Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions
Molly Fannon (Museum for the United Nations – UN Live), keynote speaker at the NEMO Conference, brought to us the words of Joseph Henry, first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution: "The worth and importance of the Institution is not to be estimated by what it accumulates within the walls of its building, but by what it sends forth to the world."
The discussion regarding the worth and importance of museums has reached in the last months one of its most intense points. We must ask ourselves, just like Henry suggests, “What do museums send forth to the world?”
The recent – and ongoing - discussion regarding the proposal for a new museum definition has fully exposed the rift within the museum world. And that, in principle, is a good thing. It will oblige us to look at what we are doing, how and why we′re doing it, considering the changes taking place in our societies and, inevitably, within the field.
Fran?ois Mairesse, who resigned from the committee tasked with rewriting the definition, called it “a statement of fashionable values, much too complicated and partly aberrant.” The Museums Association quoted “several people with knowledge of the situation” who considered that the disagreement is part of a wider battle between the traditionalist and progressive wings of ICOM. And Luís Raposo, President of ICOM Europe, reporting on the Kyoto General Assembly in a Portuguese newspaper, stated that this is a confrontation “between a purely instrumental and aspirational vision of museums, which essentially diminishes them by assimilating them to any other institution or cultural project animated by the motivations and principles of social democracy, and another, which, although not rejecting such principles, seeks to concentrate on what distinguishes museums, makes them unique and, therefore, magnifies them in their irreducible originality.” Raposo considers that the first perspective is best suited to what he calls “activists of all just causes”; the second, to museum professionals.
Our panel at the NEMO conference was entitled “Peace, justice, strong institutions: How can and should museums play a role in an increasingly unbalanced, politically challenged age?”. Should we consider peace and justice – just to state two words that form part of this title – “fashionable values”? And our colleagues who have been actively defending these and other values - through their work, no matter what the museum definition is - not be acknowledged as the museums professionals that they are, but as “activists of all causes”?
Although I was myself very critical of the proposal for a new museum definition, my criticism had mainly got to do with the form, not the content. Actually, I – just as many other museum professionals around the world – have embraced for a long time many of the principles and values stated in the proposal, because this is precisely the way we interpret the current museum definition, namely where it refers to an “institution in the service of society and its development (…) for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
Another issue that has clearly emerged in this discussion – and which I, personally, tend to focus a lot on – is whether we are just full of words. In their mission statements (when they exist) and other texts and presentations, the majority of museums and cultural organisations say that they exist to defend and promote freedom of expression, dialogue, critical thinking, social cohesion. Is this what we actually do, though, in practice? Or rather, despite of what the museum definition might state, we are here to collect, research and simply exhibit objects? Making no effort, whatsoever, in actually using these objects as a practical tool, making them meaningful and relevant for people of different backgrounds? Do museums really wish to connect to their societies and do they take a stand in practice, publicly, when certain values are being ignored and attacked. And if they do (or say that they do), are people aware of that?
To give just a couple of examples, the Museum of Memory and Human Rights in Chile has been actively involved in the huge demonstrations currently taking place in the country and they have been very vocal. In Lebanon, a number of leading cultural organisations collectively committed to Open Strike and made provisions in order to allow their staff and members to join the protests. “Arts and Culture are integral part of every society”, they stated and this is what I mean when I question whether museums really wish to connect to their societies: how vocal are they regarding what is going on around them? Was there any reaction, for instance, from European cultural organisations (and the many European migration museums, in particular) regarding the recent vote in the European Parliament against improving search and rescue of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean? What happened to the European values we are so proud of? To the international conventions we have signed? How can we keep silent when those who are supposed to defend them - because this is what the European Union was built upon - blatantly violate them.
I am more and more interested to see if and how museums take part in public discussions. What it is that they do when they say they take a stand. Thus, it was a privilege to moderate a panel with Keiu Telve (Vabamu Museum of Occupations and Freedom) and Vi?nja Kisi? (University of Belgrade).
The mission of Vabamu Museum, Keiu told us, it to reflect on recent history, make people aware of the fragility of freedom and to promote liberty and justice. Every day, the museum shares stories, not with the intention of blaming someone or defining who was right or wrong, but with the aim of creating empathy, putting visitors in someone else’s shoes.
Vi?nja made a passionate speech, reminding us that we are all responsible for a number of violent – and violating - situations taking place in our societies by not questioning the way things function. She said that the system has integrated museums in this web of violence and that museums help normalise it, but not even questioning it.
How “implicated” are we, I thought to myself. Both in the negative sense – of perpetuating violence – and in the positive sense – of taking a stand in questioning the system and fighting the violence.
In a different panel, Tiina Merisalo (Helsinki City Museum) said that Helsinki has the ambition of becoming the most functional city in the world. In its 2017-2021 strategy, one reads that a functional city is based on trust. “Safety and a sense of mutual trust and togetherness are a competitive edge for the city. The city is of everyone. The city is built together.” Tommi Laitio, Helsinki’s executive director for culture and leisure, discussing the city’s new and ambitious public library, stated in an interview: "Our society is fundamentally dependent on people being able to trust the kindness of strangers.”
Will museum contribute in building that trust? Will they fight for peace, justice and strong – functional – communities?
This text is based on my introduction for the panel “Peace, justice, strong institutions: How can and should museums play a role in an increasingly unbalanced, politically challenged age?” at the NEMO Annual Conference, which too place on 7-10 November in Tartu (Estonia). It includes references to other presentations made during the conference.