How the Myth of Museum Neutrality Shapes Museum and Evaluation Practice
About two years ago, my colleague Amanda Krantz wrote about the problematic assumption that museums are inherently “trusted” institutions. I was recently considering how this idea of “trust” connects to other mythology surrounding museums, including the idea that they are the Switzerland of non-profit organizations—“neutral”—an idea that was brought to the forefront in 2017 with the Museums are Not Neutral Campaign created by LaTanya Autry and Mike Murawski. In a 2023 MuseumNext post, the author quotes Murawski as saying “Museums have the potential to be relevant, socially-engaged spaces in our communities. Yet, too often, they strive to remain ‘above’ the political and social issues that affect our lives – embracing a myth of neutrality.”
Museums might feel that to maintain the public’s trust, they must also remain neutral in a constantly changing world. But this stance is problematic because, for one (and I am restating the obvious here), it is not possible for any organization to authentically operate from a place of neutrality when it is composed of individual staff who have diverse perspectives and opinions. But also, trying to remain neutral means operating from a place of fear and can be intellectually and creatively paralyzing for museum practitioners.
I have seen firsthand how the pressure to remain “neutral” influences museum practitioners’ actions and, as a result, the work of evaluators working in partnership with museums (like us). One example is the somewhat recent backlash related to DEAI practices across different kinds of organizations (not just museums). Many museums have internships and fellowships for audiences who are underrepresented in museum professions as well as K-12 programs that expand access to learning opportunities. But, broader public and political backlash related to DEAI has caused real fear among museum practitioners who are working to increase access for diverse audiences. We have seen museums rethink and reframe the way they design and market some of their programs, being careful to use “neutral” language that does not exclude anyone from participating even if the program was designed to increase access and representation among specific audiences. As evaluators, we have also modified the design of surveys to exclude questions related to race, ethnicity, and gender identity at the request of museum practitioners who, like K-12 educators, might face backlash from parents and communities where local or state governments have established rules and regulations governing educational and DEAI practices.
These “neutral” shifts in museum practitioners’ decision-making may seem subtle and not worth noting. But, these subtle shifts in behavior to remain neutral add up to larger shifts in practice over time, affecting what we choose to say or what we decide is ultimately not worth the hassle of doing. So, I found myself wanting to acknowledge out loud that this myth of museum neutrality does indeed impact all of us who work in and with museums and, most importantly, affects the audiences and communities that museums serve. I hope this acknowledgement keeps this myth of museum neutrality top of mind for some of us as we weigh decisions in our daily work. As evaluators, we ask our clients many questions to help define the scope of a study. For me, not shying away from asking questions related to DEAI practice is an important first step for combating the myth of museum neutrality by helping practitioners consider the implications in their own work.
How has the myth of museum neutrality affected your practice?
