Collaboration: A Dose of Reality at the Glenbow

Since Looking Reality in the Eye deals with a diverse set of case studies, I've tried to keep a few general questions in mind as I read each chapter:

1) To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museum's move toward increased social responsibility?

2) What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"? (For those who are wondering, I'm quoting straight from the back of the book.)

3) Which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts?

The first reading I've chosen to blog about is "Our Story in Our Words: Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum" by Gerald T. Conaty and Beth Carter.

One thing I really appreciate about this chapter is its extreme detail. In their discussion of the planning for the Glenbow's Niitsitapiisini exhibit, Conaty and Carter describe the process of community collaboration from beginning to end--including both the triumphs and the frustrations.

The authors are frank about the reasoning for their museum's changes; as with many museums across North America, the Glenbow saw public boycotts and legal action from indigenous groups themselves. (The authors point in particular to The Spirit Sings, a now-infamous exhibit that was timed to coincide with the 1988 Winter Olympics.) In response to such calls for change, museum professionals worked with First Nations communities across Canada to conceive a set of guidelines for better representations of indigenous heritage.

The challenge was, as seems fairly common, in creating true community partnerships. As Conaty and Carter attest, allowing for the equal involvement of museum staff and Blackfoot representatives meant being willing to cede control and adapt to new ways of doing business. At the beginning, they say, "We did not know how, or even if, elements of Blackfoot culture could interact with elements of our museum culture to produce an intelligible result" (p. 47). While many museum professionals have noted the need for input from the groups they aim to represent, it is far easier to consult than it is to collaborate.

Nonetheless, Conaty and Carter provide ample evidence that collaboration is both ethically necessary and intellectually fruitful. Although their particular needs (praying, building deep personal relationships before working together, etc.) are not universal, methods like including community members in planning stages, participating in important community rituals, and holding meetings in neutral spaces all seem reproducible elsewhere.

Last week, our class also read Brenda Trofanenko's discussion of the Glenbow Museum*, which deftly highlights the historical and philosophical biases in museum narrative. In her piece, Trofanenko argues that "The role of the social educator needs to be nurtured into an increased awareness of how and why to look critically at what knowledge is presented and the context in which it is defined" (p. 107). Such an awareness can only come from an honest assessment of existing gaps and preferences in knowledge. However, as Conaty and Carter (as well as Trofanenko) testify, it is no longer sufficient to stop at awareness. After one looks reality in the eye, one is forced to answer to it.

*Trofanenko, B. (2006). The public museum and identity, or: The question of belonging. In Segall, A., Heilman, E. E., and Cherryholmes, C.H.(Eds.), Social studies: The next generation: Researching in the Postmodern (pp. 95-109). New York: Peter Lang.