230 MEDIA REVIEW

MUSEUMS AS AGENTS FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHANGE^

The National Museum was a birthday gift to Australia for the Centenary of Federa-

Does what happened to them in the past matter today?

Is the way we have developed the land a matter for pride in achievement, or is it a slowly emerging environmental catastrophe?

tion. Has it been a welcome gift? Is it just what you always wanted? Has it made a useful contribution to public life?

And from the museum professional’s point of view, is it worthy to join the ranks of the great 2lst-century museums? These are the museums breaking new ground in redefining their national history, becom- ing more inclusive and accessible, and establishing themselves quite consciously as a forum for the debate of contempo- rary issues.

I’m also going to consider how you, the press, have responded to Australia’s new museum, and whether you’ve got it right. Some critics have called us “a profound intellectual mistake” or accused us of belittling white history, so we are some- times referred to as the ‘‘controversial’’ National Museum. How fair is that, and how do we feel about it?

Well, let’s get back to basics. Let’s put the whole discussion in context and remember that Australian public life is being shaken by a number of fierce debates. They’re about issues that run a lot deeper than current events or party politics, and they include:

Who are we exactly, and how did we get to be this way?

What sort of people should we allow to join us in this nation continent, and why?

If any of you have well-considered, fair, and just answers to these questions you shouldn’t be lunching here today, you should be over at Parliament House advis- ing the Prime Minister. Because they’re enormous questions, they’re complex and confronting. They’re also about the kind of place we want Australia to be in future, and they’re the reason the National Museum of Australia will always be “controversial.”

Our subject matter places us right in the front line of public debate. But let me say we didn’t get there by accident. ’Tick- ling the tough issues, and providing a physical and intellectual space in which such debate could take place, was part of our planning from the early stages.

I wonder if any of you recognize these words?

A new national museum will illuminate new fields of knowledge and also link traditional fields in revealing ways. It will chart a course quite different to that followed by those earlier Australian museums which were founded dur- ing a different educational and scientific cli- mate.2

How many of us should there be? The museum, where appropriate, should dis- p h y controversial issues. In our view, too

What is the proper place Of Indigenous many mlcseum on cefiainw and and do we Owe them spe- dogma, thereby forsaking thefunction of stim-

cia1 consideration?

CURATOR44/3 * JULY 2001 231

dating legitimate doubt and thoughtful dis- cussion.3

That vision for an entirely new kind of Australian museum comes not from the trendy postmodernists of the 1990s, but the Pigott Report back in 1975. It’s a good idea which seems to have stood the test of time. However, it also ensured that we would find ourselves in plenty of trouble.

Let me summarize what our critics have said.

First, there’s the outraged traditional- ist. People convinced that museums should be dignified classical structures, temples, if you like, inside which Truth with a capital T is handed down to the people. They are upset by what they see as our eccentric and contemporary architec- ture-and even more by our inclusive approach to history.

What bothers them most is that the Museum refuses to provide a “master nar- rative”-a strong, authoritative voice with a simple chronology of civilization and progress. But, as most of us accept, the truth is never simple, and Australian his- tory has no one valid viewpoint. The national story we attempt to tell is com- plex, and emerges not from a neat time- line, nor from a list of simple facts, but from the interplay of many stories and points of view. These can range from the profoundly tragic, through the ironic or quirky, to the absurd or the joyful. They are the sum of us.

One outraged traditionalist was Miran- da Devine, who complained in the Sydney Daily Telegraph about what she called our “sneering ridicule at white hi~tory.”~ Oth- ers called us “tangled,” or “tri~ial.”~ Peter Ward in the Australian was unhappy with

the unusual architecture and the sinister messages he thought it must contain. Oth- ers have called us a “theme park.” They seem to be afraid that visitors might actu- ally enjoy themselves. Well, perish the thought!

What unites these critics, apart from the need to generate startling headlines, is a reluctance to concede that museums have changed. The world’s newest muse- ums inhabit bold contemporary buildings, and they take a similarly bold, many- stranded approach to national history. They entertain, as well as inform. Well, we are one of those. We accept that there are few absolute truths in history. We admit many voices to the debate. We use many media to tell the stories.

Another kind of critic is the one who objects to a perceived bias in our subject matter. Most commonly they would say: “Where are all the heroic explorers and pio- neers?” or “13tere’s far too much about Aborigines, ” or even The whole thing is pro-Aboriginal”-whatever that means.

