Undefined whiteness and the diverse Other within diversity
discourse of Dutch museums
Page 2 of 91
Diversity put into perspective
Undefined whiteness and the diverse Other within diversity discourse
of Dutch museums
Rowan Stol (11013443)
Master Thesis Sociology
Social Problems & Social Policy
Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences
First supervisor: mw. M.D. (Marci) Cottingham PhD
Second supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. W.G.J. Duyvendak
University of Amsterdam
22243 words
July 8
th, 2019
Page 3 of 91 PREFACE
It is with great pleasure that I hereby present my master’s thesis: ‘Diversity put into perspective - Undefined whiteness and the diverse Other within diversity discourse of Dutch museums’. The thesis you have in front of you right now is the result of my best sociological efforts over the past few months. During this time, I was lucky enough to be able to attend events where I have heard Sara Ahmed, Gloria Wekker and Kimberlé Crenshaw speak about their work in real life. Each of their work was featured prominently during this academic year and has therefore been of great influence on the creation of this project. Besides the wide variety of academic inspirations, this project was als brought into being with the help of a group of great people.
My appreciation goes out to my first supervisor, Marci Cottingham, for her helpful commentary and advice throughout the process of creating this research project, as well as always making me feel encouraged about the work I was doing. I would also like to thank Jan Willem Duyvendak for agreeing to be my second supervisor. I take a lot of inspiration from your work.
Thank you to all my interviewees, for their readiness and enthusiasm to participate in this research. Your answers have been of great value and I appreciate the efforts you are making to work towards the improvement of the cultural sector.
I would like to thank Weera Koopman and Zohra Kruithof for their time and effort to proofread this thesis, as well as their ongoing support along the way. Furthermore, I want to give appreciation to my study group, not just for the many productive library sessions, but also for all the early-morning breakfasts, coffees and Italian sandwiches. Thanks to you, I look back at the past few months with great fondness, and I am proud of the combination of projects we have put out in the world. To all the people that have been around for the past few months to hear about my struggles and victories: thank you for listening, and thank you for making me forget about it from time to time as well.
Page 4 of 91
“But in being spoken, and repeated in different contexts, a world takes shape
around diversity. To speak the language of diversity is to participate in the
creation of a world"
Page 5 of 91 CONTENTS PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 7 CHAPTER 1 11 Theoretical Framework
1.1 Cultural difference, ethnicity and racism in the Dutch context 11 1.2 Museums: shaping discourse and producing knowledge 14 1.3 Diversity work and institutional whiteness 16
CHAPTER 2 19
Methodology
2.1 Research frame 19
2.2 Selecting museums 21
2.3 Gathering and analysing documents 23 2.4 Conducting, coding and analysing interviews 23 2.5 Doing and processing observations 25
2.6 Presenting the analysis 27
CHAPTER 3 28
Documents
3.1 The Code Cultural Diversity 28
3.2 Broad, categorical definitions 29 3.3 The museum is of and for everyone 30 3.4 Amplification of existing factors 32 3.5 Feeling 'at home': individual responsibilities 33
3.6 Conclusion 36 CHAPTER 4 38 Interviews 4.1 Diversity is defined 38 4.1.1. Broadly 38 4.1.2 Purposely undefined 41
4.2 Diversity as part of social/demographic changes 42 4.2.1 (New) demographic realities 42
4.2.2 A hype / social trend 44
Page 6 of 91 4.3 Diversity as a strategy / tool 49
4.3.1 From theory to practice 49
4.3.2 CCD / four P's as a measuring instrument 51 4.3.3 To fill a gap / reach a number 53
4.3.4 Becoming part of the DNA 55
4.4 Diversity as something optional 57
4.4.1 Linked to personal views 57
4.4.2 Partially secluded 58
4.4.3 Time, money, methods 60
4.5 Diversity is limited 62
CHAPTER 5 66
Observations
5.1 Diversity is largely absent 66
5.2 Contextual use of diversity 67
5.3 Critical questions 68
5.4 Museums and knowledge 69
CHAPTER 6 72 Conclusion DISCUSSION 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY 78 DOCUMENTS 80 SUMMARY 84 APPENDIX 87
Page 7 of 91
INTRODUCTION
“I consider the word diversity, indeed, as a problem that exists in the minds of white people”
These were the closing words, spoken by the artist Charl Landvreugd, of a panel discussion featuring three black artists about their work in the Dutch cultural sector. Part of this discussion revolved around the term ‘diversity’, which was brought up due to its frequent and popular use and the attention it has been given in several related cultural institutions (Rode Hoed, 2018). A lot of power appeared to be attributed to a single word; a word which at first seemed to describe an independent phenomenon, but was in this context exposed to describe a mere interpretation of a problem. I had seen the word diversity appear in many contexts, but had yet to critically analyse the many implications it could have.
The artistic and aesthetic qualities of art at the surface level can easily mask the social and political context of which it is always part. In this thesis, I focus on a topic that firmly places the art world in that context. Making diversity my particular subject of research was inspired by the expectation that in its variety of interpretations, it could take on different shapes and meanings. Suggesting that diversity is seen as a problem in the minds of white people is one prominent example of that, which I was intrigued to explore. It was in this exploration that I ran into a (relatively) recent initiative: the Code Cultural Diversity.
In 2011, the Dutch minister of Education, Culture and Science called for a tool to increase diversity in the cultural sector (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019). In response to this request, the Code Cultural Diversity (CCD) was set up. The code is supposed to provide “a stepping-stone to develop comprehensive diversity policy in the area of Personnel, Public, Programme and Partners” (Ibid.). These four areas of personnel, public, program and partners symbolize the code’s system of four P’s, which is directed at the desire to increase diversity in these four areas within a cultural institution. The code works with a system of ‘comply or explain’, by which is meant that the only exception for not applying the code is when it can be argued why the specific goal or
Page 8 of 91 cause of a cultural institution is in conflict with the goals of the CCD (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019). Because of this system, and because all Dutch cultural institutions united under the Federatie Cultuur are connected to the CCD, it is expected that most Dutch cultural institutions work with methods to enhance the diversity in both their internal and external functioning, or plan on doing so in the near future (MuseumVereniging, 2019a).
The code thus focusses on the desire or need to make the cultural sector more diverse. But what is meant by diversity? The CCD introduces the purpose of the code as the following:
“Diversity is not yet embedded within the (publicly financed) cultural sector. Although many organisations do indeed devote some attention to cultural diversity in their programming, they often do so through incidental activities which take place on location or are financed separately. This gives rise to the risk of polarisation: we could see the development of two distinct cultural sectors: one with diverse activities and a diverse public, and the other with mainstream activities and a relatively homogenous public. This is undesirable, particularly in the large cities. We forget that renewal in art and culture has so often been the result of an open mind and inquisitiveness about people with a different background. The cultural sector is selling itself short” (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019).
