How to advance socially inclusive museum
practice: a case-study into Splendour and Bliss.
Arts of the Islamic World at the
Gemeentemuseum The Hague
Master Thesis Cultural Leadership
E.C.M. Rullens (S2388472)
20 December 2019
Prof. dr. C.G. Santing
Faculty of Arts Master’s thesis Statement, University of Groningen
Name of student: E.C.M Rullens Student number: S2388472 Master’s degree programme – specialization: Cultural Leadership
Title of final-year thesis: How to advance socially inclusive museum practice: a case-study into Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World at the Gemeentemuseum The Hague
Name of thesis supervisor: Prof. dr. C.G. Santing
I hereby declare unequivocally that the thesis submitted by me is based on my own work and is the product of independent academic research. I declare that I have not used the ideas and formulations of others without stating their sources, that I have not used translations or paraphrases of texts written by others as part of my own argumentation, and that I have not submitted the text of this thesis or a similar text for assignments in course units other than LCR999M30 or LCR000M30.
Date: 20 December 2019 Place: Groningen
Signature of student:
Summary
As societies around the world are changing, museums must reconsider how they can continue to serve their increasingly diverse public. The increased social, socio-economic and cultural diversity of our pluralistic society has led to the notion of the ‘inclusive museum’. This thesis addresses this notion and what museums can do to become more socially inclusive organisations. Although more and more museums aim to adopt inclusive approaches, the realisation of more inclusive museum environments remains difficult. This thesis argues that museums are lacking the institutional change that would allow them to fulfil their responsibility regarding social inclusion. This research contributes to the existing literature by attempting to bring theory and practice closer together.A literature review and case study are conducted
to explore how museums can change and outline what areas of professional practice must be tackled to improve diversity and social inclusion.This thesis finds that the efforts of museums that are successfully moving towards becoming socially inclusive organisations have certain features in common. Several key factors and changes necessary within museum practice are identified which help museums to become more inclusive environments. These principles of ‘Next practise’ include the
role of museum
management, the museum’s approach to exhibition-making, an increased involvement of
diverse communities within the museum, evaluation and advocacy.
A case-study was done into the exhibition Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World (September 2018 – March 2019) in the Gemeentemuseum The Hague to examine an art museum’s early attempts towards implementing socially inclusive practices in the real-world. Qualitative analysis provides insight into the experiences and perspectives of the parties involved in the exhibition allowing this thesis to examine the Gemeentemuseum’s process towards inclusiveness. Research into the exhibition provides museum professionals with further advice and recommendations on how to implement social inclusion within their practices.
Contents
Summary ... 3
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 The museum as socially inclusive institution ... 61.2 The gap between theory and practice ... 8
1.3 The Gemeentemuseum The Hague as case-study ... 9
1.4 The structure of the thesis ... 10
Part one: the theoretical framework of the inclusive museum ... 12
2. The changing role of the museum ... 13
2.1 A paradigm shift in the museum world ... 132.1.1 A history of exclusion ... 13
2.1.2 A new paradigm: ‘New Museology’ ... 15
2.1.3 A new definition the museum ... 17
2.1.4 Criticism of this new role ... 18
2.2 Museums as a means to combat social exclusion ... 19
2.2.1 Cultural policy in an international context ... 19
2.2.2 Cultural policy in the Netherlands ... 21
2.2.3. Criticism of new cultural policy ... 23
3. The notion of the Inclusive Museum ... 25
3.1 Understandings of Social Inclusion and Exclusion ... 253.2 The museum as Agent of Social Inclusion ... 27
3.2.1 A typology of the Inclusive Museum ... 28
4. Next Practice regarding social inclusion ... 33
4.1 Understanding practices of exclusion ... 334.2 The study of Best Practices ... 35
4.3 Next Practices regarding inclusion ... 36
4.3.1 Inspiring leadership ... 36
4.3.2. Allowing for changes in the museum’s (management) structures ... 37
4.3.3. Adopting a polyphonic perspective to exhibition making ... 37
4.3.4 Fostering new relationships and engaging more diverse partners and communities ... 37
4.3.5 Evaluation and reflection ... 38
4.3.6 Advocacy ... 39
4.4 The need to understand the visitor’s perspective ... 39
Part two: Inclusion in the Gemeentemuseum The Hague, a case-study of the
exhibition Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World ... 42
5. An introduction to Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World ... 43
6. Research methods ... 47
6.1 Design of the research ... 476.2 Data collection methods and process ... 47
6.2.1 Understanding the museums’ point of view ... 48
6.2.2 Understanding the individual experience ... 49
6.4 Interpretation of the data and study limitations ... 53
7. Inclusive practice within Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World ... 55
7.1 Inclusion at the Gemeentemuseum ... 557.2 How Splendour and Bliss became a project for inclusivity ... 57
7.3 The development of an inclusive exhibition design ... 59
7.4 Conclusion ... 64
8. Working with culturally diverse communities ... 65
8.1 Co-creation in the museum field ... 658.2 The group of co-creators working with the Gemeentemuseum and the process of participation ... 67
8.3 The experience of the co-creators ... 68
8.3.1 Professional engagement ... 69
8.3.2 Cognitive engagement ... 70
8.3.3 Emotional and aesthetic engagement ... 71
8.3.4 Engaging in social interaction ... 73
8.4 Conclusion ... 75
9. The visitor experience of Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World ... 78
9.1 The participants ... 799.2 The context of their visit ... 80
9.3 The visitor experience of Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World ... 82
9.3.1 The educational value ... 82
9.3.2 The aesthetic and emotional value ... 84
9.3.3 The connecting value ... 86
9.3.4 The social value ... 88
9.4 Conclusion ... 89
10. Conclusion ... 91
10.1 Connecting theory to practice ... 9110.1.1 Next practices ... 92
10.2 Case study: what can be learned from Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic Worlds? ... 93 10.2.1 A more inclusive exhibition design ... 93
10.2.2 Results and recommendations ... 94
10.4 Concluding remarks ... 97
References ... 99
Appendices ... 108
... 1181. Introduction
The relationship between museums and society is characterised by continuous change. To demonstrate their value in new contexts, museums have been in an ongoing process of renewal and transformation regarding their role and relevance in society. Over the past twenty years or so, discussions on making museums more socially responsible public institutions, have focused on the question of ‘inclusion’. As societies around the world are changing, museums must reconsider how they can continue to serve their increasingly diverse public. The increased social, socio-economic and cultural diversity of our pluralistic society has led to the notion of the ‘inclusive museum’. This thesis addresses this notion and what museums can do to become more socially inclusive organisations.
