I attended Strategies for Introducing and Embedding a New Museum Ethics in the Museum Sector yesterday with Jocelyn Dodd and Dr. Janet Marstine. It was a wonderful session. It is possible however that their argumentative approach to the project thesis, will be vulnerable to a dismissive reception (on the part of 'those on the front lines' of museum practice). The reality of curatorial practice is that practitioners are already, ‘embedding’ ethics into their daily work—granted, perhaps not the ethics that might be by some considered the most desirable, but ethics, none-the-less, which are thoroughly embedded. Does the project mean to suggest that ‘embedding’ ethics into practice is something new? The conscious recognition that ethics underpins all action may be considered by some to be novel; ethics-as-pervasive however, is not a novel phenomena. To me, transformation of practice is not about ‘initiating’ the embedding of ethics—it is about changing the ethics that are already ‘embedded’ (when and if necessary). We discussed observations about an objectified version of traditional practice as opposed to what was described as a more desirable, contemporary version of museum practice. I believe that if we are to propose strategy for constructive change, the actual questions for discussion necessarily become:
1. What are the ethics currently embedded?
2. Are the ethics that are currently embedded in keeping with professed institutional or personal objectives for ethical conduct (or more explicitly with ‘self-image’, ‘reputation’ and ‘mission’)?3. Subsequent to exploration of these two questions, are the professed ‘ethics’ currently embedded, conducive to the ‘integrity’ of museum practice, to collections management and to the display, interpretation and conservation of collections?
How can you transform an embedded ethic if you don’t recognise its profound presence and understand its dynamic characteristics, from the start? It is quite complicated really, because this kind of change is an intensely personal journey that must be traversed by each institution and museum practitioner, as prescribed by the requirements of the a particular collection, particular social priorities and particular display conditions. (I hope it is difficult to miss the emphasis on 'particular' in this last observation.) We can—and must—have laws, general guidelines, political sympathies, alliances (discussions with friends and colleagues)—these are critical to how a healthy society and professional community is maintained.
But when it comes down to it, a curator somewhere, is going to be rummaging in a room, checking to see if what the database says is stored in box 221b is really still in 'box 221b' and to what extent the object has (or has not) been eaten by beetles. Depending upon the character of the person (museum practitioner) themselves and depending upon how well they are feeling, how their personal life is going, their perceived value of and evaluation of the object etc. the museum practitioner will respond to the object differentially, acting out of an ethical basis of what we might term ‘practicality’ or ‘necessity’, out of hedonism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, idealism etc. Consciously or unconsciously, whatever is the current 'embedded ethic' is bound to actualise as ‘Applied Ethics’ in the design and production of Regency Swag as Fashion Legacy or whatever else the next exhibition turns out to be. Curators tend to share what they identify as fascinating and/or valuable.
This then illuminates from my perspective one of the most critical aspects of research and professional ‘networks’. There is I think, no one in the museums sector that I have met, that does not love ‘things’ and is not passionate about protecting the social narrative that objects embody. Indeed, some of us may be introverts or shy, but I haven’t met anyone in museum practices that does not want to share ‘embodied social narrative’ with others. Additionally, I have observed the same enthusiasm in conservators of all mediums, in archivists and in librarians. We are in a sense, ‘The Nation of Narrative’, a culture with sub-cultures, each with its own administrative rituals and devotions. (I apologise that this structure is somewhat ‘Eurocentric’—I was raised in a European education system and am discussing a profession that is founded primarily upon a European paradigm—thus, a ‘Eurocentric’ perspective is currently employed.)
Passion is an essential energy necessary to the sometimes (often?) challenging task of ‘protecting and sharing embodied narrative’. It is the unfortunate case however that this ‘passion’ we all share occasionally works against a healthy balance between conformity and independence. Ultimately accountability for work we do daily falls upon our own shoulders, yet we are expected to be supportive of community/institutional administration and guidelines. It makes sense that everyone has a vested interest in how these 'rules' will impact the decisions that must be made in daily practice and therefore, as a community, it can be difficult to come to an agreement about ‘guidelines’ for practice (that everyone is happy with). The museum community has been known to argue for decades on some subjects (well, let us face it, on some subjects the argument is ongoing and never likely to be settled). Obviously if contention goes on indefinitely no progress is made (or at the least it seems to be made very slowly). I find it difficult however, to think of anyone in my profession as a true antagonist. I see us all as ‘on the same side’, struggling to make the best decisions we can under any given circumstances—circumstances not always under personal control. I am not entirely comfortable however with this idea that we should form little groups of 'right-minded people' that are all in agreement with each other, and who are strategically placed to 'influence' the rest of the stodgy, 'wrong-minded people'--and then call this approach, an 'innovative' strategy for social change. Neither do I think that this was was precisely the operative dynamic of the project as reported at the lecture/seminar yesterday. I do however firmly believe that social fractionalisation, fostered with the best of intentions, is a potential hazard in any process of disciplinary 'transformation'. There is always a risk of forgetting to respect each other for our differing perspectives as well as the subjects we agree upon.I fear the tone of this response is unsupportive and that is assuredly not the intent. The concepts of ‘shared guardianship and authority’, ‘responsive vs. reactive’ planning, of collegiality and the sharing of experiences (often called 'networking') are all very much in keeping with my own personal ‘embedded’ ethic. I enjoyed the session. It was a welcome discussion of a project of tremendous merit. I simply worry that there is a potential for the project to be perceived as defensive and elitist (when that perception couldn’t be further from the truth).
