The Future of Museums

Throughout the course of the semester, I have become acutely aware of my own tastes. Particularly with the past few readings, notably Stanton and Tyson, I have discovered that I have minimal tolerance for academic writing that values criticism over construction. This may be why this weeks readings felt so refreshing. Not only are they realistic and practical, but also they do not shy away from compromise and the occasional concession. Perhaps multiple authors force multiple perspectives. Perhaps the administrative quality of reports and assessments causes them to be more aware of the logistics of their own advice. Whatever the reason, this week’s readings encouraged putting problem-solving skills to work.

"Coming soon: The Future: The Shape of Museums to Come" by James Chung, Susie Wilkening and Sally Johnstone, presented a speculative vision of what museums may be in the year 2034. Using comparisons of how museums have changed in the past two decades and projections about demographics and economics, the authors concluded that museums will both face great challenges and have opportunities to engage wider audiences in new ways. The points about baby boomers and travel were the most grounded of the predictions, and the ones that are the most immediate to museums today. 

            Imperiled Promise documented the concerns among history workers in the National Park Service and suggests actions, policies and programs that could help the field of history within NPS. While I appreciated the suggestions and the case studies, parts of the report seemed vague. The report would benefit from a few case studies that dealt specifically with things like funding, scheduling and programming. 

            The Philadelphia Cultural Alliance portfolio does not offer much in terms of policy, instead, it plays a crucial political role: proving the importance of the cultural sector to the economy. While the numbers deserve some scrutiny (all I remember from Statistics is that I learned how to lie with numbers), the message is clear. Valuable to the economy according to the numbers, it would be beneficial to get data about the impact of the cultural sector on other city institutions like education and development. Regardless, it is a good starting point to lobby for financial support of the types of initiatives that Imperiled Promise would like to implement.

Readings:

Chung, James et al., "Coming soon: The Future: The Shape of Museums to Come," Museum 88 (May/June 2009): 38-43.

Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, “Arts, Culture, and Economic Prosperity in Greater Philadelphia.” 2011 Portfolio.

Whisnant, et al., Imperiled Promise: The State of History in the National Park Service (Part I). 

Readings Response: Tyson

In The Wages of History Amy Tyson sheds light on the misunderstood world of living history museum workers, and connects their emotional labor to growing, often disturbing trends in the non-profit realm. Having worked at a non-profit, I connected with many of Tyson’s observations. Though I genuinely respect Tyson’s motivations and many of her conclusions, certain aspects of the book detracted from Tyson’s more meaningful treatment of labor. I have pointed out three specific grievances that I feel should have been addressed in order to provide constructive criticism of The Wages of History.  

1.  Who is the audience? This book is aimed at academics, public historians, and museum professionals, the overwhelming majority of whom are intimately familiar with working for non-profits (and by extension the troubles that go along with it). While Tyson described the specific troubling aspects of being a living history worker, her complaints extend to most jobs in the public or private sectors. As such, the book could have benefited from a more constructive analysis of the workplace: one that criticizes but also aims to resolve the problems.

2.  Who gets a name? This is a book about the frontline workers, but not only is there no personalization of management, only certain perspectives are personalized among the interpreters at Fort Snelling. One survey respondent reasonably noted that many employees used the seasonal nature of the job to supplement other incomes and did not want permanent status. Tyson’s retort was that the response “conforms to the tenets of neoliberalism,” instead of having an honest dialogue with the respondent’s ideas. Tyson herself used her position to supplement her income and research while in graduate school. Cathy Stanton’s The Lowell Experiment comes across similar issues when the author is troubled by her reliance on the capitalistic system that she is trying to criticize. The Wages of History could have benefited from some honest self-reflection about why certain perspectives should be dismissed before going ahead and dismissing them.

3.  What should interpreters do? Tyson spends the most time on gender, class and race issues between interpreters and the content they must present to the public. The Native American history of the site is not give nearly as much space as race or gender, though, I would argue, for this particular site it is far more important. Much of the book felt as if Tyson were projecting her own interests rather than working at a specific historical site. Fort Snelling was and is still largely a military site and yet there is surprisingly little in the book about the interpreters’ relationship with the military. Researching between 2001 and 2006, if Amy Tyson wanted interpreters at Fort Snelling to be critical and interpretive, how could she not address the question of playing soldier when the real US military is actively engaged in warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Earlier in the semester the Historical Methods course assigned Trouillot’s Silencing the Past. While I believe Tyson’s objectives were noble, I also believe that she unintentionally silences people and ideas in order to come to those conclusions.

Reading:

Tyson, Amy M. The Wages of History: Emotional Labor on Public History’s Front Lines. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013.