MLM Social Justice and Museums
2/8/15
This week’s readings got me to thinking about risk-taking with sensitive subjects such as social justice in Boise. Just think about the recent “Add the Words,” education issues, and other political debacles in Idaho. It’s hard to think of being a risk-taking public institution in an insular community with closed-minded leaders. BUT…
Should museums be involved in current social movements?
Yes!
-Museums are cultural institutions, and therefore, are responsible for taking the lead on broaching difficult social, political subjects with the public.
-Most are publicly funded, which lends credence to collective leadership on social issues, short of advocacy.
-Museums are the perfect place to educate the public about issues, difficult or not. They are usually in community centers, can be non-threatening places for conversation, and can include various people at different social levels for diverse conversation. Community means gatherings, shared histories, memories and places.
-“Agents of change” – leading the way – communities matter…
-Relevance – staying abreast of current issues connects museums to the public – should move them closer to their constituent base, not farther away.
-Silence is complicity (ie; #BlackLivesMatter).
-Multidisciplinary, multiage, multigenerational, multicultural opportunities- reciprocal participation w/audiences and communities.
-Places for multiple voices, democratic ideals.
-Museums are invested in their communities – reciprocal investments: public will invest in institutions.
Arguments for museum non-action, or neutrality, in contemporary issues:
-Budget and fiscal issues: losing funding or visitorship due to social action.
-Possible divisiveness of individual personal opinion, or contradiction between personal consciences and the institution = inaction, silence. (Don’t rock the boat publicly.)
-Politics. Powerful people control the messages, funds, and therefore, actions, of the institutions. Fear of politicians, elected officials, strong community members.(Do you have a diverse board? Who funds? Who speaks for the institution?)
-When missions collide with social justice. Example: diversity. Is the institution mission narrowly defined, with no articulated goal of cultural education, diversity, broad representation?
-Mission clearly articulates “no advocacy.” This works well for being neutral, but it can also work to disadvantage if appearance is this is due to fear of taking a position for cultural change.
-Risk-averse: stay with “what has worked well in the past.”
-Institution is reluctant to change with the times, or stay in the “facts-only” mode. Limit interpretation and stories to minimal exploration – no critical thinking, just presentation of facts and no story behind them – prefer no public engagement, as this will give up institutional authority and control.
-Prefer to talk “to,” not “with.” (Safer?)
-Untrained staff, leaders, docents/volunteers, or some that are unable to embrace social change, deal with difficult issues, or critical thinking.
-Fear of the media. What happens when a reporter calls?
-View of purpose: “temple of privilege?” for whom is this institution for?
-Untrained in contemporary modes of communication, including social media, technology. Not fast enough, integrated enough, lack of reach.
-Hidden agenda of Boards, leaders, managers, staff, volunteers.
-“The man behind the curtain.” Faceless bureaucrats or institutional employees who claim powerlessness due to hierarchical structures, Boards, funding contributors, rules, regulations.
-Internal division – prefer to remain neutral than risk a combative staff, especially with one another.