The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics

Redefining Ethics for the Twenty-First Century Museum

Janet Marstine, Janet Marstine

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136715266
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics is a theoretically informed reconceptualization of museum ethics discourse as a dynamic social practice central to the project of creating change in the museum. Through twenty-seven chapters by an international and interdisciplinary group of academics and practitioners it explores contemporary museum ethics as an opportunity for growth, rather than a burden of compliance. The volume represents diverse strands in museum activity from exhibitions to marketing, as ethics is embedded in all areas of the museum sector. What the contributions share is an understanding of the contingent nature of museum ethics in the twenty-first century—its relations with complex economic, social, political and technological forces and its fluid ever-shifting sensibility.

The volume examines contemporary museum ethics through the prism of those disciplines and methods that have shaped it most. It argues for a museum ethics discourse defined by social responsibility, radical transparency and shared guardianship of heritage. And it demonstrates the moral agency of museums: the concept that museum ethics is more than the personal and professional ethics of individuals and concerns the capacity of institutions to generate self-reflective and activist practice.

Part I THEORIZING MUSEUM ETHICS

DOI: 10.4324/9780203815465-1

1 The Contingent Nature of the New Museum Ethics

Janet Marstine

DOI: 10.4324/9780203815465-2

Introduction

In 2008, Scottish performance artist Anthony Schrag scaled a column of the classical portico fronting the Gallery of Modern Art (GoMA) in Glasgow and, then, partway up, held on to the fluting while extending his legs until his feet reached the adjacent column (Figure 1.1). In this brief but expressive piece, entitled Push,¹ Schrag exerts both a physical and metaphorical pressure on the museum. Through bodily means Push calls for ethical change in the museum responsive to the needs of contemporary society. Schrag explains:

Figure 1.1 Anthony Schrag, Push, 2008, Gallery of Modern Art, Glasgow. Copyright, Anthony Schrag.

It’s an instinctual, responsive piece that came from my frustration at a museum’s monolithic status within a cultural landscape. It was a symbolic gesture harking back to the myths of Samson, wherein he broke the pillars of the temple that held him. It was finding a way to both critique and belong within those systems, and attempt to add another, tangential pathway through and around the building. My desire is to disrupt expected modes to find new ways of speaking.²

In the Hebrew Bible Samson has so much rage towards the Philistines who blinded, seduced and imprisoned him that he draws strength from God to collapse the two temple pillars to which he is chained during a celebration; he thus destroys the temple and the Philistines who were inside it, sacrificing himself in the process.³ Schrag mimics Samson’s act to convey a similar alienation from an oppressive environment. Schrag’s action compels the viewer to imagine dynamic and participatory new museum models defined by divergent voices. He asserts, “the impulse for this type of work comes from an interest in theories related to socially engaged practices and inviting a wide spectrum of the public into a shared cultural debate.”⁴ Schrag’s Push adroitly encapsulates the thinking of the new museum ethics, an approach that, I shall argue, is a feminist-inspired mode of critical inquiry defined by its contingent nature.

It is common practice for ethics centers, institutes and think tanks to use symbols of measure, enlightenment and strength to represent the concept of ethics; images of scales, compasses, torches and pillars predominate.⁵ But these icons connote moral certainty, a characteristic that does not define twenty-first-century museum ethics. I have found institutional critique—artists’ systematic inquiry of the policies, practices and values of museums—a useful touchstone by which to grapple with the multi-faceted and contingent nature of museum ethics today. Schrag’s performance functions as such. It refutes the rigidity of museum power with the realities of corporeal presence to model a process that admits complexity, contradiction and flux.⁶

Institutional critique such as Schrag’s positions museum ethics as a discourse, a social practice which impacts the construction of knowledge and the way we behave. Foucault has established that discourse can function as a mode of asserting power but it may also serve to subvert social relations.⁷ By examining museum ethics as social practice, I will illuminate the dynamics of authorized and alternative ethics discourse and offer a corrective to this under-theorized sphere of inquiry.

The authorized museum ethics discourse has both shaped and been shaped by the prioritization of skill development and standard setting that characterized the museum and museum studies sector for much of the last century. Gary Edson’s 1997 seminal volume Museum Ethics advanced this notion of professionalization. “Museum ethics is not about the imposition of external values on museums, but about an understanding of the foundations of museum practices,” he declared.⁸ Ethics as professionalization has played a significant role in distinguishing public service from personal gain and political interests. But in this century the shifting terrain drives a critique of common practice to implement change that meets the current and future needs of society.

Social and cultural change lead to alternative discourses that undermine authorized discourse. Recent social, economic, political and technological trends have sparked in the museum sector a developing discourse about the moral agency of museums that contests the authorized view of ethics. Richard Sandell has argued persuasively that objectivity is an elusive stance and a default position that imparts value through the invoked authority of the institution. Sandell uses the term “moral activism” to suggest a direction for museums to realize their potential as change agents in promoting social inclusion and human rights both inside and outside the museum.⁹ Hilde Hein identifies what she calls an “institutional morality,” asserting that, while museums may not have conscience, they do have moral agency.¹⁰ Hein’s institutional morality moves beyond personal and professional ethics; it suggests that, while museum staff may come and go, their synergy across time and place, especially as built into the mechanisms of organizational change, creates an institutional ethics, as well as an ethics of the museum sector. In this chapter I will show how the discourse of contemporary museum ethics is founded on the concept that institutions have moral agency. And I will define three major strands of theory and practice through which museums can assert their moral agency: social inclusion, radical transparency and shared guardianship of heritage.

