Museum Practice. Группа авторов

a role for museum professionals, in conjunction with museum studies researchers, to define more rigorously the “social good” that museums promote. David Anderson suggested we re-examine the values of public service, which are rarely discussed, as a way of thinking. The workshop as a whole revealed that alternative ways of valuing artistic practice beyond the hierarchies of canonicity can help art museums and galleries to generate shared authority more successfully and become, as Jackson put it, “social actors beyond matters of taste and cultural capital.”

      Sustainability

      The fifth and final meeting of the network examined the theme of sustainability and, like many of the other workshops, raised ethical debates that were not easily resolved. Nick Poole, who opened the discussions, identified the need to decide the parameters of sustainability in museums; specifically, what should be sustained, why, and who decides. Poole characterized sustainability as “managing a dynamic equilibrium between consumption and production by establishing priorities.” He acknowledged the many conflicting definitions of perpetuity: from 100 years, which is how many museum professionals frame long-term impact, to thousands and millions of years, which is how environmentalists commonly measure actions. Poole asked if it is ethical to sustain some elements of museum activity, such as collections, at the expense of others, such as the experience of culture. He suggested that, in museums, sustainability concerns “educating individuals about their mutual obligation to others.” Megone noted that the ancient Greeks did not have a concept that could be identified as sustainability; instead, our relatively greater control over our world today has generated the idea of sustainability as an ethical value. Others added, however, that it remains difficult to determine exactly what we do, and do not, control.

      Tony Kendle, Creative Director of the Eden Project, Cornwall, and Robert Janes, Editor-in-Chief of Museum Management and Curatorship, agreed on the need for collective action among museums to help define and develop the parameters of sustainability. Kendle discussed the interconnectedness of the “three pillars” of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. He argued for the benefits of understanding how these work together, rather than focusing on each at the expense of the others. Kendle warned that views on sustainability too often “protect particular versions of the future” that create difficult ethical dilemmas. Poole proposed that museums could justify a commitment to sustainability by balancing their economic costs with the social good they create: “the opportunity to live good and reflective lives.”

      Janes claimed that addressing sustainability is dependent upon recognizing the synergies between museums and wider society: if economic growth is no longer tenable, how will museums adapt to a non-growth economy? He identified three issues of sustainability facing museums: negative environmental impacts; government and private debt; and resource depletion. Museums can only become sustainable when they engage with people and issues outside, including both professional “outreach” activities and personal experiences beyond their own self-interest.

The role of museum professionals in leading change sparked a debate about the agency of individuals within an organization. Janes remarked that senior management often feels threatened by the idea of individual agency and, as a result, does not cultivate it; this is a wasted opportunity to strengthen museum ethics. The model of the lone museum CEO is not working, and, as Farson has argued, “leadership is the property of the group, not an individual” (1996, 144). David Anderson called for the museum sector to develop a statement of personal ethics that could accede greater agency to individuals, citing medicine as a profession that cannot ignore the social context in which it operates. Responding to this, Eithne Nightingale advocated the alignment of personal and organizational ethics. Poole, however, questioned the wisdom of conflating ethics for the sector with individual ethics, and suggested that revisions to organizational structures and pathways of authority can also generate greater individual agency among museum staff. Similarly, Kendle critiqued the environmental movement’s focus on personal behavior to the detriment of larger, but more disruptive, social changes; while collective action toward sustainability is essential, individuals have to be inspired to hope in a “future possible.”

      Acknowledging the dilemmas of sustainability in twenty-first-century ethics, Poole remarked that tackling the issue was “like looking through a veil” and not knowing what was on the other side. He noted that it is possible to address very limited areas of sustainability, but much harder to resolve the broader issues. Kendle stated that some impacts might not be known or measurable, even if we do know they exist. Janes added that sustainability could be understood as a process of coming to terms with the paradoxical nature of museums and the need to manage an unknown future. Participants were certain that it was no longer acceptable for museums to remain silent, but that they must become activist organizations in pursuit of a sustainable world. They also acknowledged that the route toward change was slow and that the discourse around radical change is weak, but, as Sandahl remarked, the route backward is much faster.

      In conclusion, Janes reinforced the need for individual and institutional action to develop the socially engaged museum. However, some participants argued that, in their experience, institutions were likely to impede or compromise ethical decision- making. Poole asserted that currently there was a “moral leadership vacuum” in the museum sector that needed to be addressed. Citing the example of the UK’s Leveson Inquiry, the public investigation into the practices and ethics of the British press after the revelation of the phone-hacking scandal by News International in 2011, Megone considered its implications for redefining ethics in the media, drawing attention to the tension between public interest and freedom of the press (over which there is a lack of clarity), and the need for an active code of ethics alongside regulation. It was suggested that examples such as this relevant to museums would help to define the cultural contexts for museum ethics. Finally, Poole noted that Kendle had used three aspirational phrases to capture the spirit of network conversations on sustainability and museum ethics: “hope,” “change you can believe in,” and “future possible.”

Reflections on the processes of the research network: what was most valuable?

Involvement in the workshops had a significant impact on participants. It gave them a new language to discuss ethics in the wider sector and brought them into contact with other colleagues who advocate progressive ethical models for museums. Participants were asked to indicate what issues from the five workshops they found to be most insightful (Figure 4.6) and most challenging (Figure 4.7). Insightful issues included: co-production; the interdependence of museums and the wider world; and the need for a personal ethics in the sector. Challenging issues ranged from: mapping the relationships between personal and institutional ethics; distinguishing between theoretical and applied ethics; and acknowledging the diversity of approaches to ethics within the museum sector. Contributors reflected that there was often a connection between the most insightful and the most challenging issues: for example, co-production was an insightful issue for some participants, but also raised challenges in in terms of definition and the reinterpretation of expertise. One participant questioned whether ethics was the most appropriate framework through which to address the most pressing issues facing museums, such as the structures of power and inequality.

FIGURE 4.6 Reflections on the most insightful elements of the five workshops.

FIGURE 4.7 Reflections on the most challenging issues from the five workshops.

When asked what major questions had been left unanswered by the research network, participants