Without even giving a definition, this purpose alone reveals a very particular outlook on a problem, coming from a specific perspective on diversity. The ‘mainstream’ opposes the ‘diverse’, people with a ‘different’ background are addressed as the source of ‘renewal’, which should be received with an ‘open mind’. When speaking of diversity in this way, what is meant by the mainstream? What difference is implied?
In this thesis, I analyse the role of language in the active construction of reality, by which I place myself in the sociological tradition of social constructionism. The social constructionist approach considers knowledge to be culturally and historically specific; it reflects a certain way of thinking about reality in a particular space and time
Page 9 of 91 and emphasizes how social processes have formed this way of thinking, which has an influence on forms of action that follow (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 5-6). Through the use of language, meanings and representations are placed on a perceived reality. As these meanings and representations can vary greatly, and are informed by the social processes and specific knowledge that exists in a specific space and time, it is through language that a certain reality is being constituted (Ibid.: 8-9). Discursive practices are one way through which language “contributes to the constitution of the social world including social identities and social relations” (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 61). When referring to discourse, I go by the broad definition which says that discourse is “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world)” (Ibid.: 1).
Following this tradition, the language surrounding diversity contributes to the creation of a world in which social identities and social relations are established. As the statement by Charl Landvreugd suggests, diversity may constitute a world in which social identities and social relations are shaped in a white perspective. As this type of discourse contains knowledge that is determined by its particular time and place, diversity discourse is thus shaped by knowledge about diversity at the current time, as perceived by a white, Dutch norm. This research attempts to unpack this knowledge by looking at the Dutch cultural sector, taking the Code Cultural Diversity as a starting point.
The Code Cultural Diversity is a practical tool developed for the cultural sector that is part of the discourse surrounding diversity in the Netherlands. As the code is meant to help constitute diversity policies within specific institutions, it will travel and take shape in particular spaces (Clarke, Bainton, Lendvai & Stubbs, 2015). According to Kingfisher (2013), we should "envision the life of social policy - a process rather than a thing - as complex and convoluted, tracing and leaving traces of meaning and power as it travels across sites and through persons" (3). This perspective opposes the idea of policy as rational and neutral, and considers the importance of analysing it on different levels and in different places where it takes shape (Clarke et. al., 2015: 9-10). The way diversity is spoken about and applied in policies and initiatives for social change forms the base of the way in which the problem (the lack of diversity in the cultural sector at
Page 10 of 91 the current time) is understood, who is involved and what solutions are considered to be fitting. In this thesis, I will follow the Code Cultural Diversity as a tool for diversity policy in a selection of Dutch museums and consider how, in these different places and on different levels, its meaning and relevance changes. The term ‘diversity’ will be central in this thesis and critically assessed in several places in which it does (or does not) appear. It is important to connect the significance of this subject to the Dutch context in particular, and consider the ways in which diversity might be based on particular knowledge held by particular people.
I structure my thesis based on the research question: how is the term diversity defined and operationalized in the diversity discourse presented by Dutch museums?
Page 11 of 91 CHAPTER 1
Theoretical framework
1.1 Cultural difference, ethnicity and racism in the Dutch context
The Code Cultural Diversity was set up as a method to increase diversity in the Dutch cultural sector. The code makes a distinction based on a difference between those who are represented in the cultural sector and those who are not. Those who are currently not represented are thus the ones that could increase diversity in the sector. There is a certain characteristic attributed to this distinctive group which I will try to unpack in this section
As its title suggests, the CCD focusses on cultural diversity, which it says, “refers to one specific personal characteristic: a person’s ethnocultural origins” (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019). Following this, the code states that “a person is of ‘indigenous Dutch ethnicity’ if both he/she and his/her parents were born in the Netherlands” (Ibid.). Dutch ethnicity is therefore not something that those who do not match these characteristics can have. Here, I recognize a tendency to define difference in terms of having an indigenous Dutch ethnicity or not. Following the social constructivist approach I take in this thesis, I consider that “ethnicity, and to the same extent, race are not naturally occurring entities, but rather rely upon social processes and discourses that construct and subsequently naturalise/reify group differences” (Brandellero 2011: 54). For the purpose of this thesis, it is relevant to analyse how ethnicity as an entity is connected to cultural diversity, considering that this is the category upon which differences in representation in the cultural sector are based.
Defining difference based on ethnicity is a common tendency in a broader Western context. The term diversity is often used in a way that merely refers to ethnicity (Ang, 2005: 305; Titley & Lentin, 2008: 15). The category used by the CCD of indigenous Dutch ethnicity forms the base against which the ethnic Other comes into being; this is the Other that supposedly represents cultural diversity. No other criteria, besides The Netherlands being one’s own and their parents’ birthplace, are attributed to being of Dutch ethnic origin. In being largely undefined, this category “has implicitly (and sometimes explicitly functioned as the unreflexive norm, a neutral
Page 12 of 91 category, a natural fact without a history or relational context” (Mepschen, 2016a: 29). In extension of this, this base category is not considered to be ethnic; ethnicity is merely something attributed to the Other. Therefore, anything that is not part of the Dutch category becomes ‘ethnic’ (Ibid.; Jong, 1998: 362; Lentin, 2005: 389; Schinkel, 2007; Wekker, 2016: 22). Similarly, whiteness, by which I mean “a field of power that is defined by means of skin color, accent and language, habitus, normative behavior, aesthetic disposition, cultural preference, and taste” (Mepschen, 2016a: 29), is considered as an undefined ‘reference category’ against which difference is measured (Ibid.; Emirbayer & Desmond, 2012: 579). According to Essed and Trienekens (2008), whiteness in the Dutch context is more fixated on cultural difference than on biological difference, making it worthwhile to consider whiteness in the Dutch context as a distinct position. Additionally, the division between a Dutch and a non-Dutch category has further implication, as Wekker (2016) states that “the binary thus sets racializing processes in motion; everyone knows that they reference whites and people of color respectively” (23). The Dutch ethnic category is thus directly linked to the visual characteristic of skin color, in which being white is equated to being Dutch, and vice versa. When I speak of whiteness in the scope of this thesis, this is intrinsically linked to these particularities of the Dutch context.