It is well documented that the museum sector has become increasingly more responsive to the shifting needs of society; museums have come to accept and even embrace change as a defining element of policy.¹¹ Nonetheless, institutional bureaucracies, the demands of funding sources and allegiances to common practice have typically prescribed incremental change in the museum, rather than the kind of holistic rethinking required to instill the values of shared authority and of social understanding among diverse communities.¹² In museums today creativity and risk-taking are often funneled through one-off projects.

In fact, a substantive policy and practice of change depend upon a museum ethics of change. The progressive museum is undergirded and invigorated by deep engagement with the key ethical issues of the day. Museums that are driven by a dynamic ethics discourse have a clear sense of the values that their decision-making conveys and continuously assess and reassess this alignment with the communities they serve. Evidence of this emerges from a range of institutional policy and planning statements, not only ethics codes. One result is that institutions invested in the new museum ethics discourse effectively communicate the public value of museums. The process empowers museums to change because it builds public trust through democracy, transparency and relevance.

In this chapter I posit that the new museum ethics is among the most pivotal concerns of museum professionals in the twenty-first century and central to good leadership. I examine the richness and fluidity of museum ethics today and explore how this shifting terrain can help the museum to acknowledge its moral agency. First, by considering what museum ethics is not, I will unpack the authorized discourse. I will then analyze the developing alternative discourse which I refer to as the new museum ethics, contemporary museum ethics and twenty-first-century museum ethics. I situate this alternative discourse within feminist theory and within the literature of ethics studies from a broad range of disciplines to advance the concept of the contingent nature of the new museum ethics. And I discuss the three key strands in museum ethics theory and practice today: social responsibility, radical transparency and guardianship of heritage. A central tenet of my argument is that museum ethics is an opportunity for growth, rather than a burden of compliance. I hold that change in the museum is anchored by change in museum ethics discourse.

What Museum Ethics is Not

What is contemporary museum ethics? We might begin by clarifying what it is not.

Museum ethics is not a duty to conceal unethical behavior within one’s own institution and/or among a select group of colleagues. This assumption remains quite common, as is indicated by the many requests that I receive from well-intentioned and politically pressed parties to provide confidential advice concerning specific ethical quandaries at particular institutions. Museum ethics of the twenty-first century does offer insight to support museum staff in making appropriate choices that will help their institutions to flourish but it is a discourse that cannot and should not be contained within isolated pockets of the sector. Feminist experience suggests that shielding insiders can inflict significant damage. As Hein declares, “The appeal to privacy as an essential claim to immunity from public intervention can be divisive and dangerous.”¹³ Singularizing ethics dilemmas overly circumscribes the issues involved. Identifying and evaluating the options that arise from any one ethical dilemma require that those invested engage with the larger body of contemporary ethics debates. Clearly, ethics is not about airing the “dirty laundry” of individuals or institutions; such airings can betray trust and do not advance the discourse. But central to the project of museum ethics is the sharing of ethical challenges and opportunities with diverse stakeholders to understand and address larger patterns of behavior. This sharing is a mark of visionary, proactive and courageous leadership which encourages problem-solving and builds trust.

Museum ethics is not a universal set of values to be applied indiscriminately. In this light, it is important to differentiate between ethical principles—those ideals and values which a society holds dear-and applied ethics—the practice of employing those principles to specific arenas of activity, from medicine to business to museum work.¹⁴ While ethical principles such as individualism have shaped applied ethics in western culture, other operative principles, for example, collectivism, have impacted applied ethics in many other parts of the world. It is critical to acknowledge the pertinence and the problematics of cultural relativism as applied to museum ethics.

Contemporary museum ethics is not a canon of ideas based on consensus. The principal ethical debates of the twenty-first century are marked by strong differences of opinion from diverse contributors, not neatly settled through negotiation, and this is a sign of health. Inspired by Socrates’ ideal of examining ethics, through a dialectic process, consensus, as applied to museum ethics, has, until recently, been considered a professional, democratic and fair method of determining practice—relying on compromise among experts from the field and enforced through appealing to the desire for conformity.¹⁵ I believe that, in a twenty-first-century multicultural context that respects difference, consensus has come to signal an exclusivity and like-mindedness among contributors, as well as fixity of thought. Museums seeking change foster collaborative relationships on equal footing with diverse stakeholders and willingly assume the risks entailed by entertaining novel positions.

Museum ethics is not a system of decrees and prohibitions instituted to control behavior, as does the law, but without the enforcement incentive. The technical, legalistic approach to museum ethics has functioned to oversimplify issues and scope and deaden the vitality of the discourse. This is not to suggest that legal studies itself is static or straightforward or to deny the vast overlap between law and ethics. Indeed, ethics and jurisprudence have had a long and contentious relationship that can be traced back to the writings of Plato.¹⁶ Ethics provides purpose and rationale for law. Ethics also depends on the law to penalize certain behaviors that do harm. Ethics and jurisprudence often conflict. But the most significant difference between law and ethics is that the former is characterized by constraints—what one cannot do—while the latter concerns ever-shifting opportunities—what one can do—for the common good.¹⁷ Understanding this difference is central to realizing the potential of the new museum ethics to effect change.

Museum ethics today is not defined by codes. Since the American Association of Museums (AAM) introduced the first such s...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Part I Theorizing Museum Ethics
• Part II Ethics, Activism and Social Responsibility
• Part III The Radical Potential of Museum Transparency
• Part IV Visual Culture and the Performance of Museum Ethics
• Index