The New Americans Museum. Panel vandalised. (image taken from the museum's Facebook page) |
Not surprisingly, after the elections, the Tenement Museum in New York, a
museum that tells America’s urban immigrant story has seen an “unprecedented
number” of negative comments by visitors about immigrants. It’s not an
isolated incident. Other museums, such as the Idaho Black History Museum or The New Americans Museum, recently suffered racially charged vandalism on their
premises.
Beware politicians who
bring out the worst in us, one might think. But one might also add, beware
museums which fail to see the politics in what they do. This was what I thought
when reading the first paragraph in Zach Aaron’s (a Tenement Museum board
member) response to the negative comments from visitors:
“As a trustee of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, I am proud
of our 28-year history of celebrating the lives and cultures of immigrants —
what brings us together as Americans, not what divides us. This is an
apolitical mission; from the museum’s founding, we have neither endorsed a
single candidate for public office nor taken a position on legislation.” (read
full text)
Migration and migration
policies are deeply political. How can a museum involved in telling this story
can state that its mission is “apolitical”? Why would they choose, considering
their subject matter, not to take part in the public debate when legislation is
discussed? And after analysing the election results, does it make sense for any
museum to stick to “what brings us together as Americans” and not to
acknowledge and discuss divisions in American society and their reasons?
Why is it that museums
do what they do? Why do they collect and preserve and study objects? In a
recent ICOM Europe conference, which took place in Lisbon and discussed the
role and purpose of national museums, the importance of sharing knowledge was
over-emphasised. But what kind of knowledge do we share and how? Considering
recent political developments in Britain, France, The Netherlands, Poland,
Hungary, Austria, to name a few, how can one evaluate the sharing of knowledge
museums in those countries (and in any other country, for that matter) have
been doing? Considering the atrocities taking place at this moment in Syria,
Yemen or Myanmar - atrocities seen so many times before which made us vow
repeatedly “never again” -, should we conclude that museums have failed their mission?
It’s not only up to
museums to build a better world, of course. They´ll never do it alone, still,
they cannot continue pretending that they are set apart from society (and
politics) and haven’t got a role to play. So, I believe that there are two
things that should be more thoroughly discussed in the museum field:
First, although the museums’
political role is more and more intensely discussed today, its acknowledgment
by the wider museum field seems to be more urgent than ever. Museums cannot go
on living the illusion of “neutrality”. It has become more than obvious,
considering the examples mentioned above, that, even if they wish to stay in
their cocoon and put forward a romanticised version of world (human) history,
reality catches up with them and drags them on stage. At the same time, an
effort needs to me made in order to distinguish “political” from “partisan” (the
misunderstanding becomes clear in the Tenement Museum’s response, but it’s generalised,
even among political scientists - read Political Science Call to Action), so that museums may draw a coherent and responsible
line of action. One that will also be clear and conscientious enough, in order
to be able to resist possible attempts of partisan exploitation. Not an easy
task, not at all, but certainly a necessary one.
The other point I
believe deserves more attention is dissent and conflict. It does make sense to
celebrate what brings us together, by also acknowledging our diversity. Still,
we must also acknowledge that this is not a peaceful and straightforward
process. As we must acknowledge that engaging people with opposing views in a
dialogue – especially one taking place in a museum - is not the easiest task. Most
people, when feeling that their views might be challenged, do not wish to
engage in a conversation. It’s natural and expected. So, going back to sharing
knowledge and fulfilling a mission, shouldn’t museums reflect more on what they
have been doing so far and how? Have they been sharing anodyne stories? Have
they been engaging only with the “converted”? Is there anything they can do to
take the discussion further and involve those with different views? Is it in
any way possible?
Questions are piling
up. The suggested readings that follow help push our thinking further.
More reading:
Rebecca Herz, How do museums help to create a better world?
Chris Whitehead, É preciso pôr os museus a falar do presente e a explicar por que não se pode caçar Pokémons em Auschwitz
Chris Whitehead, É preciso pôr os museus a falar do presente e a explicar por que não se pode caçar Pokémons em Auschwitz
Sarah Swong and
Jennifera Gersten, Notes towards a movement: Classical music in Trump’s America
Tiffany Jenkins, Politics are on exhibit at migration museums, not history
Liz Vogel, Facing ourselves is not easy
Liz Vogel, Facing ourselves is not easy
More on this blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment