In response to a call for action by the Canadian Museum Workers and Scholars for Palestine (CMWSP), many museum professionals voiced outdated views of the purpose of museums. A series of assumptions were shared, that I refute below.
- Museums Aren’t Political
The idea that museum’s are neutral institutions that aren’t influenced by modern politics shouldn’t be held by anyone who actually works in the GLAM industry. How we present history, the words and tone we use are all determined by the sensibilities of the curators, the board of directors, the municipal, provincial or national funding institution, and hopefully, the community being represented. If you look in the history of any institution, it will show the changes made as what is considered appropriate changes over time.
- Museums should record History, not be a part of it
This assumption fails to understand how historiography works. The recording of history, and in particular how you record history, is as much a part of the history as the material being recorded. Museums are an interpretation of history, which will change as politics change.
- Museums should only address damage to heritage sites
I think this gets at the core of why museums are colonial. Museums are built on collections, I do not dismiss the importance of caring for the artifacts. However, to value ‘stuff’ over the culture that is preserved by living people seems absurd. Museums play a vital role in the recording and preserving of culture, and that should include helping living cultures thrive, which starts with preserving human lives.
An important distinction was raised between neutrality and objectivity. Neutrality is refusing to take sides in a conflict, being impartial. Objectivity on the other hand, is assessing each side without allowing personal biases to influence the facts. The difference between these is that neutrality inhibits making decisions. It views both sides as having equal worth. This is not a sustainable stance for a museum to take.
For example, I am drawn back to my childhood museum, the Royal Tyrrell Museum. Located in Drumheller, Alberta, the Royal Tyrrell is one of the foremost dinosaur museums in the world. They inevitably run into conflict with certain religious factions and beliefs. A neutral stance would have the Tyrrell present Young-Earth Creationist theories alongside scientific theories which form archeological, astrophysical, biological, chemical, cosmological, glaciology and geological timescales. Instead, the Tyrrell has taken an objective stance, where they assess the evidence for each theory and present the most scientifically accurate theory.
I think each museum will encounter similar dilemmas, if possibly on a smaller scale. For instance, at a recent museum I worked at, when we were updating signage, there was a discussion regarding Indigenous names and which ones to include. In my opinion, this would count as a political issue.
I think one of the issues Museums run into is that they are meant to be objective, using a very subjective medium. Interpretive writing is done thorough stories. Stories operate on emotion. Moreover, not every issue should be examined completely objectively. For example, if one were to do an exhibit on living with disabilities, it might be tempting to rely on academic theories on disabilities and the doctors who treat them. However, living with disabilities can only truly be told by the people themselves. Therefore, a subjective treatment of the topic would be necessary, through the voices of the disable persons.
