The Myth of the Neutral Exhibition

“However, providing service to others is not an unproblematic undertaking.  For the exhibition of historical information to contribute to humanistic education, it must involve information that other people want and need.  This is a tricky proposition.  Those who have information to display typically control the form and content of its presentation, and they may have the power and resources to impose their conception of ‘needed information’ on others.  This dominance is a particular problem within the exhibition stance because it is less obvious: Analysis, identification, and moral response are easily recognized as social constructions, but information that is simply displayed can take on the appearance of a natural, inevitable, or objective representation of the world.  It appears to ‘mirror’ historical reality rather than interpret it.” (p. 121)

Barton, K. and Levstik, L. (2004). Teaching History for the Common Good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

     In chapter 6 of their work Teaching History for the Common Good Keith Barton and Linda Levstik address the tendency to “exhibit” history without actually doing the historical work of making connections and drawing conclusions.  They aim to draw a distinction between history and trivia.  The chapter acknowledges the personal fulfillment that one can experience when “displaying” historical facts and does not completely condemn the urge to partake in such displays.  However, Barton and Levstik do warn of the dangers of confusing that sort of treatment of history with authentic academic work, especially in terms of accountability tests.  This passage examines the role of historical exhibition as service to others.  The authors note that while the perspective of the exhibitioner might be fairly easy to discern when speaking with another person, it is much less obvious when looking at an historical reenactment or museum collection.  They argue that when information is presented in a way that appears neutral, it is very likely that viewers will accept the view forwarded by the exhibitioner without much thought.  While the creators of the exhibition might not be aware of any agenda underlying their presentation, they do make deliberate decisions regarding which artifacts, events, and information to include and which to exclude.  These choices impact the audience’s perception of whatever the exhibition displays.  Barton and Levstik insist that we must be aware of these decisions and to consider them as we experience historical exhibition.    

     This passage reminded me of a museum I visited half a dozen times over the two years I lived in South India.  I remembered an exhibition that always struck me as odd due precisely to its seeming neutrality on a subject I would have thought would have been presented with commentary.  The museum at Fort St. George in Chennai includes a collection of British military uniforms and other artifacts dating from imperial control under the Raj (http://asi.nic.in/asi_museums_chennai.asp).  The curators of the exhibit chose not to include any commentary on the artifacts but merely provided information on the provenance of the items.  Visitors walk through a dimly lit, century-old officer’s residence, peering into cases of kilts, wool jackets, bearskin hats, dainty china with floral patterns, and etched silver tea sets.  Each time I saw those heavy uniforms and totally impractical serving ware, all I could think was “how can the exhibitioners, who work for the current Indian military, not mention how ridiculous it was for their former colonial rulers to bring wool and silver to a humid coastal town that never sees temperatures below the mid-seventies?”.  I am still not quite sure what their silence on the preposterous effort by soldiers to try to recreate Britain in a tropical climate, but the utter lack of narrative made me very aware of the choice.  Barton and Levstik’s chapter on displaying history made me think of the Fort St. George museum and reminded me that curators’ choices are not always so obvious.  It encourages me to better prepare students before going to a museum.  I have already thought about talking to students about what they will see and preparing them for a visit to a place like the Holocaust Museum where they might encounter difficult images or information.  Likewise, I have taught lessons in which I ask students to consider perspectives presented by primary and secondary source documents we examine in class.  This passage showed me that I should urge my students to ask the same questions about exhibitions of history which appear “neutral”.  I should ask them to think about how and why certain information is presented, analyzing a museum exhibition like they would any secondary source.  Now that I have thought about Barton and Levstik’s chapter, their suggestion seems obvious.  I just needed them to highlight the obvious for me.