In the 21st century, museums are being called on to act as arbiters of social inclusion, with a new emphasis placed on sharing untold stories and amplifying unheard voices. As Richard Sandell explains, “alongside its value as an educational institution, the museum must now present its justification in terms which demonstrate its ability to…tackle issues of deprivation and disadvantage, and reach the widest possible audience” (Sandell 564). For institutions that already focus on public programming as a primary means of audience engagement, this mission is more straightforward, as the museum is already experienced in sharing stories in innovative ways. But for institutions whose focus lies in the research and conservation of collections, pursuing a more socially inclusive programme may be more difficult and constrained by the parameters of their collections. In an ever-changing society demanding diversity, inclusion, and accessibility, where do these collections fit in?
In many museums, collections practices have been defined by the institution’s forebears, often with a narrow voice and perspective as guided by the societal values of the time. While societal values are shifting rapidly over time, museum collections are slower to keep up with these changes of pace, leaving a gap between a museum’s objects and its audience’s desires. With limitations on how and why institutions can deaccession collections (and the time it takes to do so), museums are not positioned to quickly respond to changing social climates using their collections. Additionally, as public program offerings are often driven by the museum’s collection with the goal of creating a comprehensive educational experience, their public programs are less relevant and inclusive than they could be.
One solution to this dilemma has been presented by Fred Wilson, whose Mining the Museum installation at The Maryland Historical Society flipped the script on the institution’s collection precisely by exhibiting the exclusion inherent in it (Corrin). But this type of self-reflection within the museum, when repeated too often in too many institutions, runs the risk of feeling trite or derivative, which reduces its impact on the audience. Perhaps another (albeit radical) approach is abandoning traditional collections altogether by deaccessioning objects over time, with a goal of creating a more fluid institution that can rapidly respond to change through a strategic network of loaning institutions and hyper-engaged public programming that adapts to the current cultural milieu.
When a museum’s collection has not been built with social inclusivity in mind, how can the institution offer socially inclusive public programs that respond to its audience’s needs? A focus on social inclusion in the realm of the museum may inadvertently exclude these collections-focused museums from the conversation, reducing their social relevance in the process. As the emphasis on social inclusion increases, museums must work to increase their flexibility and maintain their social relevance by adapting their approaches to traditional collections practices.
Works Cited
Corrin, Lisa G. “Mining the Museum.” Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts, 2nd ed., edited by Bettina Messias Carbonell, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 329-346.
Sandell, Richard. “Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion.” Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts, 2nd ed., edited by Bettina Messias Carbonell, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 562-574.
Originally written October 2022.
Art with an Opinion 