The fixation on ethnicity and/or cultural difference started in the second half of the previous century. The idea had grown that the category of race had a hierarchical connotation of superiority and inferiority, which needed to be eradicated by thinking of a new term to classify difference. Focussing on culture, instead, would be a way to see these categories in relative relation to each other (Lentin, 2005: 386). Apart from being a legal category, race has disappeared from public discourse and policy and is instead “more implicit and often intertwined with notions of culture and ethnicity (Essed & Trienekens, 2008: 55). However, the hierarchical assumptions have remained in essence, but have become more contained (Lentin, 2005: 394). “Thinking culturally about difference is the default position for not talking about ‘race’ and avoiding the charge of racism. (…) It can continue precisely because it has been deleted from official discourse” (Ibid.).
Page 13 of 91 This avoidance of addressing and acknowledging racism today is pertinent in the Dutch context. The Dutch image of the self is based on an idea of innocence (Wekker, 2016; Essed & Hoving; 2014). This innocence is funded in symbolic factors such as the Netherlands’ relative size on a global scale, both geographically and politically, as well as appropriated child-like and feminine features (Wekker, 2016: 16-17). As such, the harmful impact the Netherlands could make is considered minimal. Instead, The Netherlands are considered as tolerant, open and sympathetic towards difference. In this context, racist expressions or acts are attenuated into jokes, laughed off with a claim of ‘meaning no harm’. As individual acts are disregarded in this matter, any accusations of discriminatory social structures are denied completely. This denial contains both a claim of ignorance and a desire to stay ignorant, as to not be aware or held accountable (Ibid.: 16-17). This attitude of denial and ignorance is considered to be the typical stance towards racism in the Netherlands (Essed & Hoving, 2014: 10). A discourse focussed on cultural differences and ethnicity can be recognized as a method to refrain from speaking about racism. In this way, the innocent image in which ‘real’ racism cannot exist, remains protected (Wekker, 2016: 18).
The denial is a refusal to acknowledge that racism is rooted in the historical perception of white superiority that had four hundred years of imperial rule as both a cause and a consequence (Baum, 2006), and that these ideas are fostered within the cultural archive. The cultural archive, according to Wekker (2016), contains “the memories, the knowledge, and affect with regard to race that were deposited within metropolitan populations, and the power relations embedded within them” (19). This cultural archive has been passed on through generations and is embedded in “policies, in organizational rules, in popular and sexual cultures and in commonsense everyday knowledge” (Ibid.). Though change of its contents over time is not denied (Wekker, 2016: 20), the cultural archive is based in a shared history and is still very much present in Dutch society today. This can be recognized in, for example, the unconscious centralization of whiteness as the unquestioned norm in discourse.
“We are dealing here with a toxic heritage, the epistemic violence of a colonial discourse in which white people have silently and self-evidently assigned themselves a normative and superior position, the teleological axis or endpoint of
Page 14 of 91 development, and other women are always already located in relation to them” (63).
Instead of women, here we would speak of the ethnic Other1 existing in relation to the normative position of the person of Dutch origin. The denial of prevailing structural racism, existing as the privileging of whiteness in Dutch society as a whole, is a denial of the cultural archive and therefore an unwillingness to acknowledge the oppressive and condemnable history of the Netherlands.
Thus, an emphasis on cultural difference becomes a thin veil to cover up the prevailing racism built into Dutch society and thus in the minds of inhabitants of that society. How, then, can it be recognized? In Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance (1992), bell hooks analyses a celebratory approach towards cultural difference and diversity. Summarizing her sharp analysis, the desire for contact with or connection to an Other (from a white perspective) is deeply rooted in the system of white supremacy. The appropriation of elements of this Other, in the form of, for example, sexual relations, clothing, decorations or food, is connected to essentializing notions of the Other, as a source of ‘primitivity’, on the verge of pleasure and danger. As this perspective, which shows a keen interest in involving oneself with the image of the Other that comes from imperial times, is in contrast with the stern rejection of non-white Others that came before, this interest is seen as a “progressive change” (Ibid.: 24). However, “mutual recognition of racism, its impact both on those who are dominated and those who dominate, is the only standpoint that makes possible an encounter between races that is not based on denial and fantasy" (hooks, 1992: 28). The appreciative interest in the Other, whilst not considering the racism that is still active in social structures today, cannot result in fair representations.
1.2 Museums: shaping discourse and producing knowledge
1
Page 15 of 91 In their analysis of the Dutch public arts sector, Trienekens and Bos (2014) confirm that there is a strong focus on, or even an obsession with cultural difference, which is defined in terms of ethnicity and not in terms of race (296). Additionally, “the Dutch public arts sector can be seen as being shaped by “whiteness”, if one takes white normativity and the application of a hierarchical perception of cultures and artistic traditions as an important indicator of whiteness” (Ibid.). This closely resembles the centralization of a white norm that is embedded in the cultural archive as described by Wekker (2016).
Reilly (2018) emphasizes that “exclusionary practices against non-white artists are everywhere visible in the art world – in the art galleries, museums, press, market, exhibitions, permanent collections, and so forth” (103). She argues that the art world is Eurocentric and excludes artists of color. Those exclusionary practices do not merely present themselves as issues of access, but also as issues of erasure of heterogenous narratives:
“Moreover, instead of constructing a new and inclusive discourse for art in an age of globalization – one that confronts the limits of occidental power and thereby departs from hegemonic Euro-US cultural perspectives and their exhibition projects – most mainstream (non-activist) exhibitions are only interested in including postcolonial Others as long as they speak of their Otherness” (Ibid.: 104).
Museums function as elite and privileged spaces within the art world (Ang, 2005: 306). Due to this status, it is interesting for the purpose of this research to look at the discourse that is presented by museums (van Dijk, 2001: 355). An important role of museums, especially those that are publicly financed, is to engage the public with its cultural heritage. As public spaces, museums are being challenged more and more to show their social purpose in appealing to the needs of their nation’s citizens, and are therefore called on their influential power to set the example of initiatives for diversity and inclusion (Ibid.).
Page 16 of 91 Museums are also considered to be learning spaces, acquiring and presenting expert knowledge onto the observing and participating visitor; a unidirectional approach through which knowledge is transferred from institution to individual (Sitzia, 2018: 74). In assigning this educational function to the museum, the knowledge and discourse it presents is granted a certain power. What is presented by the museum is more easily accepted than questioned, as the institution is believed to hold the expert knowledge. Museums therefore have an influential say in what is considered of high artistic and aesthetic quality, what artists’ work is being displayed and what narratives are being presented. “The apparent neutrality of museums’ discourse and invisibility of their positioning can lead to reinforcement of oppressive and exclusionary structures (…). Museums choose who will be represented and how and what dominant discourse will be adopted” (Ibid.). The powerful position museums hold should not be underrated, especially in relation to defending or eradicating inequalities within the art world. For example, as mentioned earlier, diversity discourse can be directed towards a ‘single story’ representation of non-white or ethnic Others, who are defined as such by being mirrored against the white norm (Reilly, 2018: 99).