1.1 The museum as socially inclusive institution
Literature shows multiple factors that have collectively fuelled a debate on the importance of museums becoming more socially inclusive. First of all, there is the paradigmatic change within the museum field itself that has led to new understandings of what museums intrinsically are, what they do, and for whom they do it. Both academic and professional literature describes a shift in the role of the museum in European societies: from 19th century authoritative, civilising instruments, towards more nuanced, self-reflecting and socially conscious organisations at the start of the 21th century (Anderson, 2004; Hein, 2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 2000; Papadimitriou, 2017; Stam, 1993). This new paradigm, also known as ‘New Museology’, emphasises the social role of museums and their interdisciplinary character. This new view on their role in society has opened up the museum. In response to their social mission as public institutions, museums were obliged to become more outward-looking and focus on the visitor instead of the collections. Museums started to re-think and re-analyse their relationship with the public. This has included a desire for wider access for and representation of diverse groups (Stam, 1993). The development of museums as increasingly socially conscious institutions is partly caused by the growing attention for participation and interaction between the museum and its surrounding communities. New museology has therefore encouraged museums to embrace greater inclusivity by, among other things, calling for a redistribution of power. Museums should share authority with their visitors, engaging them in personal meaning-making.
Shifting priorities in political and public policy agendas have also contributed to the increased focus on social inclusion within the museum field. In line with New Museology, the social role of museums in cultural policies became much more explicit. After the 1990s, government policies started to recognise the role of arts and culture in achieving social change
museums could and should deliver (Carnwath & Brown, 2014; Foreman-Wernet, 2013; White and Hede, 2008). Greater recognition was given to museums making an impact in the area of social policy and they became linked to the agenda of social inclusion (Baker, 2014; Fleming, 2003; Newman & McLean, 2004). This agenda was connected to broader concerns of social inequality, discrimination and disadvantage also referred to as ‘social exclusion’ (Mpumlwana et al., 2003). From this moment on policymakers recognised the potential of museums to help tackle these issues and their value became tied to the ability to act as ‘agents of social inclusion’ (Coffee, 2008; Dodd & Sandell, 2003; Sandell, 1998; 2003; Mason, 2004; Newman & McLean, 2004). As a result, cultural policies in many countries, including The Netherlands, expected museums to transcend the traditional roles of collecting and preserving and start adopting more social responsibilities delivering outcomes extending beyond the museum walls. Nowadays, museums are called upon to reconsider the way they serve society, making sure to include the needs of all citizens rather than the privileged few. Indeed, both national governments and major arts funding bodies have started to make audience outreach an important condition for the justification of public funding (Kawashima, 2006). Museums are encouraged to address the various barriers preventing a wider, more diverse public from visiting and make museums’ activities enjoyable and relevant to as many people as possible. Whereas there is a greater recognition of the important social role that museums can play, there also remains some hesitancy regarding their responsibility as agents for social inclusion. Objections are linked to the notion of “instrumentalism”1 and the idea that the value of museums must not be linked to the temporary political agenda (Scott, 2006). Critics claim that focussing on social inclusion will distract museums from their core purposes and restrict the artistic freedom, neutrality and objectivity of the institution. Some also state that using the arts to achieve social objectives rather than artistic excellence would mean a ‘dumbing down’ of the museum (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). This thesis, however, argues that museums were never ‘neutral’ or fully ‘objective’ environments to begin with since they deal with issues of interpretation and representation on a daily basis.2 Moreover, this thesis also underlines the fact that museums are a public asset.3 As key
funding bodies, both local and national governments are bound to take an interest in what goes on within the museum walls and, where possible, expect them to contribute to wider political agendas (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). This thesis, therefore, argues that, as public institutions receiving
1 This comprises the idea that arts and culture are valued according to their instrumental benefits to society. From the 1980s
onwards investment in culture was justified by means of ‘impact’ analyses, either on an economic or social level. Culture was supported for its believed ability to promote broader public policy objectives such as economic growth, improved education or socially desirable behaviour. The notion comes from the ‘instrumental’ vs. ‘intrinsic’ debate that has been the basis of extensive discussion within the field of cultural policy studies (O’Brian, 2010). It is a reoccurring issue in the need to demonstrate the unique character of the arts to central government policymakers.
2 An important point which will be elaborated upon in the first chapter of this thesis.
3 The exact definition of the museum will be elaborated on in chapter one. For now, it’s necessary to clarify that when
public funding, museums indeed have the responsibility to reach out to all groups of society making their collections accessible to an as wide an audience as possible, both now and in the future. While keeping in mind the objectivity appropriate to academic research, this thesis also takes a political stance regarding the social role of public art museums. It supports the belief that social inclusion should be a priority for publicly funded institutions.
1.2 The gap between theory and practice
Even though the need for museums to become more inclusive has been expressed in both professional debate as well as in the discourse of cultural policy, the realisation of more inclusive museum environments remains difficult. Over the last couple of years, museums have started to make serious efforts to respond more actively to their social missions as institutions receiving public funding. Some museums have, for example, tried to construct new narratives in which they attempt to reflect demographic, social and cultural diversity and to represent “a plurality of lived experiences, histories and identities” (Sandell & Nightingale, 2013, 1). However, in the sector as a whole, confusion, misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding social inclusion hinder fundamental development. The variety of different agents and agendas involved has made social inclusion a complex and politically charged topic. Moreover, the fact that there is no agreement on the definition of social inclusion within the museum field, as well as the lack of available research on this topic (Arts Council England, 2017, Beerli, 2015) ensure that little seems to have changed within contemporary art museums. The persistence of a mostly white, middle-upper-class, highly educated group of visitors can be seen as proof that museums still find it difficult to effectively engage more diverse audiences (Baker, 2014; Beerli, 2015; Code Culturele Diversiteit (CCD), 2012).
As mentioned above, academic research on the topic is relatively scarce. Most of the literature concentrates on giving a conceptual framework of what an inclusive museum should entail, rather than how to imply social inclusion within museum practice. One of the most prominent researchers is Richard Sandell, professor of Museums Studies at the University of Leicester. His work is particularly influential because he was one of the first to discuss the ‘cultural dimension’ of social exclusion. In one of his most cited articles ‘Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion’ published in 1998, Sandell explains how “in addition to exclusion from economic, social and political systems, individuals can also be excluded from cultural systems” (Sandell 1998, 409). This thesis will later go into more detail regarding Sandell’s work and theory. For now, it is important to explain that his research was of major significance for analysing social inclusion and its relation to museum management. Sandell’s aim was to define the scope of museum responsibilities regarding inclusion and, in doing so, he identified three social inclusion strategies
Social Regeneration’ and the last one is ‘The Museum as Vehicle for Broad Social Change’ (Sandell 1998, 416). According to Sandell, appropriate measures should be undertaken at each level to ensure the removal of barriers to museum access and to promote inclusion of all social groups. Although his work has become very influential in museum studies all over the world, his typology doesn’t provide museums with much direction as to what these ‘appropriate measures’ might be, let alone how to implement them within organisations. This thesis argues that Sandell’s work as well as that of other researchers following his example has remained rather abstract often causing uncertainty regarding the question of how to effectively implement socially inclusive practice. More concrete recommendations on how to move forward haven’t come from the world of academia, but from museum professional Nina Simon. Simon has been writing about inclusion in museums for over ten years now. Her goal is to make cultural organisations “of, by, and for everyone” (Simon, 2019). Having worked with over one hundred museums and cultural centres around the world, Simon has used this experience to write two internationally best-selling books The Participatory Museum (2010) and The Art of Relevance (2016). Both of them have been widely cited as a useful guide for museums wishing to connect to the public in new and relevant ways. Nevertheless, very few organisations have been able to organise themselves as truly socially inclusive organisations that prove relevant to a diversified community.
This has led to the idea that perhaps the “awareness of museum potential to enact social change has outpaced the understanding of how to harness and implement it” (Sandell & Nightingale, 2013, xx). Although more and more museums aim to adopt inclusive approaches, many of them still struggle to find a solution on how to employ these practices in their environment (Moore, 2016). This thesis argues that museums are lacking the institutional change that would allow them to fulfil their responsibility regarding social inclusion. This thesis, therefore, sets out to gather data to help address this gap. The aim is to explore how museums can change, outlining what areas of professional practice must be tackled to improve diversity and social inclusion. This issue is explored within the context of the Dutch museum sector by using a case study from one of the biggest modern art museums in The Netherlands, the Gemeentemuseum The Hague. Its exhibition Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World (September 2018 – March 2019) was used to examine the museum’s early attempts towards implementing socially inclusive practices. The leading question is: how can museum practice become more socially inclusive and what can be learned from the exhibition Splendour and Bliss.
Arts of the Islamic World in the Gemeentemuseum The Hague?
1.3 The Gemeentemuseum The Hague as case-study
The Gemeentemuseum The Hague provides an interesting case-study for two reasons. First, although there are some examples of how museums have successfully started to develop more
inclusive practices, almost all of them concern ethnographic, social history and natural history museums. There is very little research into how art museums, in particular, might become more inclusive environments. Indeed, it seems that art museums tend to fall behind in this area. As will become clear later on, these museums are often perceived to be the most exclusive and elitist of cultural organisations (Baker, 2014; Hein, 2000). Yet this thesis argues that they are therefore also where the biggest opportunities lie. The research into the Gemeentemuseum will contribute to the question of how art museums can catch up with other types of museums in becoming more inclusive organisations. Secondly, Gemeentemuseum The Hague is situated in one of the most culturally diverse cities in The Netherlands, which makes inclusion a very relevant topic for the Gemeentemuseum. The Netherlands is an ethnically heterogeneous society, but this cultural diversity isn’t currently reflected in the people visiting museums. According to several reports that have examined diversity within publicly financed cultural institutions, the ‘white monoculture’ of the museum visitor remains dominant, and other voices are underrepresented within the museum environment (Berkers et al., 2019; Netwerk CS/Lagroup, 2008). This will become increasingly more problematic as Statistics Netherlands (CBS) predicts that by 2050 the population of the Netherlands will consist of approximately five million members of other (non-Western) ethnic groups: equivalent to 29% of the population (CCD, 2012). The majority of the population from non-Western migrant backgrounds lives in the country’s largest cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht)(Vermeulen et al., 2019). In order to remain relevant to the (future) population, the Gemeentemuseum has accordingly acknowledged the necessity to redefine its mission and goals promoting greater representation, participation and inclusion. The Gemeentemuseum strives to set up an organisational strategy and culture that promote inclusion and has appointed the exhibition Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World as a learning experience in this process (Gemeentemuseum, 2018d). This exhibition provides a valuable case-study to gain insight into the museum’s early attempts towards developing inclusive practices and whether or not these have been successful. The aim is to present insights and recommendations that will not only help the Gemeentemuseum reach a more inclusive museum policy, but that will also prove of use to others pursuing the same goal. As such, this thesis hopes to provide a source for all museums to consult when introducing more inclusive practices relevant to their communities.
1.4 The structure of the thesis
In order to answer the research question adequately, this thesis is divided into two parts. The first part comprises its conceptual framework. In order to better understand how social inclusion theory might be successfully implied within museum practice, it is important to place the museum
its relation to inclusion can be considered. In order to do so, the first chapter looks at the origin of the museum and its changing definition. It also looks at the imperatives that gave rise to the notion of the socially inclusive museum. After this, the second chapter will explore this notion in more detail: what does it mean to be inclusive and in what ways can museums contribute to social inclusion? The academic literature and theoretical ideas underpinning the notion will be discussed and examined. Finally, the third and last part of this conceptual framework aims to help bring theory and practice closer together by seeking to identify general principles of good practice. By means of examining multiple successful initiatives and so called ‘Best Practices’ that show different ways in which museums have already started to implement social inclusion within their organisations, this chapter aims to add to existing knowledge by outlining categories of ‘Next Practice’. These categories propose changes that are needed within current museum practice and illustrate some of the characteristics that help museums implement more inclusive approaches. The objective is to provide museums with some suggestions on how to implement social inclusion as a practice within their organisations.
The second part of this thesis comprises the case-study of the Gemeentemuseum The Hague. It outlines the results of the empirical research that was conducted on the exhibition
Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World. The focus of this research is a visitor’s individual
museum experience. Although a selection of socio-demographic research has been conducted within the museum world, more qualitative audience research is scarce. This kind of research is valuable because entering into meaningful dialogue with the public can help museums develop a better understanding of what it means to be inclusive. It has the potential to inform and improve museum practice by providing insights into how more diverse audiences experience the museum and what values they derive from their visit. After the fourth chapter providing an introduction into the topic and context of the exhibition, the fifth chapter will comment on the methods that were used to collect and analyse this qualitative data. The results of the research will be presented in chapters six, seven and eight. First the research will focus on the institutional organisation of the exhibition, then on the museum’s partnerships with relevant communities and their experience and lastly it will focus on the experience of the general public.
In the final part of this thesis several conclusions concerning social inclusion practice within art museums will be presented. The conclusion summarises the major findings exploring the Gemeentemuseum’s process towards inclusiveness. It looks at what can be learned from the experience of Splendour and Bliss. Arts of the Islamic World and hopes to offer advice on the implementation of more socially inclusive museum practices. By combining the two strands of research from part one and part two, this thesis hopes to find common ground between the people who reflect on museums from a cultural and academic perspective and those who know them by working in/with them or simply by visiting them. A special thanks goes out to the many people who have shared their insights and experiences and who have made this research possible.
Part one: the theoretical framework of the
inclusive museum
The following part of this research provides its conceptual framework. This framework is divided into three sections: an analysis of why museums currently feel the need to become inclusive (1) an explanation of what it means for museum to be inclusive (2) and a commentary on the changes required in practice for museums to become more inclusive organisations (3). In order to better understand the notion of the socially inclusive museum, the first chapter examines the imperatives that gave rise to this idea. It provides two arguments why museums currently feel the need to become inclusive. Firstly, by covering the history of exclusionary practices within museums, it addresses the paradigm shifts that have taken place rethinking the purpose and function of museums from inside the field itself. Secondly, the need for museums to become more inclusive was brought on by a shift in governmental agendas in most parts of Europe that emphasised the role of cultural institutions as a means to combat social exclusion.
The second chapter discusses what it means for a museum to become inclusive. It will do so by discussing the literature and theoretical ideas that underpin the notion of the inclusive museum. This examination will first place the museum within contemporary understandings of social inclusion and then proceed to provide a framework within which its relation to inclusion can be considered. Although this framework is mostly based on literature from the United Kingdom, these ideas are widely supported and affect museum practice throughout all of Europe, including the Dutch cultural sector.
Finally, the third chapter tries to address the gap between theory and practice by outlining general principles of ‘Next Practice’ that will help museums implement more inclusive approaches. This is done on the basis of a study of international Best Practices showing ways in which museums, can, and already have, organised themselves to become socially inclusive organisations and identifying what key factors these initiatives have in common. In doing all this, the framework provides both a comprehensive overview of the discourse on the inclusive museum and comments on the most important aspects of practice and policy that might lead museums to become more inclusive organisations.
2. The changing role of the museum
This theoretical framework deals with the notion of the socially inclusive museum (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). In order to better understand this notion, is it important to examine where it came from. Therefore, this first chapter will look at the development and changing role of the museum throughout history and the imperatives that gave rise to the notion of the socially inclusive museum.
2.1 A paradigm shift in the museum world
Intuitively the idea of the museum might be easily understood: at its core is the notion of collecting. In all places and all periods, people have gathered objects. They have studied and arranged them in an attempt to come to terms with their perceived reality. A museum is a collection of sorts, usually consisting of (material) objects that can be classified and valued in light of their taxonomic, aesthetic or historical significance. These objects bear information; they transmit emotions, memory and knowledge to those who view, contemplate and connect with them (Hein, 2000). The true complexity of the museum concept becomes clear when trying to formulate an exact definition. Indeed, the concept of the museum has been defined repeatedly and the boundaries of the definition keep continually evolving due to disagreements regarding its nature, purpose and value. This research argues that the best way to come to an understanding of what a museum is and how it may contribute towards inclusion is to consider its development and changing functions and behaviours throughout history. An analysis of the history and legacy of the museum is important because it illustrates how past inequalities and former exclusionary practices have affected current museum practice and how the change towards the practice of inclusion within the museum field has come about.
The following section looks at the development of the museum within European history because this is where the institution has its roots.4 The analysis is mostly based on Anglo-Saxon
literature. This is because the debate on social inclusion was first and most actively held in the UK and because England is and has always been influential, and therefore used as an example regarding cultural policies and practice for other European countries including the Netherlands (Schrijvers et al., 2015).
2.1.1 A history of exclusion
The institute of the museum has a long history. The museum, as it is known today, has its roots in private collections that were made public in eighteenth-century Europe. The modern-day
museum descends from the Renaissance Kunst- or Wunderkammer (Hein, 2000). As Europe was exploring and extending into new continents and cultures, Wunderkammern were used to gather, interpret and present collections of treasures and rarities collected from every corner of the world. These ‘cabinets of the world’ stored items kept for their individual value linked to exclusivity and excellence (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). These first collections reflected the choices and tastes of their founders and were mostly stored for personal pleasure. This changed in the eighteenth century, when many of these collections were reinvented as public museums. Originating in the period of Enlightenment, the first museums of the Modern period were founded based on reason and rationality and tasked with the production and dissemination of knowledge. The artefacts they held served as tools for an empirical understanding of the world (Anderson, 2004). The intention was to draw together a complete collection of those things that could be observed, measured, classified and named which together presented a universally accurate and reliable picture of the world (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). Moreover, opening up these collections to the public wasn’t just in the interest of explaining history or science, museums also functioned as a tool for narrating national identity. Indeed, the public museum played an essential role in the formation of the modern nation-state by acting as hegemonic, educative and civilising agencies offering an unruly public ‘opportunities of self-improvement, inspiration and civic celebration’ (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000, 15).
The main tasks of these first museums were the collecting, preserving and studying of the objects within them. In line with these objectives, the museum space was often physically divided between the private spaces meant for knowledge production and the areas available to the general public that were intended for knowledge consumption. The museums’ aim regarding the public was to enlighten and educate and knowledge was produced rather one-sidedly. Although the museum invited visitors to inspect and contemplate the objects on display, the transfer of knowledge was understood as a very linear process passing from a source of authority (the museum) to a receiver (the visitor)(Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). The curator, as scholar and expert, decided what to show. As a result, displays were ordered according to the structures of an academic discipline without considering whether or not they would be accessible to those who didn’t recognise the display codes or the art historical references (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000). This way of displaying art meant that, even though theoretically available to all, these museums maintained the value system of the privileged few, dictating what was perceived to be ‘cultivated’ taste (Hein, 2003, 20). Moreover, interpretations of the collection were given with a generalised audience in mind; little to no attention was given to the individual experience of the visitor. In many ways, museum were normative institutions and traditional museum practices were authoritative, elitist, exclusionary and oriented towards a very restricted audience (Coffee, 2008). This model has proved dominant for museums well into the twentieth century. The professional
At the end of the twentieth century this exclusive mentality of museums began to take a noticeable shift as large-scale political, economic and cultural developments established a period of paradigmatic change. In the post-modern, post-colonial world, existing social structures, relationships and values were re-evaluated and the modernist structures inherited from the nineteenth century came into question. The institute of the museum was no longer considered sacred or untouchable and its traditional core values were challenged. In her work Reinventing
Museums: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift Gail Anderson describes
the self-examination and reinventing of museums. This reinvention refers to the general movement of “dismantling the museum as an ivory tower of exclusivity and toward the construction of a more socially responsive cultural institution in service to the public” (Anderson, 2004, 1). Or in other words: a museum for all people, not just those who had traditionally felt comfortable or included in the museum environment. This movement was prompted by rising criticism about the practices of museums. In fact, since the 1970s, voices rose claiming that museums were “isolated from the modern world, elitist, obsolete and a waste of public money” (McCall & Gray, 2013, 2). The examination of the fundamental assumptions underlying the work of museums facilitated a dramatic paradigm shift in the way both museum professionals and an increasingly critical public regarded the museum (Anderson, 2004). The scope and nature of their services, the focus and approach to leadership and management, and most prominently, the relationship between museums and their public were reconsidered (Anderson, 2004, 1). The following section will pay attention to this new museum paradigm. 2.1.2 A new paradigm: ‘New Museology’ The paradigm shift described above led to the development of ‘New Museology’. New museology started as the idea that the role of museums in society needed to change and ended up being the new paradigm for the museum of the twenty-first century. It disputed the authority of the museum as an objective institution and called for a redistribution of power. It criticised the original concept of the museum as a collection-orientated organisation whose major social value was derived from its ability to ‘civilise’ and ‘discipline’ the population through differentiating between elitist or so-called ‘high’ culture, worthy of preservation, and ‘low’ culture (McCall & Gray, 2013). In response, New Museology challenged issues of value, meaning, control, interpretation, authority and authenticity within the museum (Stam, 1993). New Museology regarded the museum as a historically contextualised institution, emphasising its relations to the social, political and economic environment (McCall & Gray, 2013, 2). The value of the museum and the meanings of its objects were no longer seen as inherent, but rather as contextual and contingent (Macdonald, 2006). It was recognised that museums, perceived as repositories of not only objects but also uncontested knowledge, had the power to name, to represent common sense and to create official
versions of the social world and the past (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). In other words, they possess the power to create a narrative upholding specific views of the past through the objects they chose to collect and display. New Museology understood museums and their collections to embody and exhibit social values that function to either “emphasise or downplay, to make visible or put away, to privilege or discriminate” thereby influencing the representation of certain groups and their (historical) perspectives (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000, 19). Traditional museums were accused of being “repressive and static repositories that curate collections, history and culture through restrictive and biased lenses” only reflecting the cultural tastes of particular social groups (Hein, 2003). New Museology called for a shift in focus and intention within the museum world. The belief in universal and absolute standards of truth within the museum was abandoned, instead it called for greater reflexivity of the museum institution. Matters of representation were addressed and questions raised about how to make decisions concerning what should end up on public displays and who should be involved in making them (Macdonald, 2006). All this had implications for both internal processes and the external relations of museums.
New Museology called for a new style of curating. Previously, the curatorial voice and narrative were rarely challenged. New Museology, however, meant accepting and embracing that there are many, sometimes conflicting, perspectives from which to explain the world around us. Therefore, museums started to acknowledge that in the processes of meaning-making visitors and their backgrounds played an important part. Doing so implied a shift from the internal focus of museums to a more external one, putting not the collection but the public at the heart of the organisation. Museums needed to become more outward looking. They needed to relate more closely to the needs of their (potential) audiences and reach out into wider communities. What followed was a drive for wider access and representation of diverse audiences in their cultural activities (McCall & Gray, 2013). So above all, New Museology meant a redefinition of the relationship between museums and the people and communities surrounding them.
For museum practice, this meant that instead of the traditionally important internal tasks such as collecting and preserving, greater emphasis was placed on public practices such as education and communication (including the contextualised interpretation and exhibition of museum objects). The identity of the museum and its professionals changed from ‘legislator’ to ‘interpreter’ or ‘mediator’. At the heart of the new paradigm was the need of museums to position themselves in a manner that is relevant to their surrounding communities and that provides the most good in society (Anderson, 2004). Previously museums had been of importance because of their ability to conserve and transmit knowledge from the past to the future; now New Museology meant a shift towards museums becoming agents of social change rather than conservation (Hein, 2000, 99).
2.1.3 A new definition the museum
New Museology has challenged perceptions about the nature of museums and the effects they have on society and individuals. Even tough disagreement exists within museological debate about the extent to which the agenda of museums should actively take into account the voice of the public, there is widespread consensus that museums as cultural institutions should strive to be responsible social actors (Moolhuijsen, 2015). This is also reflected in the latest definition of the museum as established in 2007 by the International Council of Museums (ICOM):
“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
Since its creation in 1946, ICOM has been a leading representative institution for museums all over the world. Its definition has become a reference in the international museum community and plays a central role for museums and museum professionals. The definition has been revised several times to better fit the changing times in which museums exist. Ever since the addition of the phrase ‘in the service of society and its development’ museums have strived to make clear their service to society by providing meaningful experiences to the widest possible audience and improve the relationship they have with their public (Moolhuijsen, 2015). The creation of a new type of museum was set in motion: museums with a focus on their civic role.
In order to remain relevant and build sustainable futures in today's rapidly changing world, museums must consider the ways in which they can bridge the increasingly diverse communities within which they operate and serve a broader society (Beerli, 2015). Recent years have seen the development of more experimental museums that function as platforms of discussion and interaction and strive to be places of open inquiry where various groups can make their voices heard. The social dimension is considered of such importance within these museums that the question is asked whether its description within the current museum definition is sufficient to properly value the role played by museums. It is felt that the definition doesn’t “reflect and express adequately the complexities of the twenty-first-century and the current responsibilities and commitments of museums, nor their challenges and visions for the future” (ICOM, 2018). That is why ICOM has invited museum professionals, policymakers, academics and other interested parties to participate in the development of a new definition. When looking at the suggestions that were sent in, it is striking that more than half of all 269 entered proposals from all over the world emphasise the social responsibility and the potential of museums to impact positively on issues of participation, integration and inclusion:
“Museums are institutions that collect, organise and display the immaterial and material traces of past and present to create and promote new visions for the future. Their professional authority enables them to listen to a plurality of voices, especially those often unheard, and provide a space of encounter and debate for everyone.” (The Netherlands) “Museums are those democratizing, inclusive and accessible spaces that are housed to protect, investigate and disseminate the culture of humanity, targeting society.” (Spain)
“A museum is an inclusive, participative and collaborative place that evolves permanently, adapts to the society in which it takes place, and meets the expectations of the public who use it.” (France)
“A museum holds space for its people. It’s a safe place for participatory social exchanges — to look, feel, imagine, contemplate, connect, converse, challenge and be challenged without being judged or discriminated. It has to be inclusive and represent diverse perspectives for people to understand what humanity was, what humanity is, and what a better humanity could be.” (Malaysia) These proposals show a growing need to elaborate on the social role of museums incorporating their accountability towards society and the means by which they serve their communities into the very definition of the institution. Even though change comes slowly, it is now generally recognised that the cultural is inextricably linked with the social and that the more traditional tasks of collecting, documenting, conserving and interpreting “should not be undertaken for their own sake, but rather as means to a number of social ends centred around the museums’ benefit to individuals, communities and society as a whole” (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). The notion of social inclusion has moved to take a central position within the museum field. 2.1.4 Criticism of this new role This development has also been cause of concern among some professionals in the cultural sector. The recognition of the increased social responsibilities of cultural organisations has taken museums into unfamiliar territory where they were expected to achieve goals of an essentially non-cultural nature. This might account for some of the reluctance on the part of museum staff to fully accept the museum’s wider social role in combating social inequality and promote social inclusion for they feel that they are “ill-equipped to embark on these kinds of projects, lacking the
knowledge, experience, skills and resources” (Sandell, 2003, 19). Moving into discussions about how museums have traditionally excluded certain communities and privileged others means acknowledging things that museums might not wish to hear at first. It may take museum personnel out of their comfort zone because it implies an examination and reflection on their personal practices, biases and assumptions. However, this thesis argues that without doing so, museums will have difficulty relating to future populations and therefore risk becoming irrelevant to the public. Therefore, it considers social inclusion efforts vital for the survival of public museums.
2.2 Museums as a means to combat social exclusion
Together with the change in museological thinking described above, another imperative from outside of the museum sector can be held responsible for the increased debate on the social role and responsibility of museums. This was the shift in government agenda that emphasised the role of cultural institutions in combating wider social concerns regarding “social disenfranchisement, marginalisation and cultural deprivation referred to as ‘social exclusion’” (Mpumlwana et al. cited in Sandell 2003, 182). This shift influenced cultural practice everywhere in Europe, pushing museums to reach out towards new audiences and excluded groups.
2.2.1 Cultural policy in an international context
The end of the twentieth century saw a shift in how western governments legitimised their cultural policies. Public funding for the arts first started in the period following the Second World War and used to be justified by referring to ideological motives such as a longing for beauty, general education and elevation of the masses (Vuyk, 2010). This changed as large-scale renewals of public administration were implemented throughout the whole of western Europe from the 1980s onwards. The emerging culture of accountability, appropriate to the prevailing neoliberal climate of the twentieth century, led to a changing form of public management policy that became known as ‘New Public Management’ (NPM). Under this regime, originated in the United Kingdom of conservative party leader Margaret Thatcher, the previously ideological led-based policy was replaced by a more evidence-based approach. As a result, it was no longer enough to claim public support based on the autonomous, intrinsic value of the arts; public funding had to rest on foundations of ‘economy, efficiency and effectiveness’ (Holden, 2004). From 1980 onwards, the value of the cultural sector had to be demonstrated through the lens of ‘impact’, showing proof of achievement against set targets, often linked to the temporary political agenda (Scott, 2006). In other words, (financial) backing for the arts became intertwined with their ability to support broader public policy objectives.
Under NPM many European countries saw a reduction of state influence in all aspects of society, including the cultural sector. This meant a great change for museums: faced with successive reductions in funding, museums met with new demands for accountability. Increasing pressure to justify public spending was combined with the obligation to secure new sources of income. Museums found themselves needing to adapt to an increasingly commercial environment. Originating from the era of economic rationalism, the governmental ‘agenda of impact’ first turned to those disciplines primarily concerned with measurement. Museums had to re-establish their claim to funding by demonstrating the different ways in which they produced economic benefits. Especially the role of museums in local regeneration strategies and attracting tourists was considered important. Accordingly, initial performance measurement of museums’ contribution to society focused on the growing quantity of audiences, rather than the composition and diversity of this audience (Sandell, 1998).