This raises the interesting question of how much our Indigenous people should be included in national history, and how much is “too much”-to which there is, of course, no satisfactory answer. I invite you to pick your own, on a spectrum ranging all the way from %11 of it, they are the true Australians,” to “None at all, perhaps a footnote at best. ”

But the National Museum was guided by the eminent historian Geoffrey Blainey, who together with Emeritus Pro- fessor John Mulvaney contributed to the original Pigott Report with the following words:

The argument for a major display of Aboriginal history is overwhelming. 13te

232 MEDIA REVIEW

chronology of the human occupation on Australia is dominated by Aboriginals. If the human history of Australia were to be marked on a twelve-hour clock face, the era of the white man would run for only the last three or four minutes.

Our approach is not, in fact, chrono- logical, but we took the point that Indige- nous people must have a substantial place in the Museum. The Indigenous narrative is blended in with the other great Aus- tralian stories-you will find it not just in the Aboriginal gallery, but in amongst the stories of settlement and exploration, and our evolving relationship with the land. Most importantly, many of these stories are told from the Indigenous perspective.

However this deeply offends critics like Keith Windschuttle, who has denounced us in Quadrant7 and elsewhere for alleged offences against truth and objectivity. These include the mention of a massacre at Bells Falls Gorge, near Bathurst, in the 1820s, which he claims did not take place. How does he know this? There is no offi- cial, written record. The oral tradition of the Wiradjuri people he discounts-after all, it is long ago and they weren’t there.

Many incidents from Australia’s land wars have been forgotten-or even sup- pressed-by white Australians. But you have my word for it that they live on in the hearts and minds of Aboriginal Aus- tralians descended from the people who fought in those wars. A proper telling of history must consider all available sources-including theirs, as oral history. They are not the only voices, but they must have a place.

Can you imagine the comments by Keith Windschuttle, Angela Shanahan and others linked to Quadrant if I were to

write my story-of how my grandmother was sent to Palm Island because she was “cheelq” to the cattle owner’s wife and had to leave my mother and her four other children in Croydon never to be seen again for some 30 years, and how my father was placed on a cattle station at the age of seven because he was “half-caste”? Both of these stories were verbally told to me by my mother and father.

My story would include me being told at high school that I couldn’t go into a French class because Aboriginal kids leave school to work on the cane fields or become domestics, being told by a poten- tial landlord she wouldn’t rent her flat out because she didn’t rent to Aborigines or Yugoslavs, and, overhearing a nurse telling a doctor in the outpatients section of a hospital that there are no other patients--only a black baby (who hap- pened to be my son)-therefore he could go off to dinner.

As these stories are not “officially” recorded should they therefore be regard- ed as myths and never be told in the National Museum?

Even more curiously, Mr. Windschut- tle tells us that ‘ffeminists, ethnics, indigines and gays”8-and I quote his words-have no place in a national museum because, as he says, none of them were major players in national history. Well, this is news to all of us. It’s news that the suffragist Mary Lee, the spiritual pioneer Mary MacKil- lop, the Eora man Bennelong, the song- writer Archie Roach, or Ron Muncaster of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras are not a proper part of history. While it may be true that the nation’s political leader- ship has been dominated by “Anglo-Celts of the male sex,”9 the nation’s history is a different matter. That story is about all

CURATOR44/3 * JULY 2001 233

Australians and-as a social history muse- um-we tell it for all Australians.

By the way, don’t imagine that the National Museum is alone in drawing fire because it includes alternative views of national history. Remember the Smithso- nian’s dilemma over the Enola Gay-the Hiroshima bomber-in 1995? There was an outcry from veterans’ groups, com- plaining that the exhibition was unpatriot- ic and politically biased. There were simi- lar controversies in Germany when a 1995 exhibition exhibited new evidence of the role of the German army in wartime. It was bitterly attacked by some former sol- diers, while others agreed that it was fac- tual and were glad to see the story told at last.lo Stories like this are common wher- ever alternative perspectives of national history are given. Being honest, and admitting the existence of multiple view- points, can be a dangerous business for any museum.

So far I have quoted some journalists and commentators who were fiercely criti- cal of the National Museum’s approach. But we should remember that they are in the minority. Most have praised the Museum.

An independent survey we commis- sioned last year found that 83 percent of all our media coverage-both at home and overseas-was favourable. That is, 83 percent of all media responses deemed the Museum to be interesting or worth- while.

