“Your Museum’s Content is Inflammatory”

ULSG MuseumThe turn of Spring is always an exciting time at work. The weather starts improving, the nearby bike trail teems with runners, walkers, and bikers, and our attendance numbers go way up. It’s a great time of the year for interpreters to roll out new ideas and programs while helping visitors make meaningful connections about history, nature, and themselves. Most folks I interact with during our busy season usually say nice things to me and come away with a positive experience, but there are occasional moments when visitors take a more critical perspective about their experiences. One such moment occurred this weekend.

A visitor came to the park and browsed our museum for about ten minutes. The visitor returned to the visitor’s center desk and asked about the last time the museum had been “updated.” The museum is still relatively new, having been completed in 2007, so another ranger and I said that it had not been updated for that reason. The visitor then responded by saying, “your museum’s content is inflammatory. It says that racism and sexism are still prevalent today and I find that pretty provocative. I grew up during a time when those things were actually prevalent, and it’s not the same today! You have visitors from other countries who visit this park. Is that what you want to be telling them about our country?”

The visitor did not yell these things at us, but they were said in a manner that was very aggressive. It’s the sort of moment when your stomach turns during an uncomfortable situation and you are unsure of how to ease the tension in the room.

I responded in the best way I could while also proceeding with a great deal of caution. I stated that our museum is an interpretive one – a museum where arguments are made about the past and connections are made to present-day issues. Not everyone who visits this sort of museum will agree with the exhibit text, the content on display, or the arguments made within its walls. And, in an effort to acknowledge this visitor’s comments and show that I was taking them seriously, I added that there was probably room to revise the text in a way that was more cautious about contemporary issues. That seemed to do the job; the visitor went on a tour, said nothing else about the museum, and thanked us for a nice visit.

(For the record, I’ve walked through and read the text in our museum probably hundreds of times. As far as I know there is no exhibit that makes the claim that “racism and sexism are still prevalent,” although the museum does show visitors the virulent racism and sexism of Ulysses S. Grant’s time and it challenges them to think about our own shortcomings with these issues today. I think that is a completely appropriate and necessary position for the museum to take).

There are a couple takeaways I got from this interaction. One is that for all of the talk I hear about avoiding politics when talking about history at work, it is an undeniable fact that any museum exhibit that connects historic issues to contemporary society is inherently political. That doesn’t mean the content under discussion is necessarily “liberal,” “conservative,” or what have you, but public historians and museum practitioners should not be surprised when our interpretations provoke critical feedback that questions the arguments we’ve made. There’s a fine line between what we consider the past and what we consider the present. And there’s a fine line between “connecting history to the present” and “using history to make a political argument about the present.” The precise moment in which history crosses into advocacy is a matter of interpretation, and visitors to cultural sites will make those interpretations whether or not the content on display was intended to be political or not.

I think acknowledging that museums are political is a good thing, however. Obviously I would like for visitor critiques to be conveyed in a constructive and polite manner, but it’s good to see and hear visitors being provoked and talking about the issues a cultural site discusses. One can hope that this person went home and decided to read more about racism and sexism in society today. Who knows. If I could go back in time I might have tried to facilitate a short dialogue and challenged that visitor to further explain why they took the position they did and what they think we could do to improve the exhibit they took issue with.

Another challenge with this interaction is envisioning what history museums today would look like if they took out all connections to the present or if they tried arguing that racism and sexism are things of the past. I just don’t think that sort of interpretation is honest or accurate. Maybe we shouldn’t argue to international audiences that racism and sexism are prevalent in the United States, but isn’t it just as bad to say that we all love and get along with each other? Who’s really going to believe that? And with regards to racism in the U.S., what would it say about a museum like ours–a mere thirty minutes away from the now-infamous Ferguson, Missouri–to make arguments along these lines? Nowadays we might have fewer people who engage in blatant acts of individual racism, but that doesn’t mean that we have solved systematic racism today (or individual racism, of course).

In this era of 24-hour news cycles, partisan clickbait, and social media’s role in perpetuating confirmation bias, I believe museums offer an alternative space to check our prior assumptions and participate in meaningful reflection and dialogue. I’m not sure how to measure the “success” of this visitor’s particular experience and whether our museum achieved the goals of reflection and dialogue, but it was certainly an interesting moment for my own personal reflection as a public historian.

Cheers

Advertisements

12 responses

  1. The “your museum’s content is inflammatory” comment is another way of saying “don’t make me think,” “you’re thinking too hard,” “what you have on display is wrong (because it goes against my Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchal natural).” Hang in there, bud! Great post, as always. 🙂

    1. Thanks, Andrew. Whatever this visitor’s inner thoughts were, it was clear to me that the arguments we made conflicted with their understanding of racism and sexism today. As always, thanks for reading, Andrew!

      1. Sounds like you got this visitor thinking. Maybe, they’ll learn a positive lesson down the road after reflecting on it more.
        🙂

    2. The “your museum’s content is inflammatory” comment is another way of saying “don’t make me think,” “I’m thinking too hard,” “what you have on display is wrong (because it goes against my Multiculturalist White Guiltist Socialist Male Feminist nature).”

      See how you like stereotypes being applied to you. I’m pretty shocked Nick let this comment through without bothering to consider the possibility that said visitor was correct when they said that racism and sexism were more prevalent then than now.

      1. Hi Kristoffer,

        Let me try to address your comment with a few thoughts.

        First off, Andrew’s comment may not sit well or be agreed upon by all, but he is entitled to his perspective and I did not find it offensive, so it goes through.

        Secondly, I am not interested in debating whether or not racism and sexism are more prevalent now then fifty or a hundred years ago. That’s not really the point of this post. Obviously some horrible practices in this country are thankfully no longer a part of it: We don’t have segregated lunch counters and women aren’t barred from becoming lawyers and doctors or required to quit teaching once they get married. But asserting that museums that discuss these topics within a historical context should *also* argue that they are gone today, as this visitor suggested, is dishonest and inaccurate. Again, as I stated in the post, we may not want to say that racism and sexism are prevalent today, but we shouldn’t act like we all love each other and that no problems exist either.

        The point is not to measure the extent to which racism and sexism are prevalent today, but to acknowledge that they still exist in some forms today and that they remain strongly contested points of debate and discussion. The past shows us that the conversations about racism and sexism today have a history.

  2. Thanks for this measured and thoughtful post. You can’t please all the people …. Spaces for reflection are do vital. Regards from Thom at the immortal jukebox (give it a spin)

  3. I think you handled that very well, and I like the way you are thinking about how to address the challenges posed by inherent present political connections to historical events. Keep it up!

  4. Most of us in interpretive or visitor services roles have experienced difficult interactions like that but it sounds like you handled it as diplomatically as possible! I find it interesting that the visitor was concerned that international visitors might get a negative impression of the US because of your museum’s content. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with that, it does at least demonstrate that many people perceive museums to be integral to regional or national identity.

    1. Hi Ashleigh,

      Thank you for this thoughtful comment. I agree that the concern about international audiences and how the U.S. was being represented in the museum was interesting.

What do you think? Leave a comment here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: