Running head: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
1
Don’t look at me in that tone of voice: An examination of panopticism, curatorial voice,
social inclusion theory, and border pedagogy application for museum studies
Laura Coleman
Florida State University
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
2
A museum exhibit is a most interesting of social actors: it is an illusion of the cessation of
time. The spaces created to tell the stories of the world appear static, consisting of glass encased
objects and formalized explanatory texts. Yet despite the attempt to yield authority to the voice
of the museum through architectural design, museum docents and security guards, museums are
in fact, a place of constant, irrepressible change.
The idea that museums influence society is not new. Museums were intertwined
in the rise of the bourgeois in western nations. Museums were utilized to attain certain desired
societal changes such as the civilizing of lower classes (Bennett, 1995). The foundations of the
western museum were built by the bourgeois to be a homogenizing force, but ultimately created
greater stratification within society (Bennett, 1995). Tony Bennett eyed the formation of the
western museum through the lenses of Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. In visualizing the
museum as tool of governments and higher social classes, Bennett perceives a social purpose to
the museum. Museums provide a public sphere for society to be both a spectacle, and for society
to observe a spectacle. In Bennett’s genesis of the modern museum, panopticism is the primary
goal: museum exhibits exist to instill desired behaviors in the lower, ‘less civilized’ classes
(Bennett, 1995). A museum visitor is observed by society, and is observing society as he
interacts with the exhibit. In a small way, Bennett alluded to the importance of the space
between the exhibit and the visitor, and that in reality: the museum visitor is part of the exhibit.
As participants in the exhibitionary process, the museum visitor and the exhibit
are easily observable. There is however, an invisible participant in the museum exhibit: the
curator. The obscured presence of the curator is known as curatorial voice. The juxtaposition of
objects and text along the visitors’ pathway is intentional. A curator weaves a tale, drawing the
visitor to particular conclusions. A curator wields tremendous power as he or she determines
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
3
which objects shall be displayed, what labels will be attached, and in what order the objects will
be viewed. The extent to which the museum visitor is expected to determine the meaning of the
exhibit is a reflection of ‘curatorial voice.’ Curatorial voice is often expected to be discerned
within an exhibit, as Bennett concludes, museums, “were to arrange their displays so as to
simulate the organization of the world – human and natural- outside the museum walls”
(Bennett, 1995, p. 126). Bennett states with clarity “the question of how things get displayed in
museums cannot be divorced from questions concerning the training of curators or the structures
of museum control and management” (Bennett, 1995, p. 127).
The curatorial voice is interwoven into the experience of the museum visitor. Falk and
Dierking refer to the museum experience as ‘gestalt,’ citing the studies that indicate most visitors
remember the museum as an entire experience (Falk & Dierking, 1992). This complete
experience begins with the decision to visit the museum, parking, ticketing, climbing of stairs,
and peering at exhibits. Also enmeshed are the social interactions amongst museum visitors and
with staff. Falk and Dierking built upon the concept of gestalt, arriving at an Interactive
Experience Model. This practical model stresses the relationships between personal, social and
physical contexts of the museum (Falk & Dierking, 1992).
As a profession, much is attributed to the strength of the curator to create an
understandable storyline within an exhibit. Yet, Falk and Dierking have described the memories
embedded in the minds of museumgoers’ to be much more than regurgitation of a carefully
constructed narrative. Memories, the seat of knowledge acquired, consist of a multi-dimensional
space. In this space, a museum visitor associates the color of the walls, the lighting, the
temperature, the smells coming from the café, and the giggles of a group of noisy school
children. Somewhere, in the midst of those memories, is the content of the exhibit. A curator
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
4
provides an exhibit to be incorporated within the hallowed halls of human minds, hopeful that
the intended message is salient.
Social Inclusion is a term that has become enmeshed with the cultural currency of museums
over the past two decades. To explore the diverse meanings of social inclusion, and the terms
application in museum settings, Dodd and Sandell (2001) co-authored and co-edited Including
Museums: Perspectives on Museums, Galleries, and Social Inclusion. This publication from the
University of Leicester’s Research Centre for Museums and Galleries gathered the voices of
museum professionals, researchers, health and social services professionals, artists, and
historians. This group brought multiple perspectives to the examination of social inclusion but
with one purpose: “that cultural organisations have both the potential to effect positive social
change and a responsibility to do so” (Dodd & Sandell, 2001, p. i).
Before delving into the many definitions of social inclusion, Dodd and Sandell first explain
the history of the term social exclusion. The antithesis of social inclusion, a term first coined in
France in the 1970s, is social exclusion (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). Social exclusion served to
describe a phenomenon by which certain peoples within France were essentially falling through
the cracks of the French welfare system. Those people, whether marginalized for drug abuse or
for the status of single-parents, were left out of the benefits that majority of French could
employ. They were excluded from society by society.
Social exclusion has come to represent a broad variety of problems not limited to welfare
benefits, and not localized to France. By the mid-1990s the term social exclusion became an
essential part of western European political rhetoric, and a part of museum studies discussions
(Dodd, 2001; Sandell, 1998). To complicate the situation, the term can be interpreted by different
fields in entirely different ways. For the economist, social exclusion is about wages, poverty,
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
5
and unemployment. Yet no economist would dare separate the problems of re-occurring
unemployment from the social issues that surround it. Part of the problem in defining social
exclusion is that it is not as easily measured as unemployment numbers and home foreclosure
rates.
Including Museums: Perspectives on Museums, Galleries, and Social Inclusion
references, and is built upon, an earlier work of Sandell. Sandell, a strong proponent of social
inclusion in museums, created both a format for examining social exclusion, and a typology for
the understanding of social inclusion within museums. Sandell proposes, in “Museums as Agents
of Social Inclusion,” that social exclusion is a multi-faceted phenomenon that negatively affects
the social, economic, political, and cultural life of both the individual and the society (Sandell,
1998).
These four aspects, depicted in Appendix A: social, economic, political, and cultural can
be further described (Sandell, 1998). The social aspect of exclusion is seen in the lack of access
to employment opportunities, welfare opportunities, and social opportunities. It can also be
described as lacking the relationships needed to be a part of the fabric of society, i.e., family and
friends. The economic portion of social exclusion is interwoven with the social as those born in
poverty lack the ability to leave poverty. A person lacking the means to buy admission to a
museum is unlikely to attend. Political problems are inherent within social exclusion as those
who are disenfranchised from society are less likely to participate in the political process, and
much less likely to be agents for change. Perhaps the most obviously related to museums is the
cultural issue of social exclusion. How museums represent cultures, and asks cultures to
participate in the making of exhibits, directly affects the exclusivity of a museum (Sandell,
1998).
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
6
Sandell has asked, “If museums contribute towards the exclusion of groups and
individuals from society, might they also possess the capability to help retrieve and re-integrate
those excluded?” (Sandell, 1998, p. 408). Museums wield tremendous power to change society,
to uphold society, and to affirm society. In homogenization, all museum visitors are granted the
same opportunity to gain cultural currency, thus leveling the playing field between classes.
Social inclusion advocates that all museum visitors have access to and be represented by
museums, thus limiting the marginalization of particular groups. Neither homogenization nor
social inclusion completely takes into account that the individual museum visitor views the
exhibits through his/her unique perspective. This perspective is generated by his/her personal
knowledge and background.
Sandell’s typology for the socially inclusive museum outlines a spectrum that reflects
museum practice and is depicted in Appendix B. Sandell designed this typology to “illustrate a
change in museums-an increasing desire to make clear the museum’s social purpose and the
value it provides in relation to addressing contemporary social issues” (Sandell, 1998, p. 415).
The three main categories of museums present in the typology are “the inclusive museum,” “the
museum as agent of social regeneration,” and “the museum as vehicle for broad social change”
(Sandell, 1998, p. 416). Each of these types of museums has different goals, methods, and levels
of transparency. For the inclusive museum, the goal is to represent marginalized groups in
exhibits and to provide access for those who would be excluded due to lack of transportation or
wealth (Sandell, 1998). The socially inclusive museum will prioritize the inclusion of objects
and exhibits that represent the marginalized portions of their society. Additionally, the socially
inclusive museum will engage those disenfranchised groups in participatory, collaborative way
and assure that access to museum exhibits is provided.
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
7
The second category of museum is the museum as agent of social regeneration.
