The Final Book Discussion—Live and In-Person (or perhaps on Skype)

Greetings one and all.  I hope that you’ve all been enjoying the book discussions thus far. I’m excited and impressed with all of the comments everyone has put out there so far. 

As you have no doubt noticed, we’ve come to the end of the books! It’s time for the final discussion. You are all invited—so here’s the deal,

Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 7:15 pm at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.  You MUST rsvp if you would like to attend in person, or if you want to try to participate on-line. 

If you plan to attend, please post your response here or call 317-274-7332 and leave a message.

Hope to see you there in some form!

Birds in Flight

Chapter six describes group inclusion within museums. Silverman looks at groups with common identities (e.g., physically disabled, gender, age) and how museums develop partnerships. She opens the chapter by asking “How do museums propel groups?” (113). What follows is a discussion of the process to which museums can help groups and their individuals feel empowered and valued in society.

Museums, as social work agents, should partner with groups and search for common goals and outcomes. Through such efforts museums are helping to create dialog which addresses societal differences. The potential in these discussions is to expand them to a larger, societal framework. Through such dialog groups may notice the paradox of groups being both actors within and enforcers of social norms. Museums are no exception.

Silverman quickly concludes this chapter with a discussion on linkage. She summates that museums serve as social glue between groups and their individuals. Through this link-making, museums with social work agencies blur the boundaries between displaying cultural property and offering opportunities for individual growth.

Silverman’s choice to use the title Birds in Flight feels un-uniquely fit for museums. Museums may act as another group (or bird) partnering with other groups, but this behavior is not localized to our cultural institutions. Organizational behaviors like representing specific demographics can be achieved elsewhere, as well.

What makes museums special on the social level is their central mission to display and discuss cultural identities across a variety of mediums through a multitude of voices. Such efforts, as Silverman points out, can lead to greater group appreciation and a shift in personal perception or values. Museums act as the catalyst for community dialog and personal reflection.

Birds in Flight helped me focus my perception of museums as social actors. I was reminded that museums are subjected to the same social norms as other community groups. That is, museums may act against social norms, but will also reinforce stereotypes of other or similar groups. Knowing this helps me to consider how museums serve their greater communities. As social actors, museums are constantly butting heads with themselves as they attempt to represent their constituents without under representing others. Applying this lesson to my future professional will include incorporating more voices within a museum and attempting to challenge my employer to seek new audiences in new ways.

Chapter 5- "Treasures of home"

If you are not reading The Social Work of Museums here is some of what you missed:

In chapter five Silverman uses the term “home” to define two different things.  At first she uses it more literally as she develops five different ideas as to how museums can fulfill housing needs in the community (pg. 91). She lists them as promoting safety in homes, using museums as temporary shelters, using museums (primarily historical homes) as permanent housing, advocating for public housing and promoting green living (pg. 91).

Her points on promoting housing safety, advocating for public housing and promoting green living seem more plausible in the museum setting than her other two points which refer to actually using the museum itself as a shelter.  She notes that historically examples exist of museums providing housing, and she even provides a more current example of a family receiving a grant to help restore a historical house that the family would then live in and take care of (pg. 94). 

In my opinion, using the museum as a link to promote those organizations that have professionals who are trained in this area seems to be more beneficial than actually having the museum provide shelter.

Silverman then dives into using the term “home” more metaphorically to represent family ideals.  She explains how the museum can be seen as a place for spending "quality time", a place where communication happens between people and also a place for learning (pg. 96-100).  These ideas about relationships relate strongly to ideas that she has presented extensively throughout the book. Links can be drawn to current museum examples, that already focus their mission on this second idea of Silverman’s “home”.

Think About It:

Where do (or should) museums end and other service organizations like counseling, community housing, and other social services begin?   Are museums and staff prepared to take on all the roles that Silverman suggests in this chapter?

Spoiler Alert: Chapter 7, Toward the Next Age

I enjoyed the work and am convinced there is a solid future between these two fields. However, final chapter left me wanting and again (I know you are shocked) a bit aggravated. In “Towards the next age” Silverman wrapped up her analysis of how museum can and have provided opportunities for social work. In doing so she called for a truly collaborative effort between museums and social workers. She also detailed the need to establish joint priorities, goals, ethics and values.