While demonstrating the efficient and effective use of resources and growing visitor numbers remain essential parts of public funding agreements today, the rapid social change of the 1990s marked another shift in policy focus. Challenged by globalisation, an increasingly mobile and culturally diverse population and fast-growing inequality, political discourse started to recognise the role of arts and culture in achieving wider social development (Scott, 2006). Numerous studies were done on the relationship between arts and culture and their added value to the lives of both individuals and society as a whole. Many of these studies criticised the quantitative methods used by policymakers, stating that looking only from an economic perspective provided a distorted picture of the actual value of arts to society (Throsby, 2001; Klamer, 2004). One of the most influential researches was an empirical study carried out by François Matarasso in 1997 for the British think-tank Comedia. The results of this inquiry showed the ability of cultural institutions, and by implication museums and galleries, to positively contribute to social wellbeing (Newman & McLean, 2004): “Participation in the arts does bring benefits to individuals and communities. On a personal level these touch people’s confidence, creative and transferable skills and human growth, as well as their social lives through friendships, involvement in the community and enjoyment. Individual benefits translate into wider social impact by building the confidence of minority and marginalised groups, promoting contact and contributing to social cohesion. New skills and confidence can be empowering as community groups become more (and more equitably) involved in local affairs. Arts projects can strengthen people’s commitment to places and their engagement in tackling problems […] They encourage and provide mechanisms for creative approaches to development and problem solving, and offer opportunities for
to contribute to health and social support of vulnerable people, and to education” – Matarasso, Use or Ornament? 1997, 74. Despite criticism of his methodology, Matarasso’s study proved influential amongst practitioners and policymakers establishing the idea that cultural institutions, including museums, could act as a catalyst for positive social change. British governmental policy was the first to see a shift in the expectations and demands made of the cultural sector. Under the regime of Tony Blair, who was elected prime minister for New Labour in 1997, the social impact of the arts quickly became the cornerstone of cultural policy reforms. Instead of justification based on hard numbers, the impact of arts and culture now started to be reported in terms of the social outcomes they achieved. Following the work of Materasso, others too started to examine the social potential of the arts. These studies not only affirmed that participation in the arts could help to increase personal development such as improved cognition, physical stability or self-esteem, but also reduce crime rates and increase health and overall well-being within societies by “strengthening community cohesion, reducing social exclusion and isolation, and/or making communities feel safer and stronger” (GLLAM 2000; Arts Council England 2014, 33). The acknowledgement that cultural institutions had an important role to play in the combating of social exclusion made them particularly interesting to New Labour government, which had put the issue of inclusion at the very heart of its governance (Newman & McLean, 2004). As part of larger discussions on social exclusion and inclusion that had previously flourished in the fields of social policy and economic development, attention for arts and culture now increased. The potential of museums in tackling issues of social inequality, discrimination and disadvantage was emphasised. Subsequently, justification of their value became tied to the ability to act on behalf of disadvantaged and excluded communities (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). Social inclusion strategies were implemented into arts and culture and the British Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) advocated for museums to include community initiatives in their practice. Starting from the United Kingdom, the philosophy of museums working against social exclusion and contributing to inclusion spread fast and is now prevalent in European as well as British policy. 2.2.2 Cultural policy in the Netherlands In the Netherlands, the Secretary of State for Culture and Media Ad Nuis was the first to address the notion of multiculturalism within governmental cultural policy in the 1990s. However, due to an overcomplicated procedure, his ideas were never effectively implicated. In 1999, State Secretary of Culture and Media, Rick van der Ploeg introduced the concept of cultural diversity within Dutch cultural policy. Van der Ploeg wrote two influential policy documents in which he noted that the cultural field in the Netherlands was mostly comprised of white, highly-educated
artists and employees and reached a very limited audience group.5 Van der Ploeg was of the opinion that, while relying on public money and government subsidies, culture should be made available to a broader public, reflecting the whole of the multicultural society. This policy mainly focussed on involving different ethnic groups and increasing the access of young people (Van der Ploeg, 1999). Policy on cultural diversity was picked up and elaborated on by following cabinets. In 2009 State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science, Ronald Plasterk stated that “diversity requires attention, both in governmental policy and in the practice of institutions” (Plasterk, 2009). He wrote that cultural policies had to be “inclusive”: intended for all residents of the Netherlands whether acting in the capacity of producers or consumers (CCD, 2011). He stated that this would involve a process of artistic and professional renewal, requiring the sector to allow for changes and new influences in programming, the composition of staff and management and the composition of the public (Plasterk, 2009). However, the long-term strategies needed to achieve these goals proved difficult to imply. Imposed policies and measures could just as easily be undone by following cabinets, as was the case in 2010 when Halbe Zijlstra was appointed State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science. The substantial budget cuts that followed greatly affected the cultural sector. As soon as the funding fell away, so did any efforts towards inclusion.
In recent years, efforts have been resumed. When Jet Bussemaker became minister of Education, Culture and Science in 2012 she brought back the agenda of inclusion within cultural policy. She stated that the subject of cultural diversity had been given too little attention over the past years. Bussemaker stressed the urgency for cultural institutions to change their ways, relating and adjusting to the ever-changing world around them. One of the main reasons she put forward to underline this urgency was the way in which global migration is shaping the population in new ways. In the Netherlands more than 1.9 million people are of non-Western origin and due to factors such as globalisation and population growth, cultural diversity is bound to grow even more. This thesis argues that in order to remain relevant to this changing society, cultural institutions must aim to appeal to, represent and include everyone. Even though many publicly financed cultural institutions have acknowledged diversity to be important, the people on the boards of these institutions, the exhibited artists and the audience coming to visit still don’t adequately reflect the diversity of the Dutch society. To reach out to the increasingly diverse part of society, Bussemaker reintroduced the Cultural Diversity Code as an important tool for cultural organisations. Launched by the sector in 2012, the ministry of Culture brought this code to sector’s attention again in 2015. Rather than formulating instructions to be imposed from above, the sector was asked to take initiative in embedding cultural diversity within their practice. The aim of the Cultural Diversity Code is to offer organisations a framework for the development of comprehensive inclusion policies by tackling different areas of museum practice, helping to
achieve diversity within the Public, Programme, Partners and Personnel, not on an ad hoc basis but in a sustainable integrated manner (CCD, 2012). The theme of inclusion continues to be important as also the current Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Ingrid van Engelshoven is of the opinion that “culture has to be available to everyone regardless of where you live, what family you come from or what cultural background you have, regardless of age, gender, disability or education” (Van Engelshoven, 2018, 4). Outlining the present government's cultural policy agenda, her letter ‘Cultuur in een open samenleving’ stresses the importance of arts and culture to society in current times:
“Culture is indispensable to an open and dynamic society. At a time when it seems as if social relationships are becoming more volatile and contradictions are increasing, culture can be a way to connect. That is why it is important that as many people as possible participate […] As society is becoming increasingly more diverse, so are the cultural backgrounds of its residents, its makers, its cultural practitioners and culture lovers. […] It is important that what arts and culture have to offer, is accessible to everyone” – Van Engelshoven, 2018, 4. As long as cultural institutions don’t reflect the changing population of the Netherlands, diversity and social inclusion will remain important themes these upcoming years. This subsection on Dutch cultural policy has shown that, following the policy reforms of the late 1990s, several terms have been used to express ambitions of the government to make the cultural field more multiform: social inclusion being the most recent one. Social inclusion policies urge organisations to better represent their communities and strive for a cultural sector in which everyone feels welcome to participate (Mason, 2004). Stimulating cultural diversity has become part of this much broader objective. Cultural organisations are now being asked to define and implement the changes needed to open up and attract a wider-ranging selection of artists, creatives and audiences. 2.2.3. Criticism of new cultural policy Policy on cultural diversity and inclusion did experience some resistance from within the cultural field. This has two reasons. Firstly, discussions arose within established cultural institutions about the autonomy of their decisions. Critics claimed that the interference of politicians in matters of culture restricted freedom of artistic expression and undermined the neutrality and objectivity of museums (Dodd & Sandell, 2001, 21). It was felt that focussing on cultural diversity distracted museums from their purposes and posed a threat to scholarship and the integrity of collections. Concern was that social inclusion policy would mean a ‘dumbing down’ of the museum (Dodd & Sandell, 2001). As a result,
a number of institutions and individuals developed a negative attitude towards it. However, as the analysis of the history of the museum has shown, the museum was never a ‘neutral’ environment to begin with. They deal with issues of interpretation and representation on a daily basis. This thesis argues that museums need to let go of the idea that being accessible to all groups in society is incompatible with high quality artistic practice. In fact, addressing the diversity of the communities that they serve will only allow museums to create more truthful representations of the many various cultural trends present in all of society (Wegman, 2016). It is therefore necessary that museums give urgency to issues of inclusion. Moreover, this thesis is of the opinion that, as public institutions that receive public funding, museums are obliged to make their collections and programs available to all those who pay for them. Museums have this social responsibility towards their public.