The way in which knowledge is constructed and presented by a museum can, however, be different from this traditional, unidirectional approach. Instead of centralizing the intrinsic value of an artwork (as determined by experts at the museum) and translating this to the viewer, the interpretation of the viewer and the knowledge they produce based on their interaction with the art could also be prioritized. Considering different possibilities of knowledge production between the museum and its visitors could be a method to challenge dominant and normative ideas about art and the art world (Sitzia, 2018: 78). However, at the current time, I consider museums mostly as influential players in determining the dominant discourse in the cultural sector. They therefore serve as an interesting domain for my research into diversity discourse.
1.3 Institutional whiteness and diversity work
Having considered the relevance of the museum as an influential institution, I will now go into theory that covers experiences of working with diversity within such
Page 17 of 91 institutions. Sara Ahmed (2012) problematizes not just diversity, but diversity implemented in the context of institutions in her book ‘On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life’. The problem with trying to push diversity within an institutional context is the prevalence of institutional whiteness. Institutional whiteness explained in the American context can be defined as:
“(...) the processes by which institutions that historically excluded people of color from participation before legal changes enacted in the civil rights era today maintain the institutional boundaries of white power and privilege despite increasing representation of people of color within these institutions" (Evans & Moore, 2015: 440).
Following Gloria Wekker’s concept of the cultural archive (2016), I recognize institutional whiteness as a continuation of these ideas, in which whiteness is (implicitly) considered normative and superior and is therefore reproduced at different levels in society. I therefore consider the previous statement to be applicable to the Dutch context. Notable in this definition is that institutional whiteness is not related to having people of color work there or not, but about the continuous domination and privilege of whiteness within these institutions. According to Evans and Moore (2015), “white institutional spaces, built on a history of exclusion, are embedded with white discourses and ideologies that subjugate the racialized experiences of people of color” (452). As exemplified in the previous section, museums portray similar exclusionary practices of people of color, partially by being dominated by whiteness and by providing selective access to homogenous narratives of the Other (Reilly, 2018).
Ahmed (2012) researches diversity work in institutional spaces. Institutional whiteness is of influence on the ways in which diversity gains meaning within an institution. In many ways, institutions can benefit from diversity discourse without actually changing anything to efficiently work towards that goal (115-116). It therefore can actually contribute to maintaining instead of criticizing institutional whiteness.
For example, expressing the institutions’ commitment to diversity is often not followed up by taking (proper) action. The act of expressing commitment to the goal
Page 18 of 91 can be a method to benefit the image of an institution, by which diversity becomes an objective of the institution’s self-presentation. Being accused of being ‘too white’ is damaging. As such, the problem is defined not as the institution being too white, but merely coming across as too white. "The problem of whiteness is thus redescribed here not as an institutional problem but as a problem with those who are not included by it" (Ibid.: 35).
Connected to that are the associations with the word diversity compared to similar predecessors like equality. Diversity has more positive connotations, emphasizing a collaboration based on difference, instead of the more critical note that is attached to for example equality. As such, speaking of diversity does not imply critical changes, but can build towards alliances based on joint efforts. It therefore becomes less threatening and is easier to imply (Ahmed, 2012: 65). Similarly to hooks’ (1992) description in Eating the Other, in which the celebratory approach towards cultural difference shows exoticized stereotyping, diversity is placed in a positive narrative which celebrates diversity as a fruitful addition to the functioning of an institution. This creates the illusion that issues of inequality have been resolved (Ahmed, 2012: 71). This approach disregards the structural inequalities based in institutional whiteness and makes diversity as something that can be practically implied in a collaborative style.
Other researches have further explored what consequences might come from such an approach. According to Bell & Hartmann (2007), addressing diversity on the surface gives way to repudiate the structural issues that are fundamental to the problem, which need to be acknowledged in order to get to an actual solution.
"The diversity discourse, or diversity without oppression, functions to shift the focus away from an explicit disavowal of race and racial inequalities towards a rhetoric that aspires to acknowledge and even celebrate racial differences. At the same time, the diversity discourse conflates, confuses, and obscures the deeper sociostructural roots and consequences of diversity" (Ibid.: 910).
Page 19 of 91 Besides steering away from the structural nature of inequality, a focus on diversity can have a contradicting effect, as its focus on difference can direct the attention to essentializing notions of difference, instead of the social structures that give meanings and consequential power and privilege to that difference (Bell & Hartmann, 2007: 910; Baez, 2000). The fact that diversity is getting positive attention does not mean that the actual issues that need to be addressed are actively and effectively taken into account (Titley & Lentin, 2008: 12).
What these possible consequences already show is the different ways in which diversity can be interpreted. In this multiplicity of its definitions lies a problem (Essed, 2002: 9; Vertovec, 2012: 288-289; Ahmed, 2007: 240). As “the language of diversity becomes easily mobilised as a defense of reputation (perhaps even a defense of whiteness)” (151), I will consider how diversity work may be leaning on a mostly positive narrative which emphasizes practical solutions of bringing diversity into the institution, and with that addressing mostly the threat to an institution’s image of being too white. I will be looking at the ways in which diversity is considered a problem and thus what solutions are deemed fitting.
Page 20 of 91
CHAPTER 2
Methodology
2.1 Research frameIn general, this research is framed as a critical discourse analysis. This frame in particular looks at the way discourse can contribute to the way (unequal) power relations are created and maintained within a society (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002: 63; van Dijk, 2001). Considering the unequal power relations based in institutional whiteness as explained in the theoretical framework, I consider diversity discourse as an appropriate object for such an analysis.
According to van Dijk (2001), there are two questions asked within critical discourse analysis, which are: “how do (more) powerful groups control public discourse?” and “how does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful groups, and what are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality?” (355). This research revolves around the ways in which the term diversity functions within the discourse presented by museums, in which museums represent a powerful group in control of public discourse in the cultural sector. The ways in which diversity is understood and applied in different context reveals what problem is understood to exist, what solutions are deemed fitting and who benefits off of this. Therefore, I have composed the following research questions:
How is the term diversity defined and operationalized in the diversity discourse presented by Dutch museums?
As I will be taking into consideration how the Code Cultural Diversity travels, I have selected three domains in which the code and/or other diversity initiatives may appear:
1. Documents from the websites of museums
2. Interviews with employees representing a museum 3. Observations at the museums
Page 21 of 91 These three domains each portray a form of a museum’s self-presentation, where the documents and observations represent publicly accessible spaces (on- and offline) and the interviews open a dialogue in which the museum is represented by the knowledge and experience of a particular person working for the museum. Each of these domains seem relevant for this research as they each present diversity discourse in a particular way and from a particular perspective; all of which I dissect in a similar way to reveal their definition and operationalisation of the term diversity. Despite this overarching method of critical discourse analysis, which centralizes language in general and the term diversity in particular, each domain required specific methods to gather and analyse data, which I will explain separately further on.
2.2 Selecting museums
Within the available time and scope of this research project, I decided to focus on 20 of the more influential museums in the Dutch cultural sector. Each of these museums has been thoroughly searched for online content relating to diversity, approached for an interview to discuss the subject and visited in order to visualize the execution of diversity objectives. The list consists of museums with different purposes, collections and formats, each based mostly in the bigger cities in the Netherlands or within close proximity to these cities. All information about the museums, contact info, (email) correspondence, and relevant details on their involvement with the Code Cultural Diversity and diversity initiatives I compiled in an Excel document which was my point of reference throughout the research.
Table 1: Selected museums for this thesis
Amsterdam Museum (I) Huis Marseille
Anne Frank Huis Joods Historisch Museum
Beeld en Geluid Kunsthal Rotterdam (I)
Museum Boijmans van Beuningen (I) Museum Arnhem (I)
Centraal Museum NEMO Science Museum
Page 22 of 91 Foam Fotografiemuseum Amsterdam Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (I)
Frans Hals Museum Tropenmuseum
Gemeentemuseum Den Haag (I) Van Abbemuseum Hermitage Amsterdam (I) Van Gogh Museum (I)
(The museums with (I) have also been interviewed).
Each of these museums is part of the MuseumVereniging, the branch organisation of Dutch museum. As the MuseumVereniging supports the Code Cultural Diversity, the code is connected to these museums due to their membership of this branch organization (2019a; 2019b). The relevance of the museums for this research project was determined by a few possible factors, though each centred around their visible and well-represented presence in the Dutch cultural sector, as this connects to their expected influence on the dominant discourse. It is expected of larger, more well-known and better resourced museums to be in a position in which changing their approaches is feasible, and are therefore looked at to lead the way (Hooper-Greenhill, 1997: 6). I thus followed the method of purposive sampling, where I sampled cases that “exemplify a dimension of interest” (Bryman, 2012: 419). The first five museums (Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh Museum, Anne Frank Huis, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, NEMO Science Museum) were selected as they had the largest number of visitors in the past year (NOS, 2018). These numbers suggest the popularity of the museums, and therefore their influential role with the discourse they present. As this report of the most visited museums resulted in a limited number, other museums were selected based on my personal interpretation of more well-known museums, their appearance in google searches, references on websites from pre-selected museums and recommendations by museum employees in early emails.
The validity of this selection is limited, as these factors are my interpretations of these museums’ relevance, which could be different in various perspectives or interpretations. However, the aim of this research is to give an overview of the presented discourse surrounding diversity and the definitions and operationalisations
Page 23 of 91 within that overview. Though the research could have included some different or more museums, the aim of the research is still met with the current selection of museums.
2.3 Documents from the websites of museums
From the website, I selected documents on their relevance to the project. Using the search terms ‘diversity’, ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘code cultural diversity’ often gave either 0 results or a couple of pages with both relevant and irrelevant findings. From these results, relevant documents were selected by excluding the results in which the word ‘diversity’ or ‘diverse’ was used in a way that was synonymous to ‘several’ or ‘various’. On top of this search method and a further investigation of the website, I gathered each museum’s most recent annual report and any future policy plans. Excluded from the annual reports is Huis Marseille, as they did not have any of such document available.
This quest for documents resulted in a total of 37 documents, consisting of annual reports, future policy plans, blogposts, press releases and publications. I assembled these documents in Atlas.ti, scanned them for relevant sections and coded definitions and methods that connected to the term ‘diversity’, ‘cultural diversity’ or ‘inclusion’. Based on the coded sections, I wrote memos in which I concluded what themes emerged from each document, how expressions from several documents of the same institutions related and generally how the museum addressed diversity (Saldaña, 2013; Saldaña, 2009).
2.4 Interviews
All 20 museums were contacted by email in which I briefly explained my research and interest in interviewing someone from their institution. In order to secure that my interviewees would not be overly cautious of their language use, I framed the subject of my research to be about diversity’ within the Dutch cultural sector in general, where I needed to conduct interviews in order to see how specific institutions worked with the term and initiatives like the Code Cultural Diversity.
Page 24 of 91 The emails that were sent were directed at general information email addresses, as well as direct email addresses of employees when they were available online or given to me by people I had already been in contact with. For museums with a contact form instead of an email address, this method was used to make my interview request. Five interviews were scheduled based on the initial emails. Five more were scheduled after making a phone call and further email contact thereafter. Four requests were declined; two museums responded that they unfortunately did not have time for interviews, one claimed that diversity was a present factor in their museum but that only their director could comment on it and they were unavailable for an interview, and one last museum expressed interest in the interview, but could only say something ‘useful’ about the topic after the summer, as they will then start a pilot program surrounding diversity. My follow-up email, stating that I was interested in their views regardless of whether they had any special programs aimed at the subject, was ignored. The other six contacted museums never responded to any of my emails, even after I had called. As my analysis of the documents and observations already started during the time of arranging and scheduling the interviews, I decided that I would be able to work most efficiently if I stuck with the 20 museums I had initially decided on. Of these 20 museums, I thus was able to conduct interviews at 10 of them.
A question that appeared a few times, both in an email as in a couple phone calls was what I meant by diversity. Wanting to find out the same from them within this research, it was simply ironic to receive the question in return. It emphasized the need for clarity regarding the subject that I am looking for from museums.
Limited time and availability seemed to be a recurring issue in planning interviews. Because of this, three interviews were conducted over the phone. For the other seven, I visited the interviewee at their office at the museum or in the café belonging to the museum. The interviews took between 30 to 60 minutes.
The interviews were semi-structured, loosely referencing an interview guide while being mindful of relevant topics and questions emerging at different times (Bryman, 2012: 471). In each of the interviews, I posed the direct question what the definition of diversity was for that particular museum. Next to their direct answer to that question, I analysed their use of the term throughout the interview in order to
Page 25 of 91 look for definitions or applications of the term that were not carefully composed as a definition. I asked about methods and initiatives around the topic to gain insight into how the term was operationalized, as well as looking for hints of such methods throughout the interview. Other topics in the interview guide revolved around the Code Cultural Diversity, diversity as a topic in the broader cultural sector in the Netherlands, specific initiatives and projects the museum has hosted or organized and the internal responses to such initiatives within the organisation.
The interviews were transcribed using a transcription system I had composed, in which some details of tone of voice, overlap and emphasis were included in order to translate some of the meaning that was given to the words in speech. This guide was used for all transcripts so that each was treated comparably (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). The transcriptions were added to a separate project in Atlas.ti. I started off with a round of In Vivo coding through which emerging themes came up, which I described in memos (Saldaña, 2013; Saldaña, 2009). Based on these emerging themes, I composed 5 overarching codes, which were then used to code the interviews in a second round: ‘Definition’, ‘Operationalisation’, ‘Difficulty’, ‘Positive response’ and ‘Discourse of inclusion’. After organising my quotations with these codes, I wrote down new emerging themes and divided quotes into categories on which I then based the layout of my interview analysis.
Citations from the interviews later in the analysis are labelled by the letter I, followed by a number through which citations can be recognized as coming from the same interview. For all interviews, an informed consent form was signed by the interviewee. Not all interviewees gave permission to use the name of the museum in combination with excerpts from their interview, as these kinds of statements would need to be checked by the communications department of the museum. As my interest lies with the general definitions and operationalisations in the discourse presented across different interviews, I decided that identifying interview excerpts as coming from a specific museum would not necessarily be relevant in the scope of this research. The numbers given to citations and excerpts thus refer to a specific interview, but there is no recognisable order by which museums can be identified. Specific
Page 26 of 91 information within quotes by which a museum could be recognized has been replaced by a general term in brackets.
2.5 Observations
I visited 19 of the 20 museums as a regular visitor (unfortunately, I was unable to visit Museum Arnhem due to it being closed for renovations), going through the permanent and temporary exhibitions as if I was just there to see what the museum had on display. However, I specifically looked for representations of diversity. In order to structure my observations, I worked with an observation guide containing a set of questions to ask myself during my visit, and to answer in the observation report that I wrote afterwards.
In these observations, I have actively distanced myself from the system of four P’s that the Code Cultural Diversity works with. Following Oyěwùmí (2005), I am made aware of the Western tendency to visualize difference in relation to bodily characteristics. The body is given a logic of its own, as it is assumed to contain the differentiating characteristics on which social dynamics are based. Difference is therefore considered something that is visible, as social categories such as gender, race and class are inscribed on the body and therefore something that can be recognized in the visual presentation of the body (1-2). In short, “the gaze is an invitation to differentiate” (Ibid., 2),
Though I do not claim that this awareness makes me immune to these tendencies, I will try to avoid them in this analysis by being reflexive of having the tendency and therefore actively trying not to focus on perceivable, bodily differences. I take the stance that whatever difference I would be able to perceive could only confirm the presence of diversity from an assumption based on physical characteristics. Accordingly, diversity is in these observations not considered as something embodied by (and therefore looked for in) the individual, but by the public parts of the museum that are accessible for visitors.
I asked myself whether I could recognize any kind of diversity initiative or representation in the museum, how I interpreted it and by who it was presented. I also considered in what ways the museum presents knowledge to its audience or invites
Page 27 of 91 them to challenge existing knowledge, and in what ways the audience is invited to engage with the objects on display.
During each of my visits, I took notes in a notebook or on my phone of things that stood out to me. I also took pictures of some interesting objects and descriptions accompanying the objects in the museum. These helped me compose an observation report in which my experiences at each museum were combined. Based on this report, I made a table in Excel in which I organized the answers to each of the questions I asked myself during the observation per museum. This gave me a clear insight into how I personally classified each museum and to what extent I recognized diversity within them. The most striking findings from this analysis I will explain in the section on observations further down.
2.6 Presenting the analysis
The findings will be illustrated based on relevant quotes and expressions from the documents in the first section, and the interviews in the second section. As my research is situated in the Dutch context, most documents were only available in Dutch. The interviews were also conducted and transcribed in Dutch. For the sake of this thesis, quotes and expressions were translated to English by me. However, in order to reduce the risk of losing meaning or nuance in translation, and to be transparent about the content of the data, the original quotes are included in the footnotes.
Page 28 of 91
CHAPTER 3
Documents
Documents can serve as a “statement of commitment” to diversity, a method applied by institutions to present themselves as valuing the importance of diversity and aiming for change (Ahmed, 2012: 114). The first part of my analysis therefore focusses on documents from the websites of the museums, in which I look for ways in which museum speak on diversity, or report on having been working with it. Expressions in quotes that are in italics in this section function to illustrate an argument in section 3.4, and are thus inserted by me.
3.1 The Code Cultural Diversity
Before moving on to the rest of the documents, the Code Cultural Diversity needs to be explained a bit further. As was mentioned earlier, the Code Cultural Diversity considers cultural diversity in relation to ethnicity. One of the motivations for creating the code was that a ‘white monoculture’ is dominant in the Dutch cultural sector (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019: 1). However, methods that try to tackle this monoculture have been mostly incidental, and thus require help to become more structural. “In essence, the Code has only one purpose: to ensure that cultural institutions no longer address diversity on an incidental, ad hoc basis but do so in a sustainable manner, based on a fully integrated approach” (Ibid.: 3). The main motivation to do this is that demographically, it has been shown that the Netherlands has become increasingly diverse, shown in percentages of the population who are ‘indigenous Dutch’ opposing those who are not (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019: 3).
The method that is suggested by the CCD involves a breakdown of the organisation into four P’s that “form the pillars of a satisfactory cultural diversity policy” (Ibid.: 6), which are programme, personnel, public and partners. The large part of the code consists of specific suggestions for implementing the code, revolving around formulating a vision, setting targets, ensuring financial resources and enhancing the learning abilities of the organisation (Code Culturele Diversiteit, 2019).
Page 29 of 91 In this section, the code functions mostly as an assistant for translating the mission of diversity into policy, and is therefore formulated in a managerial format.
Having introduced the way the code defines and formulates diversity, as well as giving an impression of how diversity can be translated into policy, I will go onto the analysis of the documents, in which elements of the code may or may not be represented.
3.2 Broad, categorical definitions
Clear definitions of diversity within the documents were hardly given. Looking for descriptive categories resulted in some insight as to what was considered part of diversity. Factors like age, level of education and background reoccurred among the few documents in which any indication of what diversity is was included.
"With its collection, presentations and through education, the museum wants to reach a varied and diverse audience: from young to old; from lower to higher educated; locally, nationally and internationally. Museum Boijmans van Beuningen is a place where boundaries in time, space and origin have been eradicated". (Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2018b).2
“"Foam looks for diversity in age and background, but also for an equal male/female ratio" (Stichting Fotografiemusuem Amsterdam, 2018).3
In a few occasions, a reference to ethnicity is made, just like in the CCD.
“We have consciously decided to primarily focus in the first phase on the aspect of ethnicity, like the code ‘prescribes’ in principal and which also fits the emphasis that the Beeld & Geluid wants to put on outreach and target groups in
2 “Met zijn collectie, presentaties en via educatie wil het museum een gevarieerd en divers publiek bereiken: van
jong tot oud; van laag tot hoog opgeleid; lokaal, nationaal en internationaal”.
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen is een plek waar grenzen in tijd, ruimte en herkomst zijn opgeheven
3
Page 30 of 91 the near future in the context of renewal and the broadening of the institute” (Beeld & Geluid, 2017).4
“EYE notes that inclusion and diversity of public and personnel can and must be
improved for people with a non-western background” (Stichting EYE
Filmmuseum, 2018).5
However, in most cases, references to what is meant by diversity are left out. Stating diversity as a mission or point of action, which often goes together with inclusion, seems to suffice in providing information about what is meant by it to the reader.
3.3 The museum is of and for everyone
An important factor that kept surfacing was the statement that the museum should be a place for everyone, and should be a reflection of society. This approach suggests that diversifying the museum should merely be a response to a change in societal structures. Diversity is said to have become more and more of a demographic reality, especially in the cities.
“In collaboration with schools, we direct ourselves with increased effort on reaching the new generation of Dutch people, who are of a more diverse cultural
origin anyway in large cities like Amsterdam” (Stichting EYE Filmmuseum, 2017).6
“Population and culture gather more and more in the cities, where a variety of and a large diversity in art and culture is” (Museum Arnhem, 2015).7
4
Wij kozen er bewust voor om ons in de eerste fase primair te richten op het aspect van etniciteit, zoals de code in beginsel ‘voorschrijft’ en ook past bij de nadruk die Beeld en Geluid de komende tijd zal leggen op bereik en doelgroepen in de context van de vernieuwing en de verbreding van het instituut.
5
Eye constateert dat inclusie en diversiteit van publiek en personeel voor mensen met een niet-westerse achtergrond verbeterd kan en moet worden.
6 “In samenwerking met scholen richten we ons met verhoogde inzet op het bereiken van de nieuwe generatie
Nederlanders, die in grote steden als Amsterdam sowieso van culturele diverse afkomst is”.
7 Bevolking en cultuur centreren zich steeds meer in de steden, waar een veelheid van en een grote diversiteit
Page 31 of 91 Therefore, museums must start showing the same composition. Museums should change along with the population.
“(…) to come to a reflection that is in accordance with the population of Amsterdam" (Stichting EYE Filmmuseum, 2018).8
“'As a national institute it is important to be a reflection of society” (Beeld & Geluid, 2017).9
As the museum want to be ‘for everyone’, this appears to mean finding relevant connections that reach outside of current target audiences. However, it does not become clear what, in contrast, the current target audiences are. Diversity is merely described as the process in which the outreach of target audiences is enlarged, leaving the base that needs to become more diverse undefined.
"(…) we want to become more relevant for a lot more people" (Tropenmuseum, 2018a).10
"It is also important that the museum creates policy to be a better reflection of society, to receive a better reflection of society and to be better able to start a dialogue with groups of visitors that don't come to the museum as often now" (Rijksmuseum, 2017b).11
“How can we be more relevant to a broader group of working people, how can we be an organisation that is there for everyone and how can we have a more
inclusive workforce that is ready for the future of the museum?” (Van Gogh,
2017).12
8
"tot een meer met de Amsterdamse bevolking in overeenstemming zijnde afspiegeling te komen".
9
"Als landelijk instituut is het belangrijk om een afspiegeling van de samenleving te zijn".
10 "Hierdoor willen we relevanter worden voor veel meer mensen"
11 "Ook is het belangrijk dat het museum beleid ontwikkelt om een betere afspiegeling van de samenleving te
zijn, een betere afspiegeling van de maatschappij te ontvangen, en beter in staat te zijn om de dialoog aan te gaan met publieksgroepen die nu minder vaak naar het museum komen".
12
Page 32 of 91 3.4 Amplification of existing factors
Instead of relating the expressions to a current target audience, expressions are used that merely suggest augmenting, enlarging or amplifying something. This becomes one of the more prominent themes that surfaces in the documents of many museums. Diversity discourse is expressed through words that imply a certain growth or expansion, examples of which are in italics throughout this chapter. Adjectives, used to describe a certain thing or situation, are applied and augmented. This means that whatever factor is used that is augmented is therefore implied to already be present. It does not yet need to become, but merely enlarged. This way of speaking thus confirms that the presence of that factor can already be ensured. However, a substantial description of what that current situation is is extremely rare within these documents.
“to make the museum more diverse in the areas of personnel, program, public and programming. That will be an enrichment” (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2018).13
"'To be even better able to play into the different needs of different visitor(s)(groups), the museum strives towards the diversification of its public support." (Frans Hals, 2017).14
This kind of speech implies that there is not an issue with inequality, but merely with underrepresentation. Suggestions on how that underrepresentation has come to be are not given. Instead, it is repeatedly said that diversity and inclusion are social problems, connecting it to other current issues like sustainability.
“Besides inclusivity and diversity, sustainability also remains a recurring theme” (Centraal Museum, 2018).15
13 "En om het museum diverser te maken, op gebied van personeel, programma, publiek en programmering. Dat
zal een verrijking zijn”.
14
"Om nog beter in te kunnen spelen op de verschillende behoeften van verschillende bezoekers(groepen), streeft het museum naar diversifcatie van de publieksbegeleiding".
15
Page 33 of 91 “Other key developments are the ageing of the population, digitisation, globalisation and increasing cultural diversity. These developments also offer opportunities” (Van Gogh Museum, 2017).16
In this way of speaking, no radical changes in the functioning of the museum would be necessary to successfully implement diversity. It lies within the possibilities of the current system, as there merely needs to come more of the things that are already being done and worked on. Clear strategies on how to achieve diversity goals were therefore hardly found in the documents.