This type of museum connects with the community on more than the cultural level. A museum
functioning as an agent of social regeneration integrates cultural exhibits with social, economic,
and political aspects of communities. A possible scenario for this type of museum would be an
exhibit on health in collaboration with the local health department. In this museum type exists
the presence of obvious initiatives to better the lives of the individuals within a community. The
museum as vehicle for broad social change is the third museum type in Sandell’s typology. This
museum acknowledges publicly its societal role, determined to change society for the better
(Sandell, 1998). As a vehicle for broad social change, this museum type influences society in
accordance with a social inclusion agenda. According to Sandell, “those museums which clearly
articulate their purpose in relation to society and which purposefully seek to position themselves
as organisations with a part to play in multi-agency solutions for tackling social exclusion, are
nevertheless still rare” (Sandell, 1998, p. 415). Sandell also articulates the need for continued
research into museums and social inclusion. Specifically he calls for the measurement of the
social changes that occur due to museum influence (Sandell, 1998). To do so, the definitions of
social inclusion and the measurements of social inclusion must be clearly stated. Arguably the
most difficult part of such research will be discovering which portions of museum practice are
indeed responsible for increases in social inclusion.
In discerning the practical applications for social inclusion in a museum setting,
the perspective of Henry Giroux is exceptionally helpful. Mustafa Yunus Eryaman described the
Library as a place of transformation and empowerment for society. Eryaman’s viewpoint is
illuminated by Giroux’s description of a library context: “pedagogical cultural borderlands”
(Giroux as cited in Eryaman, p.136). Giroux envisioned libraries as a space in which individuals
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
8
could cross cultural boundaries. For Giroux and Eryaman, these cultural borderlands exist to
mitigate conditions that restrict the empowerment of society such as the digital divide. The idea
of museums as “pedagogical cultural borderlands” is enticing to say the least. Museums not only
have the visitors and staff crossing borders, but the exhibits themselves cross the chasms in
society. The persuasive tones of the curatorial voice challenge and edify the precepts of the
visitors to an exhibit. In a museum context, the physical museum is the borderland space, and
the curatorial voice, a “border crosser.” (Giroux as cited in Eryaman, p.135). The dynamic
created by this theory results in a dialogue in which “one speaks with rather than exclusively for
others” (Giroux as cited in Eryaman, p135).
Incorporating Bennett/Foucault panopticism as a framework for the rise of the
western museum is widely accepted within museuology. Bennett’s work rests on his
interpretation of Foucault, and the two combined generates a typical foundation for
museuological studies. Curatorial voice as an actor with a museum context, is accepted as a
matter of routine within museology. Noting the foundations of western museums, and the
presence of curatorial voice, one may now address social inclusion theory. Cultural border
pedagogy began in the discipline of education, and was refined by Eryaman for LIS. Extending
cultural border pedagogy to the museum context is an exciting possibility for the generation of
new museuological theories.
References
Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. New York, NY,
United States of America: Routledge.
Dodd, J. a. (2001). Including museums: Perspectives on museums, galleries and social
inclusion. Leicester, UK: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries.
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
9
Eryaman, M. Y. (n.d.). The public library as a space for democratic empowerment: Henry
Giroux, radical democracy, and border pedagogy. In G. Leckie, L. Given, & J. Buschman (Eds.),
Critical Theory for Library and Information Science: Exploring the Social from Accross the
Disciplines. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO LLC.
Falk, J. a. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.
Sandell, R. (1998). Museums as agents of social inclusion. Museum Management and
Curratorship, 17(4), 406-410.
Appendix A
(Sandell, 1998, p.410)
Coleman: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice
10
Appendix B
The Inclusive
Museum
Goal
To achieve cultural
inclusion
Achieved through-
Representation of and
participation and
access for those
excluded
The cultural
dimension
Exclusion is tackled
withinSocial problems
associated with
exclusion
Might be addressed
indirectly
The Museum as Agent
of Social
Regeneration
To improve
individuals’ quality of
life
Initiatives which seek
to alleviate
disadvantage/encourage
personal development
The economic, social,
political and cultural
dimensions
*provide the rationale
behind initiatives
*might be directly
expressed within the
museum’s goals
The Museum as
Vehicle for Broad
Social Change
To influence
society/instigate
positive social change
Providing a forum for
public debate,
education and
persuasion
The economic, social,
political and cultural
dimensions
*provide the rationale
behind initiatives
*might be directly
expressed within the
museum’s goals