Silverman presented her plea in almost apocalyptic terms. At the beginning Silverman stated:

“We are quite capable of destroying each other and the planet. To survive and thrive in the next age, we must evolve new strategies for beneficial coexistence, using every suitable means to do so. In this light, the social work of museums no longer seems optional, or a clever way to keep collections-based institutions relevant, but an essential responsibility to humankind. The world’s museums have always been committed to caring for culture. To insure the next age, museums must help foster cultures of caring.” (p. 139)

While I personally found her introductory tone melodramatic Silverman did neatly detail the mission of her text and set the foundation for future work between the two fields. Unfortunately Silverman waited until the very end to direct the reader’s attention to the overall format of her work. Understanding this hierarchy would have made reading each chapter a bit more fulfilling as readers would undoubtedly see the larger connections between each relationship group and their individual but similar needs.

In the section titled Common Human Ground Silverman detailed her own hierarchy of needs, which she related to Maslow’s famous Hierarchy. She explained “Across selves, pairs, families and groups alike, four needs emerged as major themes to organize definite clusters of museum activity” (p. 141). Her hierarchy is displayed in a matrix as seen below.

Relationship
Needs		Self	Pair	Family	Group
	Transformation	Transcendence	Separation	Flexibility	Linkage
	Evolution	Identity	Interdependence	Continuity	Empowerment
	Development	Competence	Intimacy	Cohesion	Cohesiveness
	Foundation	Health	Companionship	Home	Purpose

*Silverman (2009) p. 141.

Interestingly each chapter focused on relationships (3-6) is divided into the four categories of needs. I do not disagree with such a hierarchy; my argument pertains to the placement and explanation within the final chapter. This could have easily been placed in the second chapter along with the introduction of Relationship Needs.

On the broader subject of her appeal for and interconnection between social work and museums Silverman is more detailed and developed a strong foundation for future practice. She focused on the need for collaboration, shared ethics and values, a growing body of knowledge and of course innovation. These sections read as a road map for future practice offering up pertinent questions, but rarely addressing possible road blocks.

From here Silverman transitioned into a futuristic scene reflective of her introductory chapter complete with recurrent actors. In a perfect world where museums and social work are fully integrated the grey haired lady and her slender male have their special needs addressed through a technologically integrated exhibit. In a similar vein the recently released convict and his son not only learn together but act as models for others in similar situations. The optimism in her conclusion seemed almost contradictory to the introductory paragraph. However, this optimistic version of the future can provide the inspiration necessary for the success of this joint collaboration.

Questions for thought?

Does anyone else feel her tone throughout the chapter seemed a bit scattered and melodramatic, or was this simply a literary tool utilized to gain readers emotional attention and to stir activism?

I am curious as to whether or not other readers found the placement of the Relationship/Needs hierarchy strange or if I am again focused too closely on the minutiae of her work? Would placing this explanation earlier have distracted readers from her main thesis?

Which of the following objectives do you think is most important to developing a true relationship between social work and museums; collaboration, shared ethics and values, a growing body of knowledge and/or innovation? Which would Silverman place as most essential, least? Must they all be met at the same time in order for success to occur or will the evolution happen in jumps and starts? Are there other areas she left out in her analysis? If so what are they?

Do you agree Silverman meet her goal of connecting museums and social work and establishing a framework for future collaboration? Are there any areas she may have overlooked in creating the book? Overall what was her most engaging argument for the future collaboration between the two fields? Did she adequately address the difficulties inherent in melding two distinct fields?

Chapter Three - From body to soul

Silverman describes several programs through general themes on how museums offer social work to their constituents. During this chapter she focuses on how individuals create meaning impacting their self. Many of the examples she provides are public programs based around the museum collection. During the latter part of the chapter she examines the spiritual and ephemeral capabilities of exhibits. Public programs through the lens of social work offer individuals opportunities to build self-esteem through individualize or collaborative projects. Often, such programs engage the individual in activities which promote introspective analysis on the self. One example Silverman provided was through employing mentally and physically disabled persons in a museum café. Through this employment experience successful individuals were able to generate better self-esteem. Other examples included reflection creation of artistic objects as therapy.

