On September 30, the Alliance released Museums and Trust 2021, the latest research to measure public trust in US museums. It was reassuring, though not surprising, that the results confirm museums continue to be highly trusted. However, it’s worth digging past the topline results to explore a more nuanced story. This is the first survey we know of to delve into the reasons that contribute to or detract from public trust in museums and examine that trust through the lenses of race and ethnicity, political affiliation, and attitudes towards inclusion. In coming months, we will feature a wide range of perspectives on this research—what it means, what museums can do to respond. Today on the blog, some thoughts from James Gardner, whose long tenure in the museum field has included leadership positions at the National Archives and the National Museum of American History (see bio at end of the post).
— Elizabeth Merritt, Vice President, Strategic Foresight and Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums, American Alliance of Museums
As I first read the Museums and Trust 2021 report, I had flashbacks to a report published in 1998 that became the focus of much discussion (and misunderstanding) about trust within the history museum community. That older study, The Presence of the Past, by Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, was based on interviews of 1,453 US individuals and looked at how people use the past (note that they did not say “history”) in their daily lives. I’m not going to get into the weeds of the larger study and all its conclusions but rather draw your attention to a somewhat infamous statement: that the public trusted history museums “as much as they did their grandmothers.”
While that statement was celebrated by many in the history museum community as a flattering statement of success, a closer read demonstrates that it was not something to be proud of. As I have written about elsewhere in more detail, the study made clear that that trust was based on an assumption by the public that museums offer unmediated experiences and do not interpose ideas between the public and the objects. In 2020, about six months before the Museums and Trust 2021 survey was conducted, the American Historical Association and Farleigh Dickinson University (with support from NEH) revisited the Rosenzweig-Thelen study, polling 1,832 US individuals and both asking new questions and seeing whether and how things have changed over the past two decades. That study, History, the Past, and Public Culture: Results from a National Survey, finds that museums, while “of only middling popularity” as sources about the past, again rank at the top of the list in trustworthiness.
Which gets us back to the Museums and Trust 2021 report’s discussion of the larger museum community and issues of public trust. According to this report, people trust museums for a number of reasons, notably because they are fact-based, non-partisan, and thus presumably “neutral”—that’s very similar to the conclusions reached by the two studies of the history sector. More specifically, 48% of those surveyed said museums “should always be neutral,” something I would argue museums never are and should not pretend to be. While my context is history museums, others (especially La Tanya Autry and Mike Murawski) have forcefully argued that the fallacious idea that museums are neutral is a problem across the broader field. Indeed, every action that we take, beginning with what we collect and what we choose to exhibit, reflects a point of view that I don’t believe even the most sincere sharing of authority overcomes, whatever the discipline of our museum. Indeed, what strikes me as missing from the survey is consideration of the tension or dynamic between the disembodied institutional voice of museum authority and the collaboration of individual points of view and choices (within and outside the museum) that create the museum experience. When members of the public affirm the importance of neutrality, do they also recognize that museums are the product of the work of many individuals who as human beings always have points of view and can never be entirely neutral? I worry that they do not.
And what does “neutral” mean anyway? It may mean, as the survey indicates, “non-partisan/neutral,” but it may also mean what the Rosenzweig-Thelen study found—the idea that museums simply put things out and do not interpose ideas. I’m not convinced that all the survey respondents meant the same things when they responded on this issue no matter how carefully the questions were worded and that complicates things. While museums can satisfy the public’s interest in avoiding partisanship, we cannot legitimately disown our commitment to interpretation and making meaning. We continue to face, I would argue, the challenge that the public does not really get what we do—that we bring together different perspectives, make choices, and present ideas and arguments.
The reality is that museums are never really objective or neutral, even when we may claim to be. We should be uncomfortable with a trust that is based only on the authenticity of our objects and the authority of our institutions and does not acknowledge what we actually do. I would prefer that we earn public trust rather than celebrate a trust that rests on a misunderstanding of what we as museums and museum professionals do. I would prefer that they trust us because they have found us to be trustworthy (in all the complicated ways that may play out) rather than because they think we should be trustworthy “just because.” I think we should “show our work,” not hide, as we too often do, how we make choices, even in things as basic as choosing which objects to exhibit or juggling different viewpoints in an exhibit or program.
I’m also concerned that issues of trust are wrapped up in demographics in a way that we should all be concerned about. The Museums and Trust 2021 report indicates that white museum-going visitors are “significantly more trusting of museums,” which should come as no surprise to anyone, given that the perspective of so many of our museums remains that of whites, creating a self-referential experience. Too often even when we add the voices of people of color what we are largely doing is inserting them into a white narrative or story, with the authoritative voice of the museum remaining white (and male)—and language, sexual identity, and other fundamental aspects of identity get even less attention. It is no wonder that white people are more likely to find museums neutral and trustworthy—they see themselves so readily in much of our work. And the report describes museum-goers as slightly less diverse than non-goers—in part, I’m confident, because of issues of voice but also perhaps because of concerns about accessibility to what are arguably institutions of authority. Is it possible then that museums appear most trustworthy to those who not only make a priori assumptions of trust but also see self-validation in museum encounters?
We need to do better, not rest content that we remain trustworthy.Skip over related stories to continue reading article