Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
-
Upload
chucho-mendoza-mejia -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 1/48
1
Draft paper: forthcoming 2014, In K. Message and A. Witcomb (eds) MuseumTheory: An Expanded Field , Oxford: Blackwell Wiley.
To provide feedback on this draft paper email: [email protected]
Theorising museum and heritage visitingLaurajane Smith
Centre for Heritage and Museum StudiesSchool of Archaeology and AnthropologyAustralian National University
AbstractThis chapter examines the performative and embodied nature of the museumvisit and in doing so mounts a challenge to the dominance of the idea that themuseum visit is, or should be, about learning. Rather, the argument advancedis that visitors use museums in a wide range of ways and that the learningparadigm restricts the ability of researchers and museum professionals torecognize this diversity. Understanding the visit as an embodied performancereveals the means by which visitors emotionally engage with museumexhibitions and thus identifies the ways in which visitors undertake their own‘heritage making’ and the production and reinforcement of their ownmeanings and cultural and political values. Interviews with visitors tomuseums and other sites of heritage in England, Australia and the USA areused to illustrate and support the argument.
Keywords: Education, learning, emotion, visitor studies, performativity,embodiment
Introduction
The idea that visitors attend museums and heritage sites for the purposes of education
or learning has dominated debate in both museology and heritage management. This
chapter, however, questions both the degree to which people go to museums seeking
education or learning opportunities, and the degree to which museums may be
perceived as educational institutions. This is not to say that learning and education are
not important, but rather that they may not be as important or as all-encompassing an
explanation of the visitor experience as much of the heritage and museums literature
tends to assume. Rather than a learning experience, analytically, the museum visit
may be understood as a cultural performance in which people either consciously or
unconsciously seek to have their views, sense of self and social or cultural belonging
reinforced.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 2/48
2
Heritage as a performance
The conceptual framework that informs this study is based on the idea that museum
visiting is itself a form of cultural production (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998) and
communicative action (Dicks, 2000). Indeed, visiting is part of the process of
‘heritage-making’. As I have argued elsewhere, the idea of ‘heritage’ cannot be
reduced to a concern with materiality; rather, heritage is more usefully understood as
a discourse that frames a set of cultural practices that are concerned with utilizing the
past for creating cultural meaning for the present (Smith, 2006). Further, as Poria et al
(2003) observe, many people go to heritage sites, in which I include museums, to
‘feel’. Heritage, or heritage making, is an embodied set of practices or performances
in which cultural meaning is continually negotiated and remade, and is, moreover, a
process in which people emotionally invest in certain understandings of the past and
what they mean for contemporary identity and sense of place.
Heritage is thus a subjective political negotiation of identity, place and memory, and it
is something that is done rather than something we simply ‘have’ or ‘curate’ and
protect. It is, as David Harvey (2001, p. 327) argues, a ‘verb’. There is no one
defining action, but rather a range of activities that include remembering,
commemoration, communicating and passing on knowledge and memories, as well as
asserting and emotionally engaging with expressions of identity and the social and
cultural values and meanings that underpins these expressions. It is a process that can
have conservative or socially progressive outcomes, but above all, it is an experience
or moment of active cultural engagement that has a range of consequences.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 3/48
3
These consequences include the creation of a set of emotional or affective experiences
and memories that work to assist the expression of identity and belonging. They also
facilitate the development and strengthening of social networks and relations that are
in themselves binding. These networks are facilitated through activities in which
social and cultural values, meanings and understandings about the past and present are
sometimes explicitly, and sometimes implicitly, worked out and inspected and then
either rejected, embraced or transformed. Identity is not simply something produced
or represented by heritage places or heritage moments, but is rather actively and
continually recreated and negotiated as people, communities and institutions
reinterpret, remember, forget and reassess the meaning of the past in terms of the
social, cultural and political needs of the present (Smith, 2006, p.44f).
Heritage is a performance that occurs at a number of different levels and contexts.
Heritage making occurs at national and institutional levels, as museums and other
heritage agencies make choices in amassing collections, and in developing exhibitions
or choosing to conserve or preserve certain places or artefacts. Sites and objects are
not ‘found’, but rather identified as representative of the heritage stories that heritage
and museum professionals wish to make. At another level, communities and other
sub-national groups also may engage in heritage making in the way they collectively
represent and express themselves (Smith and Waterton, 2009). The ways in which
heritage making is undertaken at national, institutional and community levels is well
documented in the heritage and museum literature (see Dicks, 2000; Watson, 2007;
Harrison, 2010; Waterton and Watson, 2010). There is, additionally, an emerging
literature that examines the ways in which individuals engage in heritage making,
particularly while visiting museums (see amongst others, Dicks 2000; Bagnall 2003;
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 4/48
4
Macdonald 2002, 2009). This literature has begun to emphasise the embodied nature
of visiting as a commitment to remembering certain histories (see in particular
Macdonald 2009). However, these moments of heritage making often remain
unrecognized by prevailing assumptions that heritage and museum visiting is
primarily about learning and to date there has been little examination of what the
embodied visit may mean for the learning paradigm.
Museums and the three Ls: learning and lifelong learning
The nineteenth century idea of the museum as an educational establishment in many
ways still frames much of the theoretical and practical understanding of the roles and
functions of museums. Education, as Hooper-Greenhill was able to assert in the
1990s (1994, p.19), ‘is now felt to be a primary function of all museums’. While an
emphasis on didactic education has changed, and museums have broadened their aims
and focus, assumptions about the link between museums and education remain strong.
In the last two decades we have seen a conceptual shift from a discourse that
emphasised instruction, and a concern in the literature with debates about museum
communication to visitors (see for instance, Hooper-Greenhill, 1991, 1994b) to one
that stresses learning and a concern to understand visitors’ learning processes (Kelly,
2007, pp.276-7; see also Hooper-Greenhill, 2007a). This change corresponds to, and
is in many ways influenced by, the recognition of the political nature of museums and
increasing debate about their social role. Calls for museums to engage with cultural
and social diversity (Sandell, 2007), to explore their role as ‘contact zones’ (Clifford,
1997) and to develop civic/community engagement (Crooke, 2006; Watson, 2007;
Janes, 2009) among others, has lead to the softening of the discourse on education to
one of ‘learning’ and the provision of life-long learning skills and opportunities. For
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 5/48
5
Hooper-Greenhill (2007b), however, this conjunction has only emphasised the
importance of museum education. While she stresses the need for the reworking of
education philosophies based on the rationalities of modernity, education remains the
raison d'être of museums, as the educational role of museums has simply been
broadened to both engage with diversity and to provide learning opportunities for
visitors. The discourse on education and learning frames the way museums are
understood. Hooper-Greenhill’s (2007a, b) insistence on the educational role of
museums, is, in many ways unquestionable, given the theoretical and philosophical
underpinnings of both museology and museum studies.
The governmentality thesis that has influenced theoretical debate within museums
studies helps to reinforce the educational/learning discourse. The nineteenth century
legacies of museums in governing and regulating the conduct and representation of
citizens has been well documented (Bennett, 1995). However, while the utility of this
analysis of museum work remains, as Witcomb (2003) points out, it tends to focus
attention on the authority of the museum and the disciplines that inform museum
work. Ideas of authority and education/learning help to ensure that the museums,
museum practices and museum professionals become the central focus of analysis.
While the governmentality thesis offers a compelling and useful analysis of the
political work that museums do, and while a critical concern about museum education
ensures that professional ethical debate is maintained, neither conceptual framework
encourages analysis or accounts of ways in which museums may themselves be used
by non-experts. Nor does it offer consideration of what happens when the regulatory
role of museums may be contested in either conscious or unconscious ways by
visitors. Similarly, Graham (2002) has questioned the dominance of the idea of
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 6/48
6
museum visiting as an investment in cultural capital or an investment in particular
readings of regulatory identity. He argues that Bourdieu’s thesis tends to overlook the
possibility that heritage, in its various forms, can be used to contest received ideas of
identity as much as it can be used to maintain them.
Visitor studies, although having a long history in museology, tend to have been driven
by quantitative methods that explore marketing issues or assess how well visitors have
‘learned’ (Bicknell and Farmelo, 1993; Hooper-Greenhill, 2006). While qualitative
research that seeks to understand visitors’ cultural and social perceptions and the
interplay between memory, embodiment and emotions has increased, particularly over
the last decade (see for instance, work by Katriel 1994; Macdonald, 2002, 2009,
Bagnall, 2003; Palmer, 2005; Sandell, 2007; Sather-Wagstaff, 2011; Schorch 2014,
amongst others), this body of work’s impact on museum policy and practice remains
uncertain. Hooper-Greenhill argues that this is because visitor centric studies do not
feed directly into museum practices as they fit uncomfortably with the object centric
concerns of the museum sector (2006, p. 374). Conversely, however, the work of John
Falk and Lynn Dierking, has been particularly influential, and unlike most of the other
qualitative work cited above focuses explicitly on the idea of learning. Their work
stresses the experiential nature of learning, drawing attention to the need to
understand the personal, social and physical context of the learner, and challenging
the concept of linear instructional models (Falk and Dierking, 1992). They have
developed the Contextual Model of Learning, which attempts to account for the
complexities of learning in different ‘free-choice’ contexts (2000). Museums are
defined as free-choice environments, unlike schools or similar institutions, as
attendance is voluntarily (Falk and Storksdieck, 2005). This model recognises that
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 7/48
7
what is learned is not always what is intended by curatorial staff or driven by
exhibition content, but that ‘everyone who visits learns something’ (Falk, 2005,
p.266). Learning is perceived to be both unconscious and conscious and is ‘simply
part of being human’ (Heimlick, 2005, p.262). The Contextual model aims to describe
the ‘varied stories and meanings that visitors construct from their museum
experiences’ (Falk, 2004, p.85) and to determine how visitors learn. One of the
assumptions embedded in this work is not simply that visitors learn, but rather that
learning is what the visit is all about. There is no discussion of if or to what extent
learning is or is not important.
The Contextual Model of Learning developed by Falk, Dierking and colleagues
attempts to determine the various factors that enable learning in free-choice settings,
where learning is defined as a complex biological and personal process involving
changes in both ‘brain and body’ (Falk and Dierking, 2000, p.11; Falk, 2005, p.266)
and changes in knowledge and understanding (Falk and Storksdieck, 2005, p.751).
Factors in learning have been identified as a complex interaction between the
motivation of the learner, learning identities assumed by the learner (of which they
have identified five key ‘identities’ and numerous recombination’s of these, see Falk,
2006, 2009), existing knowledge, expectations and environment/exhibition design.
They also point out that no single factor among these can be singled out as
determining learning; rather it is a process that is influenced by all of the factors (Falk
and Storksdieck, 2005, p.770). The model is quite complex, and allows ‘us to explain
only a small portion of the learning that we were able to record’ (Falk and
Storksdieck, 2005, p.770). Longitudinal studies have also revealed that the
knowledge, or sense of what was learned at a museum visit, often does not stay with
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 8/48
8
many of those surveyed (Storksdieck et al, 2005, p.358-9), although the memory of
the visit may be enduring (Falk, 2011, p.151). The ‘museum identities’ that this
research defines are based on the motivations of the visitor (or learner) and not on
other forms of ‘identity’ (Falk, 2009). While Falk acknowledges that visitors to
museums may be seeking to affirm identities based on such things as gender, class
and ethnicity he uses concepts of identities ‘the museum profession might find more
prosaic’ (2006, p.161). This prosaic use of visitor motivation to define identity, and
thus what visitors are doing (and presumably learning), appears somewhat circular
and dismisses a range of other social and political work that may not relate to issues
of ‘learning’, however that may be defined (see Bickford, 2010; McCray, 2010;
Dawson and Jenson, 2011, for fuller critique). It also, once again, speaks to a
museum-practice-centric understanding of how museums may be used. The
complexities unaccounted for by the model may also indicate that the conceptual
framework of ‘learning/education’ being used here is simply missing other factors that
may be at play. Is learning the best framework for understanding the social, cultural
and political consequences of visiting a museum? Is learning all that is being done?
Tellingly the above research has tended to be confined to US science museums, zoos,
aquariums and other natural science attractions. While I do not suggest scientific
knowledge is culturally or politically neutral, particularly in the US given the politics
associated with bizarre challenges to scientific knowledge on issues such as evolution
and climate change, it is possible that visitors will interact with such museums in
different ways than they do with museums that engage with history, politics and
cultural representations. In many ways, science museums are less threatening to
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 9/48
9
assumptions that museums are about leaning/education than many other types of
museums.
A significant area of visitor analyses that remains untapped within museum studies
can be found within tourism studies. Visitor responses to both cultural heritage sites
and museums have been extensively explored in this sector, and while most of this
research is market driven, a significant body of work explores the emotional and
embodied experiences of visitors and tourists and the meanings derived from these
experiences (Macintosh and Prentice, 1999; Crouch, 2002; Poria et al, 2003: Poria,
2007; Prentice and Anderson, 2007; Smith et al, 2012). While traditional museum
visitor studies tend to focus on ‘learning’ issues, traditional tourism research has
tended to be framed by concerns about ‘recreation’. What both sets of studies tend to
do is conflate motivation with the cultural and social ‘work’ that visitors/tourists do at
museums or heritage sites and potentially miss the complexities of people’s
behaviour, and the social and cultural significance of their visit. This is not to say that
learning and recreation are not both important issues, but simply to ask is that all that
is really done, by everyone all the time or indeed by any one visitor during a single
visit.
This chapter then offers an account of visitor experiences to museums and heritage
sites aimed at exploring what else, other than learning or recreation, with which
visitors might be engaging. To explore this question, a qualitative interview schedule
that self-consciously did not presuppose that learning/education or recreation were the
primary reason for visiting museum and heritage sites was used. The aim was to
simply record people, in their own words, discussing what visiting means to them.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 10/48
10
Methodology
The chapter draws on three bodies of data. Firstly, it examines interview data
collected in 2007 with visitors to exhibitions marking the bicentenary of Britain’s
abolition of the slave trade. The bicentenary was seen by many museums as an
opportunity to provide exhibitions that would facilitate not only the acknowledgement
of this ‘hidden history’ in British society, but also environments that would facilitate
learning and public debate on the legacies of this history. However, interviews reveal
a range of issues that impeded ‘learning’, with many of those interviewed seeking
affirmation of existing knowledge, beliefs and views. Secondly, this data is then
compared with street interviews undertaken in three English cities in 2007 that aimed
to obtain a glimpse of how non-museum visitors were engaging with the bicentenary.
The comparative data reveal that many of those interviewed in the street, and who
identified as non-traditional museum-goers, were no more or less critically engaged or
informed with issues of legacy than were the museum-goers. The implications of this
for understanding the meaning of museum visits is explored and developed in the
context of the third data set: interviews collected from a range of different genres of
museums (house museums, national museums, heritage centres, and regional
museums) in England (during 2004), Australia (2010-11) and the United States
(2011). This third data set, collected at a variety of different museums of history and
culture, illustrates that the issues identified in the bicentennial data, are not confined
to controversial or dissonant contexts, and may be generalised more broadly. While
many visitors to museums nominate that their reason for visiting is ‘educational’ for
either themselves or their children, closer interrogation reveals that what is occurring
is the enacting of a performance that provides institutional and structured
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 11/48
11
reinforcement of a visitor’s sense of self, their ideological positions and the cultural
values that underpin both of these.
The interview schedule used in this study consisted of a range of demographic
questions that recorded, amongst other variables, a respondent’s age, educational
attainment, occupation, gender, self-identified ethic affiliation, if they were regular
museums goers and so forth. These were followed by a core of 12 open-ended
questions that were standard across all of the museums reported below 1. Further open-
ended questions were asked at some museums, however, the data reported on here
refers to the core 12 questions. These questions centred on asking people why they
were visiting, what messages they took away from the exhibitions, if the visit had
changed their views about the past or present, how did the exhibition/museum make
them feel and so forth.
Responses to the open-ended questions were either recorded or detailed notes were
taken. The interview was conducted as people were about to exit the museum, or
about to exit the exhibition the research was targeting. Interviews were generally
undertaken one-to-one, although group interviews were taken where couples or visitor
groups desired to be interviewed collectively. Interviews were transcribed and read
through to identify themes. Each question was then coded according to these themes
and the codes were used to derive descriptive statistics and to facilitate cross-
referencing of themes with demographic variables using SPSS and NVivo. The
methodology was designed to get a ‘snap-shot’ of what the museum visit meant to the
interviewee at the time of the visit, and how the visit was being used to construct
meaning. No attempt at determining a long-term meaning of the visit was made, as the
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 12/48
12
interview simply aimed at allowing visitors to discuss the meaning of the visit in their
own words at the time of the visit.
In the following, quotations from the interviews are used to illustrate overall findings,
generally two or three examples are used, although when more are used this is done to
illustrate the variation in nuance in the overall response to particular questions.
Anonymous details of the speaker are provided after each quote. Occupation and
ethnicity are reported as defined by the speaker.
Commemorating and learning a forgotten history: the 1807 bicentenary of the
British abolition of the slave trade
The history of Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade is often
characterized as a forgotten history (Kowaleski Wallace, 2006; Oldfield, 2007;
Dresser, 2009). It is certainly an aspect of British history and culture that has not often
been engaged with in public contexts. Indeed, it was only in 2009, after the
bicentenary, that this history was made a compulsory part of the UK school
curriculum (Paton and Webster, 2009, p.166). The 2007 bicentenary of the abolition
of the British slave trade provided museums with an opportunity to engage the public
in this traumatic and dissonant history; in short, this was an opportunity for museum
visitors to learn about this history and its legacies for contemporary Britain. The
exhibitions all followed very similar themes and structures, and explored the origins
of the trade, Britain’s role in both the trade and its abolition, the realities of the
Atlantic crossing and plantation life, resistance by enslaved Africans and the legacies
of continuing racism (See Cubitt, 2009, 2010 for further details and analyses of the
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 13/48
13
exhibitions; also Paton, 2009). My aim here is not to go into detail about the context
of the bicentenary and how museums responded to it, but rather to look at how
audiences at eight museums surveyed during 2007 responded to the exhibitions (for
more detail see Cubitt, 2009; Smith et al, 2010; Smith et al, 2011). The overall visitor
responses to the exhibitions have been reported elsewhere (Smith, 2010), and I will
draw on this material to explore to what extent the 1,498 visitors interviewed at these
museums engaged in learning.
Table 1 lists the museums and numbers of visitors surveyed at them. It is important to
note that cross tabulation between the museums produced very little significant
variation in visitor responses (Smith, 2010, p. 198). The survey sample, in keeping
with the traditional profile of British museum visitors, was dominated by visitors from
socio-economic backgrounds (74%) traditionally associated with the middle classes, 2
and most were educated to university level (51%). The sample was evenly divided
between men and women (each 50%) and those aged over 45 represented 51% of the
sample. The majority of respondents self-identified as white British (see table 2),
although visitors identifying as African-Caribbean (or African British, or ‘black’ or
‘mixed race’ – if using the official British ethnic identifiers) were more highly
represented at these exhibitions than normally recorded in British museum surveys
(Renaissance Hub Exit Survey, 2006).
Table 1: Visitor interviews per Museum
MUSEUM NUMBER OF VISITORS
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 14/48
14
British Museum 206
National Maritime Museum 205
British Empire and Commonwealth Museum 162
International Slavery Museum, Liverpool 339
Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery 165
Museum of London Docklands 182
Wilberforce House Museum, Hull 148
Harewood House 91
Total 1498
Table 2: Ethnicity
Frequency Valid Percent
‘White’ British/English 867 58.4
Non-British 348 23.4
‘Black’ /African-Caribbean/African British 182 12.3
‘Mixed Race’ British 40 2.7
‘Asian’ British 34 2.3
Other 14 .9
Total 1485 100.0
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 15/48
15
As documented elsewhere (Smith, 2010), there were three general themes in the
responses to the exhibitions, which tended to correlate with ethnic identity. The first
of these was dominated by those who self-identified as African-Caribbean or Asian
British, and who were often quite engaged with the exhibitions, but tended to be
occupied in assessing what the exhibitions had to say about the degree to which
British society was endeavouring to acknowledge the history and legacies of
enslavement. For instance:
I don't know what to say, its nice to see that people are recognising slavery,
more than, more people see it makes it more important because from my
background I know about it, but other people might not know, so it gives other
people a chance to see it can understand what went on.
(BA126(126): male, 45-54, coat trimmer, Afro-Caribbean British, 2007) 3
Well, I'm glad this exhibition is on actually, for me it’s about recognition or
initial recognition of what happened, it's initial recognition of telling the story,
it's the initial recognition of I don't think that Britain or London is sorry
because London is built upon slavery you wouldn't have London as it is if
there wasn't slavery. So I can't see people being really sorry for it, I think they
may have regrets, but I think if they had to do it all again I personally think
they would, because it means power, its financial and economic power and
without that nobody survives, and part of the reason why black people are not
economically viable in many instances is because we haven’t got economic
power. Is that going to change? I suspect not, because nobody wants to give up
power, why should you if you have it, but then why shouldn't denied groups
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 16/48
16
want it, and why should you deny them your chance. If you deny them you
have more. So it’s not about sharing, it’s about accumulating wealth and
holding onto it, because wealth to me equals power.
(DE30(98): female, 55-64, African Caribbean, 2007)
In short, the majority of African-Caribbean or Asian British respondents were using
their visit to make judgements about the content of the exhibitions and to assess to
what extent their experiences of racism in both the past and present were being
recognized or misrecognized by the exhibition. This assessment was often then used
as a platform during the interviews from which to make critical social commentaries
about the state of multiculturalism and racism in contemporary British society. These
were highly politicized uses of the exhibition, and to understand this use, it is
important to consider the role that museum exhibitions, and heritage more generally,
plays in the politics of recognition (Fraser, 2001). How a person, and the collective to
which that person belongs, are recognized or misrecognized influences the degree to
which society at large gives legitimacy to their historical and contemporary
experiences, and thus legitimacy to the claims for social justice or restitution made on
the basis of those experiences. For many African-Caribbean British visitors the
exhibition was not approached as a learning opportunity at all, but as a means to
calculate the extent to which their political claims for social justice were being
validated by the ways in which the museums were telling the history of African
enslavement.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 17/48
17
The second and most frequent response was dominated by white British respondents,
and non-British respondents from Europe. It is characterized by the extent to which
individuals attempted to insulate or distance themselves from the negative emotions
and reflections on self and nation engendered by the exhibitions. A range of
discursive strategies and self-sufficient arguments were employed to diffuse negative
emotions and worked to negate any critical or deep engagement with the content of
the exhibitions (Smith, 2010). What these discursive strategies did was to close down
both empathy and thus imagination.
The third theme was characterised by those who were deeply engaged in the
exhibition, were confronted by it, but used empathy and imagination to alter their
understandings of the past or present. Although often confronted by the exhibition,
such individuals, from all ethnic backgrounds, tended to use their engagement to
rethink their understanding of their British, or other national, identity or to make some
form of critical commentary about the present. For instance:
I think that… it is really easy to be quite sentimental about Britain and the
colonial past, and you know all about rule Britannia and it's great it’s quite
easy to be quite blind about the cost of that.
(BHA16: female, 16-24, trainee solicitor, white British)
Yes in terms that we do need to think about who we are and our effect on other
people.
(BA48(49): male, 45-54, unemployed, white British)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 18/48
18
[the exhibition] speaks to my whiteness. I don't know what quite that means
but it makes me feel (pause). I don't. (pause) Er. Well the obvious thing to say
is that it makes me feel guilty but it doesn’t really, it makes me feel privileged.
I don't think it makes me feel guilty.
(BE3(132): female, 45-54, software designer, white British)
It can be argued that in these contexts people were learning, as understandings were
altered or augmented. What was important in these contexts though was the degree of
what might be called ‘emotional intelligence’ that visitors employed. The exhibitions
generated many different emotions in visitors. One question asked visitors how the
exhibitions made them feel, and although many visitors avoided explicitly answering
this direct question the emotional tenor of the interviews was often very significant,
with the majority of white British talking in many different ways about issues of guilt.
Many talked of guilt in terms of denial, such as:
Interviewer: are you part of the history represented here?
Erm, (pause) I don't think so, no, … I'd have a big weight of guilt around me
[if I did], but I don’t, so I don’t relate to this exhibition, [I don’t think] that it
has anything to do with me, I do acknowledging what happened in the slave
trade and I do think it’s wrong.
(ME57(201): male, 55-64, conservation assistant, white British, 2007)
Erm...(exhales) I don't know really, I think it makes me realise what a long
way we've come since the abolition of slavery in our attitude towards other
people and that something like that couldn't happen nowadays in the way that
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 19/48
19
it did at its height, mmm, and it makes me feel, makes me feel sorry for the
people who were taken as slaves but I don't really feel guilty about it myself.
(BA30(31): female, 45-54, housewife, white British, 2007)
Interviewer: How does the exhibition make you feel?
Okay let’s put the question in another way which I can answer it in a way that
maybe you want. It doesn't make me feel guilty (laughs).
(BE13(141): male, 55-64, auctioneer, white British, 2007)
Although feelings of guilt and shame were often denied, they were nonetheless
frequently the ‘elephant in the room’ for many visitors, whose strategies of deflection,
were regularly about insulating themselves from directly engaging with these negative
feelings. As one person, who noted that he did not feel guilty, went onto puzzle ‘what
I found odd was reacting to [the exhibition] on an emotional level rather than a factual
level’ (BA22(22) male, 35-44, company director, white British, 2007). Those that
engaged positively tended to be those who could confront such feelings and work
through them to allow themselves to empathize with the experiences of the enslaved
discussed in the exhibitions. That is, they exhibited skills in addressing and exploring
their feelings in imaginative and constructive ways that helped them to cognitively
deal with complex issues, skills that some refer to as emotional intelligence (Salovey
and Grewal 2005; Mayer et al 2008).
What is informative, though, is the way visitors talked about ‘learning’. The
discursive strategies that visitors employed in shutting down their emotional
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 20/48
20
engagement with the exhibitions were of two types. One was the use of clichés, such
as ‘mans’ inhumanity to man’, this was often used to alleviate deeper engagement or
reflection on the exhibition because, at the end of the day, it was just ‘mans’
inhumanity to man’ (Smith, 2010, p.204). Another favourite cliché was ‘we must
move forward’, in that yes, these were terrible times, but we must move forward: ‘you
have to look forward instead of going back, yes its your history but don’t go on about
it, … if you keep on going on about it you never move forward’ (LA17(17): female,
45-54, retail white British, 2007). While clichéd statements may be used when words
fail a speaker, they can nonetheless also be used to close down debate and reflection.
When those interviewed used the term learning, and it is important to note that
‘learning’ or other synonyms were not used in the interview schedule, it was itself
sometimes used in clichéd ways to deflect and disengage. For instance, in this
exchange about the significance of the bicentenary the idea of learning was used
paradoxically to dismiss the significance of the exhibition’s content:
Interviewer: Is there any national significance in marking 1807?
Erm...No I don't think so, leave it as it is, and just learn from history.
Interviewer: In that case do you think it’s not been a good idea to have an
exhibition like this?
It’s interesting to know about it, it’s important to learn about it but I don't
think you should be marking a specific date.
Interviewer: Why not?
Because you could do it for everything couldn't you.
(BA26(26): female, 25-34, sales assistant, white British, 2007)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 21/48
21
This speaker was uncomfortable about the content of the exhibition and the idea of the
bicentenary (dismissing it through ridicule because you could mark every date).
‘Learning’ was used here to defuse the meaning of the exhibition, learning is a term
that implies something positive if not noble, and is used to imply society can forget
this aspect of history because we have learnt from it and ‘moved on’. As another
speaker put it: ‘No, again, it’s history, move on and learn’ (WHD 26 (125): female,
55-64, newsagent, white British). This use of the term becomes part of a self-
sufficient argument, in so far as a positive term, ‘learning’, is used to legitimate the
relegation of experiences of racism into the past, into history, and as such it can be left
in the past because we have learnt and moved on.
This is not to say that all uses of this term in the interviews followed this pattern,
indeed people did talk movingly and critically about the importance of learning from
the museum exhibition, but again this frequently occurred when individuals were
prepared to confront negative emotions. However, one of the things this does
highlight is the need to look critically at the way people use particular discourses; just
because worlds such as learning are used, does not of course mean that learning was
being done.
One of the distinct themes that emerged in these interviews was the tendency for the
exhibitions to not change visitors’ views, but rather the exhibitions tended to simply
reinforce the knowledge, feelings or opinions that visitors held prior to their arrival at
the museum. When asked if a respondent’s views of the past or present had been
changed at all by their visit 76% responded ‘no’, while 10% nominated they had
gained new information and 7.4% considered that they were better informed, and/or
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 22/48
22
their understanding of the past or present had changed in someway. A further 1.3%
noted that they had had an epiphany. In response to both this question, and often
raised unprompted in other areas of the interview, people talked about their visit as
‘reinforcing’, and again it is important to note this word, or synonyms of it, were not
used in the interview schedule:
No, no, I don't think [the exhibition has changed my views] I think it was
reinforcement, obviously there was information I didn't know or have, but it’s
just been reinforcing.
(LA41(75): female, 55-64, school teacher, white British, 2007)
It's reinforced rather than opened up a new avenue that we didn't know
about…
(DE24(92):female, 55-64, civil servant, white British, 2007)
No. Reinforces but not change.
(DA28(28): male, 35-44, administrator, African-Caribbean British, 2007)
No I think it’s reinforced my views, they've not really changed.
(MH22(22): female, 16-24, teacher, white British)
…not changed anything, it’s probably reinforced but not changed.
(WHGC 4 (8): male, 35-44, decorator, white British)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 23/48
23
What is being reinforced here was never entirely clear. Some nominated that the
exhibitions reinforced knowledge, opinions, meanings and messages they already
knew. Others seem to have been seeking a sense in which their identity and pride in
‘being British’ would be reinforced; it was evident in some of the interviews that
people were concerned that they wanted to feel pride in their nation’s history, to have
that identity and sense of pride reinforced:
In this retrospective, the marking is important for English pride as well: we did
it very wrongly, but we were the first country that realised it and to adopt the
abolition!
(MK25(61): male, 55-64, European, 2007)
[this museum is] Em a place to come to be aware of your, you know, to get
some pride of your heritage and also to be aware of what difference you can
make as well.
(WHD4(103): male, 45-54, teacher, white British, 2007)
Yes, I mean one is definitely proud of one’s … anniversary [i.e. the
bicentenary] […] It didn’t changed my views, as I said, it helped reinforce
them, one is proud of his British history, you know. One is always aware in an
exhibition like this that there are many things we shouldn’t be proud of, and
we need to be, we need to examine ourselves about.
(BHE7(80): male, 45-54, sales manager, white British, 2007)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 24/48
24
However, the exhibitions on enslavement did not aim to reinforce national pride, but
rather offered challenges to received national narratives and identity. This challenge,
and issues of guilt and shame, was diffused not only by the use of cliché, but more
frequently and explicitly by the use of self-sufficient arguments. This was the
prominent discursive strategy used to insulate visitors from the challenges and
negative emotions invoked by the predatory history of British involvement in African
enslavement. Self-sufficient arguments were so frequently used by white British
respondents in the interviews that they became clichés in themselves in the context of
the surveyed population. Self-sufficient arguments are statements that appear as so
much common sense that they cannot be questioned, such as ‘you cannot turn back
the hands of time’ (Wetherell and Potter, 1992; Augoustinos et al, 2002; Augoustinos
and Every, 2007). The five self-sufficient arguments identified in this study (see
Smith, 2010) were very similar to those identified in studies of race talk by
researchers from other Western contexts, and which have been identified as examples
of modern or covert racism and have been shown to work to close down critical
engagement and reflection (Augoustinos and Every, 2010). Examples of these five
arguments are:
1. You cannot turn back the hands of time:
I don't think we should have a great guilt trip about what happened because it
is 300, 350 or whatever it is years ago we just need to learn, at a macro and a
micro level.
(BA22(22): male 35-44, company director, white British, 2007)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 25/48
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 26/48
26
What these, and similar statements, do is create a self-referential statement that brooks
no critique, they are simply common sense. However, they work to justify and
reinforce the legitimacy of the speakers’ feelings and opinions and actively shut down
debate, and thus the possibility of learning. The 76% of those surveyed whose
opinions remained unaffected by the exhibitions, are comprised not only of those
African-Caribbean and Asian British visitors who came to assess the political
legitimacy of the exhibitions, but also of visitors who appear to have visited the
museum to reinforce knowledge, opinions or feelings. To what extent museum
visiting is about reinforcing a sense of self is an issue that needs further exploration.
This issue will be returned to below, as it is key to understanding the limitations of the
learning paradigm in museum studies. However, before discussing this further it is
useful to compare the results of a street survey with non-museum visitors undertaken
in the cities of Hull, Birmingham and Liverpool during 2007. Hull and Birmingham
had major museum exhibitions that marked the bicentenary, while Liverpool saw the
opening of the International Slavery Museum in that year. Interviews undertaken in
the street surveys totalled 219; the aim of the interviews was to see if the responses to
the bicentenary by non-museum visitors were the same as those we interviewed in the
museums 4. We wanted to explore if those who we interviewed in the museum had a
more or less thoughtful, mindful or critical reflection on the history the bicentenary
was marking. The survey sample was comprised of 58.9% men and 41.1% women;
the age range was slightly younger than for the museum survey, with a third being
between 25-34 years of age and 33% being over 45. The sample, as with the museum
sample, tended to favour people in socio-economic categories traditionally associated
with the middle classes (55.4% from categories 1-3), and 60% identified as white
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 27/48
27
British and 4.7% identified as African-Caribbean British (or black, African-British
etc). Under half, 44.3%, of visitors nominated that they had seen a museum exhibition
on the bicentenary, leaving 138 respondents who had not been to a bicentenary
exhibition. The people on the street were asked identical questions about the nature
and significance of the bicentenary to those asked in the museums. The bicentenary, it
should be noted, was extensively talked about across a range of media outlets during
2007, including television, newspapers, Internet and radio (see Wilson, 2008;
Waterton, 2010; Waterton and Wilson, 2009 for reviews of the public debate).
The question ‘is there any national significance in marking the 1807 bicentenary’ was
asked in both the museums and street surveys. In the museums, 17.4% said no, while
76% said yes, on the street 14.7% said no, and 80.6% said yes. Asked if ‘there was
any personal significance in marking the bicentenary’, 71% of those surveyed in the
museum said no, while 46.9% said no on the street. Those in the street survey tended
to see a more personal link to the bicentenary than museum-goers.
Table 3 summarizes the percentage of the various themes that emerged to the
questions ‘are there any messages about the history or heritage of Britain that you take
away from this exhibition?’ asked of museum visitors, and ‘are there any messages
about the history or heritage of Britain that you feel are created in marking the 1807
bicentenary?’.
Table 3: Messages people took from the museums or the bicentenary: columns: A.
Museum sample; B. Street sample, but had been to an exhibition in the past; C. Street
sample, but not been to an exhibition
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 28/48
28
A A B B C C
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No message 227 18.9 10 14.9 9 11.5
Distancing statements 154 12.8 10 14.9 13 16.8
Information only 126 10.5 2 3.0 4 5.1
Bland unengaged
statements
122 10.1 2 3.0 0 0
Reinforced what
respondent already
knew
98 8.2 3 4.5 3 3.8
Acknowledgement of
this history
96 8.0 16 23.9 15 19.2
Message about
racism,
multiculturalism or
humanitarian message
110 9.2 4 6.0 8 8.9
Critical social
commentary
67 5.6 3 4.5 8 10.2
Reassessing identity 50 4.2 1 1.5 0 0
Took pride in
Britain’s role in
abolition
74 6.1 4 6.0 6 7.7
Revelation 21 1.7 0 0 0 0
Don’t know 57 4.7 12 17.9 12 15.4
Total (who answered 1202 100 67 100 78 100
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 29/48
29
question)
There are some differences between the responses to these questions from both
samples. A slightly higher percentage of museum-goers in column A saw no message
in the exhibition than those on the street, who saw no message in the bicentenary
celebrations overall. Although 10.1% of museum-goers offered bland, incurious and
unengaged statements in response to this question, this was not a response recorded in
the street survey. A further 12.8% of museum-goers in column A offered statements
that actively attempted to distance themselves from the content of the exhibition; this
refers to the use of clichés or the 5 identified self-sufficient arguments identified
above, while slightly more of those on the street (both columns B and C) offered up
these statements in response to this question in terms of the bicentenary. This is offset,
however, by the higher percentages of respondents on the street who used the
bicentenary to offer up critical social commentary (this included comments about the
occurrence of continuing slavery, lessons that could be drawn about colonialism and
imperialism, comments about current labour and immigrations laws amongst others).
It is also offset by a significantly higher proportion of those on the street (columns B
and C) who saw the bicentenary as an opportunity to acknowledge this hidden history,
as compared to those surveyed in the museums with the exhibitions in front of them.
The variations between the two samples have to be cautiously considered, however,
given the disparity of both sample sizes. Nevertheless, this comparison offers some
counter intuitive indications for assumptions made within a museum-learning
paradigm. That is, the street survey gives some indication that museum goers, on
immediately exiting an exhibition, showed no significant difference in their responses
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 30/48
30
to the what the bicentenary may mean for Britain than those surveyed on the street,
and who had either never been to an exhibition or had, indeed been, but at some point
distant to the time of the interview. People on the street, interestingly, were more
likely to be personally engaged in the bicentenary, and to recognize the need for
acknowledgement of this hidden history, than those surveyed at the exhibition. This
may be an artefact of the sample size, although it may also offer some indication of
the extent to which museum-goers were personally confronted by the exhibitions, and
the exhibitions’ failure to reinforce what the visitor was seeking or perhaps a failure to
provide visitors with the space or resources to constructively work through their
negative emotions.
Reinforcing and confirming: Museums and the performance of self
The idea that visitors may go to museums to seek reinforcement or legitimization of
self is one that emerges in a third body of visitor interviews. Visitor surveys asking a
similar or identical core set of questions to that used in the bicentenary survey about
messages, feelings and what visiting meant and so forth, were asked at museums and
house museums in England, Australia and the USA 5. The theme of reinforcement or
confirmation emerges organically from this data, and in response to not only the
question about changed views as noted in the 1807 data, but also to a wide range of
questions about the messages, meanings or feelings engendered by the site or
exhibition people were visiting.
The response to the question ‘has anything you have seen or heard today changed
your views about the past or present’ tended to follow a similar pattern to the 1807
bicentenary survey. The frequency at which visitors reported their views had not
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 31/48
31
changed at museums exhibiting labour history or the history of immigration, across all
three countries, was between 63-4%, while at house museums it ranged from 83-97%.
At other history museums and heritage sites, those who reported no change to their
views varied from 74%-87% (see note 5 for the museums and sites at which this data
was recorded).
In response to this question people noted that their views, either conservative or
progressive, were simply being reinforced by the exhibition, for instance:
It just reinforced my attitude about narrow nationalism.
(IMM012: female, 55-64, nurse, Greek-Australian, 2010)
I think it just reinforces the ideas I always had about it, it just confirms, you
know…
(IMM029: female, 35-44, mother, Australian, 2010)
Not really, just reinforced what I’ve already known.
(PM54: male, over 65, manufacturer, Italian-American, 2011)
No, I think, it just reinforced my belief in the forefathers.
(JMM12: male, 55-64, teacher, Native American, 2011)
No, not really, it has just reinforced my beliefs in what I’ve got.
(NC020: male, 55-64, veterinarian, American, 2011)
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 32/48
32
No, just reinforced that, the, err common myths [laughs].
Interviewer: What are the common myths, sorry?
Oh, just about Indians and the cowboys and the cavalry and, you know, the wild
open places; you see a lot of that in the art. Just endless, err, landscapes and the
wildness of the place.
(NC024: male, 45-54, education, American, 2011)
Here ideas, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and even myths are being reinforced. This
sense of reinforcement occurs despite the fact that when presented with a list of 7-9
choices (depending on the museum) nominating their motivation to come to the
museums roughly a third chose ‘education’ or ‘to find out about’ a particular history
as a reason for the visit 6. To what extent these learning options were selected by
visitors because it was expected of them is open to speculation, certainly as one visitor
to an Australian house museum reflects when asked about the experiences she valued
on coming to the site:
I don’t know, I should say something that, you know, education, learning on a
place like this, but to be honest the experience that I’m valuing on this is just
the beauty of the place and enjoying the gardens, and having a lovely lunch,
things like that; having a nice day out.
(VH33: female, 25-34, graphic designer, Australian)
The idea of reinforcement emerged not only in response to the question about changed
views, but was in response to questions about messages, the experiences valued
during the visit and in discussing the motivation or desired outcomes of the visit:
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 33/48
33
Each time we come to a place like this it just reinforces what I’ve seen and just
makes me feel good to be an Australian. […] I don’t think I’ll take anything
new um [away]…at all, but it’s [my knowledge and views have] been
reinforced. Reinforcement is really what I take away.
(LR006: male, 55-64, electrician, Australian, 2010)
No not really, my knowledge and experiences were relatively similar to this
before [I visited] so I think it’s just reinforced my ideas on it already.
(NMA33: male, 25-34, teacher, Anglo-Australian, 2010)
For a short time feeling part of history, even recent history … It just brings
things home – it reinforces how you feel about the past.
(OAM85, male, over 60, accountant, white British, 2004)
Um, I don’t think I’ll take anything [ie messages] new um…at all but it’s been
reinforced. Reinforcement is really what I take away.
(LR009: male, 55-64, manager, Australian, 2010)
What is being reinforced here is identity, belonging and sense of place; for LR009 he
nominated that he had come to the museum he was visiting, which documented the
history of rural Australia, to visit ‘his ancestors’ and that when asked if he felt that he
was part of the history on display he responded: ‘Oh most certainly. I’m a fifth
generation Australian so yes, and I have…yeah, descendents who come from the land,
yes’. He took no new message from the visit, as the visit was simply about making
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 34/48
34
these linkages to the past. The emotional connections that people make through and to
museums, exhibitions and heritage sites cannot be ignored or dismissed. They not
only play a part in opening up or closing down enquiry and debate, as witnessed in the
interviews with visitors to the 1807 bicentenary exhibitions, but they are also often
what the visit may be about. As Poria et al (2003) observe, people go to heritage sites
to feel. Byrne (2009, 2013) also argues that people relate to the material culture of the
past through their emotions and imaginations. Failure to understand the emotive
aspects of museum visiting simply reinforces the idea that visiting is, or should
primarily be, about learning, a concept often discussed without reference to emotion.
Not only does the learning paradigm obscure the emotional aspects of museum visits
and what those visits may reinforce, it also downplays the ability of visitors to use the
museums in developing their own critical or political insights beyond that determined
by the museum curator or heritage professional. Not only were African-Caribbean
British visitors using their visit as a barometer for assessing the temperature of public
debate on racism and multiculturalism, some visitors may also use their visits to make
and assert social commentaries about the past and the present beyond those intended
by curatorial staff. For instance, visitors to industrial museums in England used the
sense to which their visit reinforced their place in history (as OAM85 is doing in the
quote above) to go on to make a range of critical and highly political observations
about class inequality in contemporary Britain. These often went well beyond the
messages embedded in the exhibitions by curatorial staff (see Smith, 2006, p.207-36).
These examples of critical visitor interplay are not adequately described by the
‘learning’ paradigm, because when visitors are making critical and political
observations they are often remembering and reinforcing their own political and
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 35/48
35
cultural values, values that they possessed before entering the exhibitions. The
exhibition or heritage site provides a space or the cultural tools to remember and thus
affirm those values. In this process critical insights about particular topics may be
made, and sometimes this has been possible due to something the visitor has learnt
during their visit, but more often it has occurred through a process of remembering
and affirming identity and the cultural and political values that underpins a visitor’s
sense of ‘self’. The critical acuity of visitors, along side the ability of visitors to
deflect and reject the curatorial message, not only needs further exploration, it needs
to be reassessed in terms of how museum visitors are themselves engaged in the
performance of meaning and heritage making.
Conclusion
The frameworks that assume museum visiting is about learning or education,
misunderstand the complexities of the performative nature of museum and heritage
site visiting. Falk (2009; 2011), in dismissing the idea of identity beyond the prosaic
classifications centred on motivation, misunderstands that the museum visit can be as
much about reinforcing or confirming the identities of gender, class, race or nation
that he eschews than it can be about ‘learning’. Although visitors did nominate
education as a motivation of visiting, it was not all they were doing, or even
necessarily, what they were doing, as learning in terms of the alteration of
understanding was often not a key aspect of visits. As various surveys of museum
users have noted, museums are perceived as trustworthy places (Rosenzweig and
Thelan, 1998; Ashton and Hamilton, 2003; Cameron, 2007; Conrad et al, 2009). This
issue of trustworthiness has often been signalled as indicating the sense of security the
public invests in the idea of museums as reliable sources of information for learning.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 36/48
36
However, to what extent museums are seen as trustworthy sites of reaffirming a
visitor’s set of ‘known knowns’, their idea of self, the values they hold and the role of
history in underpinning identity needs further investigation.
The performative nature of museum visiting is about heritage making, as visitors are
utilizing the past in exhibitions to negotiate and make their own meanings for the
present. These meanings may or may not correlate with the intentions of the museum
and its curatorial staff. However, the meanings that are created are not necessarily
‘learnt’ from the exhibition, although they can be, but are also actively created, and
indeed recreated or reinforced, by the performance of the visit itself. This
performance, and the meanings it may create, has political and cultural consequences
that tend to be obscured in debates about ‘learning’, as learning becomes the major
output of museums, and an end in itself. De-privileging or reconsidering the nature
and prominence of the learning/educational paradigm is necessary to open up the
conceptual space needed to explore the variety of ways that visitors use both museums
and heritage sites.
Notes
1. The interview schedules used in the 1807 Commemorated project can be
viewed at
http://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/audiences/audience.html, while
those used in other English and in the Australian and US contexts can be
viewed at http://archanth.anu.edu.au/heritage-museum-studies/research.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 37/48
37
2. That is socio-economic categories 1-3 as used by the Office for National
Statistics, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/. These categories were determined by
asking visitors their occupation (or where relevant that of their parent/guardian
or head of household).
3. All interview data used in this chapter is referenced as follows: field number,
gender and age of respondent, self-described occupation, self-identified ethnic
identity, and year of the interview. It is important to note that occupation and
ethnicity are given as defined by the interviewee.
4. The discrepancy in the numbers between the street survey and the museum
survey occurred for two reasons, firstly the street survey was developed late in
the project and was not part of the original research design, and secondly
inclement weather forced the abandonment of the street survey.
5. Data discussed in this section comes from English country houses and
industrial/labour museums (Smith, 2006, p.128, 207); Australia : National
Museum of Australia (NMA); Stockman’s Hall of Fame (LR); Immigration
Museum, Melbourne (IMM); Old Melbourne Goal (OMG); Rouse Hill Farm,
Lanyon Homestead and Vaucluse House (house museums); USA: James
Madison’s Montpellier (JMM, house museum); National Cowboy and Western
Heritage Museum (NC); and Pequot Museum and Research Centre (PM).
Abbreviations refer to field numbers.6. The core choices are recreation, education, taking the children, did not come
specifically to see the exhibition, to find out about (topic of the exhibition), to
think about (topic of the exhibition), other. Additional reasons were added
depending on the type or aim of the exhibition, for instance, to explore what it
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 38/48
38
means to be Australian/American, for the experience of going to a historic
house etc.
Acknowledgements
The Australian and US research on which this chapter is based was funded by the
Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (2010-14). The UK research was
funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council Knowledge Transfer Fellowship
(2007-9) and by a British Academy research grant (2004). My thanks to all the
museums, heritage centres and heritage agencies that allowed me access to their
exhibitions and sites.
LAURAJANE SMITH
References
Ashton, P. and Hamilton, P. (2003). At home with the past: Background and initial
findings from the national survey, Australian Cultural History , 22, 5-30.
Augoustinos, M. and Every, D. (2007). The language of ‘race’ and prejudice: A
discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics, Journal of Language
and Social Psychology , 26 (2), 123-141.
Augoustinos, M. and Every, D. (2010). Accusations and denials of racism: Managing
moral accountability in public discourse, Discourse and Society, 21 (3), 251-56.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 39/48
39
Augoustinos, M., LeCouteur, A. and Soyland, J. (2002). Self-sufficient arguments in
political rhetoric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the stolen
generations, Discourse and Society 13 (1), 105-142.
*Bagnall, G. (2003). Performance and performativity at heritage sites, Museum and
Society , 1 (2), 87–103.
Bennett, T. (1995). The Birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. London:
Routledge
Bickford A. (2010). Identity and the museum visitor experience (review), Curator:
The Museum Journal, 53, 247-255.
Bicknell, S. and Farmelo, G. (Eds) (1993). Museum visitor studies in the 90s . London:
Science Museum.
Byrne, D. (2009). A critique of unfeeling heritage. In L. Smith and N. Akagawa (Eds).
Intangible heritage (pp.229-252). London: Routledge.
Byrne, D. (2013). Love & loss in the 1960s. International Journal of Heritage Studies,
19 (6) pages to follow.
Cameron, F. (2007). Moral lessons and reforming agendas: History museums, science
museums, contentious topics and contemporary societies. In S.J. Knell, S.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 40/48
40
MacLeod and S. Watson (Eds) Museum revolutions . (pp.330-342). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and translation in the late twentieth century.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Conrad, M., Letourneau, J. and Northrup, D. (2009). Canadians and their pasts: An
exploration in historical consciousness. Public Historian , 31 (1) 15-34.
Crooke, E. (2006). Museums and community: Ideas, issues and challenges . London:
Routledge.
Crouch, D. (2002). Surrounded by place: Embodied encounters. In S. Coleman and
M. Crang (Eds). Tourism: Between place and performance. New York: Berghahn
Books.
Cubitt, G. (2009). Bringing it home: Making local meaning in 2007 bicentenary
exhibitions, Slavery and Abolition , 30 (2), 259-275.
Cubitt, G. (2010). Lines of resistance: Evoking and configuring the theme of
resistance in museum displays around the bicentenary of 1807, Museum and
Society , 8 (3), 143-164.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 41/48
41
Dawson, E. and Jenson, E. (2011). Towards a contextual turn in visitor studies:
Evaluating visitor segmentation and identity-related motivations, Visitor Studies,
14 (2), 127-140
*Dicks, B. (2000). Heritage, place and community . Cardiff: University of Wales Press
Dresser, M. (2009). Remembering slavery and abolition in Bristol, Slavery and
Abolition , 30 (2), 223-246.
Falk, J. (2004). The director's cut: Toward an improved understanding of learning
from museums, Science Education, 88, S83–S96. doi: 10.1002/sce.20014
Falk, J. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: framing the discussion,
Environmental Education Research, 11 (3), 265-280.
Falk, J. (2006). An identity-centred approach to understanding museum learning,
Curator: The Museum Journal, 49 (2), 151-166.
Falk, J. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience . Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Falk, J. (2011). Contextualizing Falk’s Identity-Related Visitor Motivation Model,
Visitor Studies, 14 (2), 141-157.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 42/48
42
Falk, H. and Dierking, L.D. (1992). The museum experience . Washington D.C.:
Whalesback Books.
Falk, H. and Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and
the making of meaning . Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Falk J. and Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to
understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition, Science Education,
89 (5), 744-778.
Fraser, N. (2001). Recognition without Ethics?, Theory, Culture and Society , 18 (2-3),
21-42.
Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture?, Urban Studies , 39 (5-
6), 1003-1017.
Harrison, R. (Ed). (2010). Understanding the politics of heritage . Manchester:
Manchester University Press in association with the Open University.
Harvey, D.C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and
the scope of heritage studies, International Journal of Heritage Studies , 7 (4),
319-338.
Heimlick, J.E. (2005). Editorial, Environmental Education Research , 11 (3), 261-263.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 43/48
43
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1991). Museum and gallery education . Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994a). Museums and their visitors. London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994b). Museum education. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed). The
educational role of the museum (pp. 229-257). London, Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2006). Studying visitors. In S. Macdonald (Ed). A companion
to museum studies (pp. 362-376). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hooper-Greehill, E. (2007a). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy,
performance . London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greehill, E. (2007b). Interpretive communities, strategies and repertoires. In
S. Watson (Ed). Museums and their communities (pp. 76-94). London:
Routledge.
Janes, R. (2009). Museums in a Troubled World, London: Routledge.
Katriel, T. (1994). Sites of memory - Discourses of the past in Israeli pioneering
settlement museums, Quarterly Journal of Speech , 80 (1), 1-20.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 44/48
44
Kelly, L. (2007). Visitors and learning: Adult museum visitors’ learning identities. In
S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S. Watson (Eds). Museum revolutions: How
museums change and are changed (pp. 276-290). Abingdon: Routledge.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums and
heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kowaleski Wallace, E. (2006). The British slave trade and public memory . New
York: Colombia University Press.
McCray, K. (2010). A review of ‘identity and the museum visitor experience’, Visitor
Studies, 13, 121-4.
Macdonald, S. (2002). Behind the scenes at the Science Museum. Oxford: Berg.
Macdonald, S. (2005). Accessing audiences: Visiting visitor books, Museum and
Society, 3 (3), 119-136.
*Macdonald, S. (2009). Difficult heritage: Negotiating the Nazi past in Nuremberg
and beyond. London: Routledge.
McIntosh, A. and R. Prentice (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural
heritage, Annals of Tourism Research , 26 (3), 589–612.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability
or eclectic traits? American Psychologist , 63 (6), 503-17.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 45/48
45
Oldfield, J.R. (2007). ‘Chords of Freedom’: Commemoration, ritual and British
transatlantic slavery . Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Palmer, C. (2005). An ethnography of Englishness: Experiencing identity through
tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 7-27.
Paton, D. (2009). Interpreting the bicentenary in Britain, Slavery and Abolition, 30
(2), 227-289.
Paton, D. and Webster, J. (2009). Remembering Slave Trade Abolitions: Reflection
on 2007 in International Perspective, Slavery and Abolition, 30 (2), 161-167.
Poria, Y. (2007). Establishing cooperation between Israel and Poland to save
Auschwitz Concentration Camp: Globalising the responsibility for the massacre,
International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1 (1), 45–57.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism, Annals of
Tourism Research, 30 (1), 238–254.
Prentice, R. and Andersen, V. (2007). Interpreting heritage essentialisms: Familiarity
and felt history, Tourism Management, 28, 661–676.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 46/48
46
Renaissance Hub Exit Survey (2006). Online. Available at:
http://mlac.gov.uk/programmes/reaissance/hub_data. Accessed 10 October
2007.
Rosenzweig, R. and Thelan, D. (1998). The presence of the past: Popular uses of
history in American life . New York, NY: Columba University Press.
Salovey, P. and Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence, Current
Directions in Psychological Science , 14 (6), 281-85.
Sandell, R. (2007). Museums, prejudice and the reframing of difference. London:
Routledge.
Sather-Wagstaff, J. (2011). Heritage that hurts: Tourists in the memoryscapes of
September 11 . Walnut Creek, Ca.: Left Coast Press
Schorch, P. (2014). Cultural feelings and the making of meaning. International
Journal of Heritage Studies , 20 (1) pages to follow.
*Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.
*Smith, L. (2010). ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’ and other platitudes of avoidance and
misrecognition: An analysis of visitor responses to exhibitions marking the 1807
bicentenary, Museum and Society , 8 (3), 193-214.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 47/48
47
Smith, L. (2011). Affect and registers of engagement: Navigating emotional responses
to dissonant heritage . In L. Smith, G. Cubitt, R. Wilson and K. Fouseki (Eds).
Representing enslavement and abolition in museums: Ambiguous engagements .
(pp.260-303). New York: Routledge.
Smith L, Cubitt, G. and Waterton, E. (2010). Museums and the bicentenary of the
abolition of the British slave trade, Museum and Society, 8 (3), 122-127.
Smith, L. Cubitt, G. Wilson, R. Fouseki, K. (Eds). (2011). Ambiguous engagements:
Representing enslavement and abolition in museums . New York: Routledge
Smith, L. and Waterton, E. (2009). Heritage , communities and archaeology. London:
Duckworth.
Smith, L., Waterton E. and Watson S. (Eds). (2012). The cultural moment of tourism.
London: Routledge.
Storksdieck, M. Ellenbogen, K. and Heimlich, J.E. (2005). Changing minds?
Reassessing outcomes in free-choice environmental education, Environmental
Education Research , 11 (3), 353-369.
Waterton, E. (2010). Humiliated silence: Multiculturalism, blame and the trope of
‘moving on’, Museum and Society , 8 (3), 128-157.
8/14/2019 Theorising_museum___heritage_visiting_August_2013.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theorisingmuseumheritagevisitingaugust2013pdf 48/48
Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (2010). Heritage and community engagement:
collaboration or contestation? Special issue of the International Journal of
Heritage Studies , 16 (1-2).
Waterton, E. and Wilson, R. (2009). Talking the talk: responses to the bicentenary of
the abolition of the slave trade in government documents, media responses and
public forums, Discourse and Society , 20 (2), 381-399.
Watson, S. (Ed). (2007). Museums and their communities. London: Routledge.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, E. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and
the legitimization of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wilson, R. (2008). The BBC Abolition Season and the media memory of the
transatlantic slave trade, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television , 28 (3),
391-403.
Witcomb, A (2003). Re-Imagining the museum: Beyond the mausoleum. London:
Routledge.