Secondly, the speed at which policies have been developed and put into practice caused confusion within the cultural field as organisations struggle to make sense of their role in combating exclusion or promoting inclusion. This has led many initiatives to ultimately turn out superficial or incidental and often had the undesirable effect of polarisation: rather than that the established cultural field became more culturally diverse or inclusive, parallel cultural practices were created with separate initiatives aimed at culturally diverse groups. This, in turn, raised resistance among the culturally diverse part of society who, keen to be part of the cultural sector, felt like they were being denied the opportunity due to the lack of (long-term) support within the cultural field. Social inclusion policies thus don’t appear to be integrated into the sector, creating a gap between policy and practice (Baker, 2014, 30). To help address this issue the second chapter will try to provide a framework within which inclusion in the museum field can be considered.
3. The notion of the Inclusive Museum
It has become clear that there are multiple factors that have collectively prompted “the reinvention, or at least the repositioning, of museums in relation to their role in society” (Sandell, 1998, 411). In a more globalised and multi-cultural world changing populations are rapidly displacing the traditional museums visitor and if museums don’t succeed to adapt to the needs of up-and-coming communities they risk becoming irrelevant to a large part of the future population (Beerli, 2015). Consequently, museums have started acknowledged the importance of redefining their missions and goals taking into consideration how to become relevant to more diverse populations. To understand what it means to be an inclusive museum, this chapter will first place the museum within contemporary understandings of social inclusion and then provide a framework within which its relation to inclusion can be considered.
3.1 Understandings of Social Inclusion and Exclusion
What constitutes social inclusion work within the museum? To answer that, it is helpful to first unpack the concepts of exclusion and inclusion and consider their relevance to the cultural field. Since the notion of inclusion rose in popularity, research into the origins of the term has increased significantly bringing forth a growing body of literature discussing multiple definitions and understandings of the word. One of the most extensive studies on inclusion practices within British museums and galleries was commissioned by the Group for Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM). This report, that was published in 2000, stated that although many of the participating museums and galleries had some strategy for social inclusion, the terminology and levels of explicit commitment varied greatly. Inclusion was defined and used variously and those museums where all staff had “a clear idea and a holistic vision about the scope and nature of their work towards social inclusion” were rare (GLLAM, 2000, 11). Subsequently, policies on social inclusion ranged from “the engaged and explicit through the ‘lip-service only’ to the almost non-existent” (GLLAM, 2000, 11). This lack of a clear definition makes it difficult to grasp the possible contribution of museums in relation to social inclusion. The report also warned its readers that “the lack of clear policies and direction combined with the fuzziness and ambiguity of the concept of social inclusion itself has led to a situation where the good work being done is frequently invisible” (GLLAM, 2000, 18). In an effort to resolve this issue, multiple actors have endeavoured to develop a universal understanding of what inclusion means when applied to the museum sector (Beerli, 2015). One of the most influential researchers in the field is Richard Sandell, professor of Museum Studies at University of Leicester, who explored the concept of social inclusion by beginning with a historical examination of the antithesis: social exclusion.Although the terms ‘social exclusion’ and ‘inclusion’ have a relatively short history within museum discourse, Sandell traced the former back to the 1970s when it was first coined in France to describe those that fell outside of the protection of the State’s social insurance (Dodd & Sandell, 2001, 8). The notion of social exclusion replaced the previously dominant concepts of ‘poverty’ and ‘deprivation’. According to Sandell, the term was more useful than its predecessors since it encompassed a “wider range of socially disadvantaged individuals and groups and focuses on a dynamic process not merely a static description of a situation” (Sandell, 1998, 404). Compared to definitions of poverty that mainly concentrated around the “lack of material resources, especially income, necessary to participate in society” (Walker, 1997 as quoted in Sandell, 1998, 405), social exclusion included all those who, whether living in poverty or not, were prevented from fully participating in the different systems of society (Sandell, 1998). The term therefore offered a more holistic understanding of disadvantage and inequality. While poverty can be defined as an economic category, social exclusion manifests itself in many sectors. Social exclusion can be seen as “a more comprehensive formulation which refers to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in society” (Sandell, 2003a, 47; Walker, A. C., 1997, 8). Central to the concept of social exclusion is its multidimensional nature which “recognises that an individual or group might be denied access to rights or services across different aspects of their life” (Dodd & Sandell, 2001, 9). It is this characteristic that plays a significant role in explaining the cultural sector’s engagement in issues of social exclusion. Where previous approaches to tackle the symptoms and causes of exclusion were primarily focused on the economic, social and political dimensions, within this new multidimensional framework Sandell argues that it is worthwhile to also consider a fourth category: the cultural dimension (Sandell, 1998, 409).
Next to being multidimensional, another key characteristic of social exclusion is the interdependency and influence of one dimension on another. Sandell argues that as “access to, and participation in cultural activity can increase an individual’s confidence, esteem and self-determination” this would enable a person to “re-establish the social relationships needed to be a part of the fabric of society” which in turn might even “increase their chances of securing employment” (Sandell, 1998, 410). The cultural dimension is connected to the other dimensions and Sandell therefore argues that solutions to the problems described by social exclusion should be found “through an understanding of the complex interrelationships between the multiple forms of disadvantage that the term describes” (Dodd & Sandell, 2001; Sandell, 2003a, 48).
In response, this thesis argues that it is this “complex network of interactions between different aspects of exclusion” that enables museums and galleries to play a part in creating a more inclusive society (Dodd & Sandell, 2001, 12). On the one hand, greater recognition of the
