teenage sons are not talking about sex, but how to deal with the police so they are not shot?  As reported in the Boston Globe on November 26 of last year, this rite of passage included one father who took away all his son’s hoodies because he was worried that they invite police attention.   White kids get the benefit of the doubt and black kids get labeled as potential threats to be responded to in a preemptive manner.