One of the key areas where I have concern is of Silverman’s discussion on museums and work. I am curious on how the professionalization of the field through programs such as the IUPUI museum studies master’s degree may affect this form of social work. Will potential internship and volunteer opportunities for persons benefiting from work experiences be limited due to an influx of individuals with a professional degree in this area? In many ways, it seems that Silverman argues for museums to exist and to support social work ethos through simply existing and being open entities to the public. Museums then serve their communities as a third-place environment which promotes self-reflection and identity creation. Identity can best be created and reflected upon when the individual sees herself in the exhibit. Many groups still do not see their story represented in museums due to broader preventative social norms. While museums may serve to create reflexive environments, they also help maintain social barriers and walls.

Chapter three provided many key examples of successful meaning making experiences that museums can create. Public programming and community outreach are excellent venues for museums to create increased community relevance. Through examining how such programs assist communities I can better serve the community in which I live. This path allows museums to actively solve problems within a community, rather than suggest solutions or ignore them completely.

Ultimately, this chapter leads me to consider questions about representation and its association or dissonance with identity creation. As practitioners are serving our constituent’s desire to learn, but to what extent inside and out of the museum are we approaching their needs for self-reflection? How are we hindering this process? How can we help?

WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

Sadly Silverman’s fourth chapter Solve et coagula on close pairs was rather aggravating. Notions of romantic pairings overshadowed far more interesting pairs and as a result placed the possible civic work of museums in a secondary status. Silverman began with a definition of close pairs as “friendship[s], romantic partnership[s] or marriage[s]” (p. 67). She spent considerable time throughout the chapter engrossed in a discussion of how visitors used museums to meet dates and make romantic connections, and how the museum acted as a place for the development of those resulting relationships. While I do not deny the importance of romantic relationships, her almost singularly focus on this topic overshadowed other important paired relationships, such as friendships.

Silverman detailed the four ways museums meet the needs of close pairs. These four ways are through companionship, intimacy, interdependence and separation. While the scope of this blog does not allow for an in-depth analysis of each, I would like to highlight some of Silverman’s more interesting declarations from each section.

Companionship – Silverman’s discussion of Bill McLaughlin and Dick Hughes, the two World War II veterans who traveled through the Philadelphia region visiting museums, is not only touching, but an excellent example of how museums act in a social manner by providing opportunities for shared activities.

Also, in stepping away from romantic notions of pairings Silverman addressed the possibility of conflict resolution through a shared and safe space where conversations between enemies might occur. She offered the example of work done with Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. This summer I was fortunate to work with an equally antagonistic group of teachers from Armenia and Turkey. In traveling to multiple museums and historical sites members of these different ethnic groups were able to develop a common language and begin to look beyond their differences in a safe space. Much like Silverman predicted.

Intimacy – Here the notion of romantic close pairs become relevant. Silverman discussed the opportunities and obligations of museums to offer sex education. This was particularly interesting as sexual topics are often considered taboo. She even evaluated the abilities of museums to work against these taboos and to provide safe environments for those often considered outside of dominant societal norms.

Interdependence – In this section Silverman missed her greatest opportunity to evaluate close pairs from a non-romantic standpoint. She discussed how museums can help couples improve on communication. Silverman even spent considerable time illustrating how museums provide the background for love stories.

Separation – According to Silverman museums should provide death education and bereavement support, as death is an integral component of any museum. While the focus is providing support for those suffering from the loss of a partner, many of her propositions are directly related to any museum visitor and can be applied to the loss of a parent, friend or other loved one, not only a romantic partner.

Final Thoughts

My aggravations with Silverman’s focus likely results from my cynical and rarely romantic nature. I highly suspect other readers may disagree with my perceptions of Silverman’s work in this chapter and encourage readers to bring additional ideas into the larger discussion.

Do you think this chapter had too narrow of an emphasis? What would the chapter look like if Silverman focused more closely on friendship pairs? Should the reader simply assume that the categories were to be applied to friendship pairs or do other nuances exist thus making this difficult? Were there other missed opportunities to address the work of museums in pair development and conflict resolution?