Hello, impermanence!: ICOM's proposed new museum definition
On July 26, 2019 the International Council on Museums announced a new proposed definition the term “museum.” This is a considerable event in the international museum community and represents how much our field has changed in response to a globalization and professionalization of the museum sector. I am personally ecstatic about the new proposed definition. Here’s why:
The old definition was OLD
First, here’s the old definition:
“A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment. (ICOM 2007)”
By old, I mean both outdated philosophically, and time for a review/refresh. Ten years is actually a long time to leave a governing principle hanging around without serious review. I am very familiar with this old definition because I reflected on it A LOT in the process of writing my dissertation in 2017. I was quite surprised at how it did not align with the direction in which museums are heading. Let’s pick that apart a bit:
Nonprofit - there are many museums, at least in the US, that are for-profit, including corporate collections.
Permanent - This definition tells us that museums organizations exist in perpetuity. This is absolutely not true. Museums close every day. In fact, at least 11% of museums in the united states had their tax exempt status revoked between 2010 and 2015 for failure to file 990s (non-profit tax returns) for three consecutive years (Richardson, 2018). This means that the museum is essentially inactive, its board does not meet, it probably has no staff. What has happened to the organizations in a legal and physical sense is an entire research project that I have yet to undertake.
Institution - Most of us refer to our organizations as institutions. That is unlikely to change. However, Organizational Theorists know that “Institution” is a particular type of organization that is essentially a fixed entity in society - unchangeable, and immoveable (yes, this is a simplification). institutions are highly likely to become isomorphic - that means that institutionalized organizations in the same sector are on a path of becoming more and more similar to each other as they look to their peers for best practices. Sound familiar? In fact, museums were an essential case study group for the concept of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio 1991). After spending a good amount of time with Institutional Theory, I try to call museums “organizations” rather than “institutions.” Maybe if I stop calling museums institutions, they’ll stop exemplifying the characteristics of institutions. That is not likely to happen, but I can be the change I want to see.
in service of society and open to the public - OK! this part is great. Defining society might be an area for improvement.
acquires, conserves, researches, communicates, and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment. - This part is also generally OK. However this definition does not say how museums will undertake these activities, why, or in alignment with what values. Are we going to behave ethically and respectfully? Steal stuff from other countries? Use racial slurs? Respect the rights of people who comprise both the content and audience of our exhibitions? What kind of education are we doing? Do we owe anything to our environment? Do we have a responsibility to the societies we serve to promote justice, equity, sustainability? Essentially, this is a bunch of objectives without any goals. Museums are great at output, not outcomes, as my colleague Douglas Worts points out frequently (Worts 2006).
Proposed New Definition
This new definition was developed with input from ICOM member nations. You can read the 250 proposed definitions here.
This is the resulting proposed definition:
Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.
First, it is much longer. The volume of words more adequately represents the multi-faceted work of museums globally. This statement is more aspirational, rather than a description of what museums currently do. It gives us something to work toward. The new definition tells us HOW and WHY we conduct our activities - it gives us ethical purpose and actual OUTCOMES to strive toward - we do this work to '“contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.”
This new definition does not make us strive for permanence at the expense of doing our job (now actually defined as outcomes, not outputs) well, it does not tells us that warehousing heritage is an acceptable minimum goal. It omits my two least-favorite concepts from the old definition - “permanence” and “institution.”
I am so hopeful about the change this new definition has the ability to inspire in our field!
Citations:
DiMaggio, P. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
International Council on Museums. (2007). Museum definition. Retrieved August 18, 2019 from https://icom.museum/en/activities/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/
Richardson, E. E. C. (2018). Measuring the Consequences of the New York State Board of Regents' Museum Chartering Rule Using Structural Equation Models and Geographic Information Systems: Implications for Policy Makers and the Museum Field (Doctoral dissertation, Niagara University).
Worts, D. (2006). Measuring Museum Meaning: A Critical Assessment Framework. The Journal of Museum Education,31(1), 41-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40283905.