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?
No comments:
Post a Comment