 |
 |
|
January 2009
|
|
> Expand all menus ^ Collapse all menus |
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it some material can only be seen by men, some only by members of the community of origin. Don't these restrictions make a mockery of our liberal values of sexual and racial equality? Don't they hinder the promotion and extension of knowledge of other cultures? Surely the spiritual artefacts of every culture should be accessible to all? The Museums Association's Code of Ethics asks curators to 'consider restricting access to certain specified objects where unrestricted access may cause offence or distress to actual or cultural descendants'. If the general public is denied access to any part of a museum collection surely it is unethical to hold them?
The code calls for more objects to be made available to more people. It also asks museums to fulfil responsibilities to those who made objects, including indigenous communities. In a small number of cases this might mean restricting access to certain objects that a particular community holds sacred. It is not the case that a culture can only be understood if every element of it is made available. It would not further a non-Catholic's understanding of Catholicism if they intruded on and therefore prevented a confession from being private. Someone who did would be unlikely to be invited back to learn more about aspects of the faith they would otherwise be welcome to explore. Similarly, most visitors wouldn't want to view anything if it offended people who otherwise make available to museums all other elements of their cultures. Respecting spiritual beliefs is often not only a matter of courtesy but also a practical pre-requisite for being able to enter into exploration of cultures where those beliefs are held. Gentiles are not permitted to enter a working synagogue until they have covered their heads. For a devout Jew an uncovered head undermines the purpose and essence of the building. It causes real offence, however unfounded this may appear to non-believers for whom the synagogue is merely bricks and mortar. In the same way, a cultural object in a museum can have more than material significance for members of the culture from which it came. Such significance has to be acknowledged before that other culture will allow itself to be further explored by releasing information or further material evidence about itself. Restricting access to certain objects certainly sits uncomfortably with our liberal values but the effect of such restrictions is unlikely to be sexist or racist in the same way as discrimination in, say, recruitment procedures for a job. And it is compatible with our values of equality to respect the rights of others to be able to influence the way their cultural patrimony is presented. Giving due respect is also in our practical interests in the context of a shifting balance in cultural power. Communities of origin now have greater political and legislative support to reclaim cultural property that has been misappropriated or is being misused. This complex issue reflects the many and changing roles of museums. But one response is that the notion of trust underpinning museums is complex and dynamic. Museums with ethnographic collections once saw their function only in terms of the physical preservation and interpretation of objects for a western public. They may now increasingly be entrusted with helping indigenous peoples preserve cultural patrimony is presented.
^ TOP
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
