href="#fb3_img_img_76383ac4-02f4-5599-b023-22dc02ddc9e7.jpg" alt="images"/>
FIGURE 4.2 The three spheres of contemporary ethics discourse.
What is the significance for museum ethics discourse of identifying and applying values and principles? In network conversations, an embrace of museum activism was juxtaposed with the dangers of accepting the continued absence of value- based ethics in sector debates. For network participants such as David Anderson, Director General, Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, ethical thinking was a “way of being” which permeated the whole museum; however, the group identified fractures in the museum sector, including inequalities of resource and action, that could mitigate against the adoption of the new museum ethics. For example, Anderson drew attention to the geographical hierarchy entrenched in UK museum funding, with London institutions receiving the majority of private contributions.
Some of the participants mooted the impact of a personal ethics code for museum professionals in response to institutional silence on issues of social responsibility, thereby effectively protecting structures of cultural authority derived from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. David Fleming, Director, National Museums Liverpool, argued that the existence of an “unspoken set of values” enabled museums to prioritize their collections over social engagement. According to many in the network, vested interests in maintaining the status quo could present a challenge to the new museum ethics.
The research network expressed a compelling need for change in museums through the framework of new museum ethics. Participants were receptive to the premise of the research network: namely, that new methods, new ways of thinking and a more strategic approach are required to effect organizational change and to ensure that museums are adequately equipped to develop responsive ethical policies, procedures, and decision-making, now and in the future. There is need for an ethics that enables museums to be nimble and adapt to changing circumstances. We are currently on the threshold of change in which the social role and value of museums will become increasingly significant (Museums Association 2013). The research network viewed the new museum ethics as a catalyst that can help museums to step over this threshold.
Analysis and discussion: key ideas from the network workshops
In this section, we explore the key findings from each of the workshops and identify the patterns that emerged. Throughout the process, participants used the workshop themes – social engagement; transparency; shared guardianship of collections; moving beyond canonicity; and sustainability – to raise ethics issues at the core of what and whom museums are for. Overarching threads of discussion called for: a radical overhaul of museums in terms of structure, purpose, and values; embedding social responsibility as a core value alongside care and research of collections; and collaborative action across the sector in order to meet the above aims. The group was critical of UK museums’ longstanding silence on ethical issues beyond the use of codes; in fact, many participants agreed that ethics codes are used as a justification for museums to avoid more complex ethics discussions, particularly around social responsibility. They welcomed evidence that aspirations such as shared guardianship can be translated into practice, while acknowledging that this was not easy work and required museums coming to terms with complexity and uncertainty.
Members of the network characterized ethics as an expensive (in terms of human resources) but powerful tool in its capacity to function as a set of lived values which connects ideas with actions and consequences. Thus, self-reflective practice and long-term collaborative relationships with communities, on which the new museum ethics depends, each require an additional investment in time. It is not enough to “bolt on” the new museum ethics to current museum structures because these structures are fundamentally undemocratic, underpinned by outdated values and hierarchies that perpetuate inequalities. Network participants voiced their concern that museums’ focus on ownership of “property” (collections) encourages work in isolation from their communities, at the expense of developing relations among people. They also embraced interdisciplinary articulations of values and principles; for example, Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) was cited as a strongly worded, inalienable principle and persuasive statement of intent (Anderson 2012). Similarly, the Physicians Charter and the Hippocratic Oath each articulates principles that necessitate action. Network participants also identified empathy as being as important as legislation in fostering social engagement. These threads of discussion form the backdrop to specific issues debated in the respective workshops, which we consider next.
Social engagement
Participants in the workshop on social engagement concluded that social responsibility defines the twenty-first-century ethical museum, in which “democratic pluralism, shared authority and social justice are distinct but convergent areas of policy” (Marstine 2011a, 10). Workshop contributors agreed that, in order to realize the potential of social responsibility in museums, radical change was necessary, but achievable. Director of Policy and Research, Glasgow Life, Mark O’Neill critiqued what he called a “welfare model,” which he described as the dominant approach to social engagement whereby museums offer educational services to the public in order both to defend the core (collections) work of the organization and also to “correct” the perceived knowledge deficiencies of both visitors and non-visitors for their own benefit. Instead, he championed a social-justice model which prioritizes: the removal of barriers to engagement; respect for human rights; strategic thinking; long-term goals; and quality learning and content. This model also acknowledges and subverts power hierarchies as it generates co-creation and facilitates informed debate. Meanwhile, Fleming argued that the National Museums Liverpool’s mission “to change lives” through its commitment to social justice, makes it a unique national museum which views its citizens as agents of social change (National Museums Liverpool 2013).
FIGURE 4.3 Participant responses to “Key issues that museums are grappling with in the twenty-first century.”
Both O’Neill and Fleming acknowledged that moving from current models of museum operation to a social-justice model is not a straightforward process. Figure 4.3 shows some of the obstacles to change identified by participants, including: a fractured museum sector that is too discipline-centric and lacks leadership; inadequate codes of ethics that also exclude certain groups from the decision-making process; an avoidance of debate; and continuing global injustice. Figure 4.4 represents some of the major hurdles to museums’ realization of their potential moral agency, namely the need for museums to: admit their vulnerability and remove “fear of failure”; be led by values rather than finances; and embed a focus on social justice across the organization.
The group acknowledged that the commitment to moral agency varies across the museum spectrum, from municipal to national museums. Participants O’Neill and Anderson discussed the apparent disparity between local and regional museums that focus strongly on social engagement, but receive relatively little media attention and resources, and the national museums that frequently evade the social responsibility agenda by comparing themselves with their international peers and by securing media coverage and funding for their global reach. What is needed to change this situation? Head of Diversity and Strategy at Victoria and Albert Museum, Eithne Nightingale, asserted that funding alone was not the answer. Generous resources from previous UK governments for social inclusion work had led to changes at the margins, but not to the core values of museums (Nightingale and Mahal 2012). Participants agreed that the challenge is to convince museums that