Solutions that were mentioned resembled a tick-in-box approach where a list of diversity initiatives could be ticked off in order to become diverse, which Ahmed (2012) points out is a common strategy in diversity work. This resulted in a few examples being given of project-based diversity initiatives, that show the museum’s efforts.
“The Frans Hals Museum is an accessible and dynamic place, right in the middle of its social environment. Because of this, inclusive programs are set up to engage a broad, urban target group. The museum is open to conversation. Everyone can and is allowed to participate” (Frans Hals Museum, 2018).17
“In 2006, the Van Abbemuseum was named the winner of the Stimuleringsprijs
voor Culturele Diversiteit for its plan Be[com]ing Dutch by the Mondriaan
foundation” (Van Abbemuseum, 2007).18
“For this, the museum has gotten a lot of appreciation nationally, mainly because through these projects it works on reaching a culturally diverse audience and
16
Original quote.
17 “Het Frans Hals Museum is een toegankelijke en dynamische plek, midden in zijn maatschappelijke omgeving.
Daarom worden inclusieve programma’s ingezet om een brede, stedelijke doelgroep aan te spreken. Hierbij staat het museum open voor gesprek. Iedereen kan en mag meedoen”.
18 “In 2006 is het Van Abbemuseum voor zijn plan Be[com]ing Dutch door de Mondriaan Stichting uitgeroepen
Page 34 of 91 involves many ‘socially vulnerable groups’ with culture” (Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 2017).19
3.5 Feeling ‘at home’: individual responsibilities
Some documents spoke of diversity as an initiative aimed at making people feel ‘at home’ in the museum. This way of speaking implies that the problem lays in the individual feeling of not being welcome or at home, instead of the museum not being welcoming or providing a safe space.
"(...) the museum wants everyone that comes to feel welcome" (Amsterdam Museum, 2018).20
"Foam is aimed at a broad audience, the museum wants to be a place where everyone can feel at home" (Stichting Fotografiemuseum Amsterdam, 2018).21
The notion of home consists of a sense of "familiarity, order, permanency, comfort and place-bound culture" (Duyvendak, 2011: 28). Stating that they want to work towards making people feel at home in museum, which relies first of all on the believe that one can feel at home in a generic space with a public function, merely glosses over the many demands there are to be able to feel at home somewhere. The sense of familiarity that needs to be created is for a large part culturally determined (Ibid.). It thus comes with a variety of implications when such a statement is being made by an institution that even criticizes itself for not being appealing to an audience that is diverse in comparison to the general white, Dutch audience.
There are some other expressions found in the documents that translate a comparable sentiment.
"Emotional accessibility is also part of our agenda: do you feel good and welcome in the museum and do you recognize yourself in the program? Stedelijk wants to
19
“Het museum krijgt hiervoor landelijk veel waardering, met name omdat het via deze projecten werkt aan een cultureel divers publieksbereik en vele ‘maatschappelijk kwetsbare groepen’ betrekt bij cultuur”.
20
"het museum wil dat iedereen die komt, zich welkom voelt”.
21
Page 35 of 91 make the move from exclusive to inclusive and embrace the diversity of the city. Diversity is a given, inclusion is a choice” (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2018).22
“(…) a new, diverse audience: those who are yet to find their way to the museum or for whom a visit to the museum is not a matter of course” (Van Gogh Museum, 2017).23
“The Van Abbemuseum wants to be a museum where everyone feels welcome; an inclusive museum” (Van Abbemuseum, 2017).24
“How can our museum – and more broadly our institute – focus not only on the regular museum audience, but also involve groups that at the current time don’t feel like they are being seen?”.25 (Wener, Windt & Ho, 2018).
Not having emotional access, not feeling like you are being seen, needing to find your way to the museum and to feel welcome are all factors that are of influence on a sense of access to a museum. In each of these examples, the sentiment is expressed as something of the individual. There is little reflection on how the museum might for example be unwelcoming or makes groups feel unseen due to its current approach.
Further expressions suggest that this approach centralizes a white, Dutch perspective.
“Can we see our own stories in another perspective? (Centraal Museum Utrecht, 2019).26
“Be[com]ing Dutch aims to questions our ideas about cultural identity” (Van Abbemuseum, 2017). 27
22
"Emotionele toegankelijkheid staat eveneens vast op de agenda: voel je je prettig en welkom in het museum en herken je jezelf in de programmering? Het Stedelijk wil de beweging maken van exclusief naar inclusief en de diversiteit van de stad omarmen. Diversiteit is een gegeven, inclusie is een keuze".
23
Original quote.
24 “Het Van Abbemuseum wil een museum zijn waar iedereen zich welkom voelt; een inclusief museum”. 25 Hoe kan ons museum - en breder ons instituut - zich niet alleen richten op het reguliere museumpubliek, maar
lukt het ons ook om groepen te betrekken die nu het gevoel hebben niet gezien te worden?
26 “Kunnen we onze eigen verhalen in een ander perspectief zien?” 27
Page 36 of 91 The use of ‘our’ in these examples, referring to ‘stories’ and ‘ideas about cultural identity’, indicate a sense of community among the general public, which I characterize as Dutch whiteness.
“Due to the many connecting factors and interconnectedness with other cultures, our information furthermore provides a steppingstone to other cultures” (Joods Historisch Museum, 2019).28
The use of ‘other’ in relation to cultures directly opposes an undefined base category for culture. Here, again, I read an implied norm of whiteness.
“Our collection non-western art offers for example a variety of connecting factors for inhabitants of Arnhem with a different cultural background, to involve them with the museum, and also in the neighbourhoods” (Museum Arnhem, 2015).29
In order to address the category of the Other, and thus the non-white category, a collection of non-western art is introduced as an attractive method. The general collection, then, is left to the dominant category.
3.6 Conclusion
In this section, I analysed 37 documents from the websites of the 20 museums I have selected as my sample. I included all available annual reports, policy plans and future visions, which capture both what museums have been doing in the recent past, as well as what they plan on doing in the near future. These documents were relevant as they provide an insight into the ways in which diversity have been or will be operationalized. The rest of the documents have been gathered from the websites as well, and were selected based on their involvement with the topic of diversity. All of
28 “Door de vele aanknopingspunten en verwevenheid met andere culturen, biedt onze informatie bovendien
een springplank naar andere culturen”.
29 “Onze collectie niet-westerse kunst biedt bijvoorbeeld tal van aanknopings- punten voor inwoners van