Michael Fitzgerald from Time Maga- zine” said he enjoyed the. . .

sense of a history moving towards the future, not trapped in the past. . . They’ve come up with a museum in motion, small in scale but big in ideas,

supple and sexy where museums can open be solemn monuments to nation- hood. The National Museum of Aus- tralia is an open book

Susan McCulloch-Uehlin in The Aus- tralia& identified our Indigenous gallery as “rich in material culture, but also ripe with ideas. ”

But I have called this address “Muse- ums as agents for social and political change.” Assuming that they should be- is it in fact true? How can dusty old muse- ums act as agents of social change?

Essentially, we provide a forum for debate, by offering a reflective space in which people can consider issues in con- text-against their historic background. We offer comfortable spaces and a stimu- lus for thought-“a safe place for unsafe ideas, ” as museum consultant Elaine Gurian says.

In the terrible days following Septem- ber 11, many museums proved their worth as civic spaces. The museums of New York did more than offer a physical haven. The Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island children’s museums opened their doors free of charge to families, and offered special programs which enabled children to reflect and express their feelings. Par- ents and teachers found ways to encour- age cultural understanding at a time when children wanted to know, “Who did it?” “Who were the bad people?” They need- ed someone to explain the terrible instances of blame and hatred they were seeing, directed against other kids at school, or Middle Eastern shop owners.13

At the National Museum we respond- ed simply by switching our Optiwave screen in the main Hall to live TV cover- age. But the story played out in other

234 FORUM

ways. From September there was a marked change in the tone of people’s own stories, which they record themselves in our Eternity gallery. Suddenly they were all about “hope” and “fear”~specia1ly the fear that Australia would once again find itself at war.

A contemporary issue even closer to home of course involves refugees. But there’s little in the Tampa story which Australia hasn’t seen before. I refer you to our Horizons Gallery for a fairly offensive National Action poster of some years ago, calling for the Vietnamese boat people to be . . . “sunk in the water.” And we’ve had Afghani settlers before. Remember the cameleers of South Australia? Their descendants today are proud of that con- tribution to our history.

What makes the National Museum dif- ferent from a newspaper or a pub when it comes to the discussion of hot issues is our contribution to informed debate. Our foundation in scholarship and research enables us to give background informa- tion in a way not available to the front page or the soapbox orator. We provide a venue which is “safe” in the sense of calm and comfortable, where the rules of engagement encourage respect for multi- ple viewpoints. Museums are the new civic space-the place where you can gather to talk over the news of the day. Has this ever happened before? What are the newspapers not telling us? Does anybody else think like me?

And in museums, there’s a crucial interplay between intellectual and emo- tional knowledge. Our visitors often say, “Sure I knew it happened, but I didn’t realise what it was actually like.” Take the visitor who was moved to tears, because she’d heard about the removal of Aborigi-

nal children, but only understood its human impact when she encountered the personal stories in our museum. The same is true about stories of Australians at war, or arriving in migrant ships, or finding ways to survive the Great Depression. Emotional connection, founded on schol- arship, is what we do best.

But is the Museum biased? Of course we are-take your pick. It all depends on your point of view. Republicans object to our display of the monarchist Tee-shirt. Christians object to the images of Aus- tralian Jews and Muslims at prayer. We’ve got far too much about women, if you’re a man, and not nearly enough about migrants, if you or your parents are recent arrivals. But if you’re a citizen from Strug- gle Street you probably appreciate the sto- ries of humble Australians, and enjoy hearing ordinary people tell extraordinary stories. Every visitor is different. But for nearly all of them, a museum visit includes the pleasure of recognising the familiar, as well as the shock of encountering some- thing new. Always, there is the challenge of understanding that there are many dif- ferent ways of looking at the world.

But they cope. Australia has a well rehearsed democratic tradition, and the election process teaches us to assert our own views. But in order to live with one another, we understand that tolerance of opposing views is also necessary. The average visitor to the National Museum feels the same way.

Some elements of the media are doing the Australian people a very great disser- vice if they assume that a museum exhibi- tion could dupe them or mislead them. How condescending! People are well able to think for themselves. As Angela Shana- han said in yesterday’s A ~ t r a l i a n , ’ ~ the

CURATOR44/3 * JULY 2001 235

“Mr. and Mrs. Average” who walk into a museum don’t belong to any particular “side” in the historical debate. But we don’t insult their intelligence, either, by giving them nothing more than a simplis- tic set of dot points about “what happened when.”

If people find material in our exhibi- tions which startles or disturbs them-and they should, if they are paying attention- it becomes something to take away and think over. Discuss, perhaps reject, per- haps even take on board as part of a broader perspective. Our debate here should be everybody’s debate-it’s about Australian history and identity, and that’s a very useful debate to have right now.

Prominent citizens helping us to carry on the debate have included the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister-who made themselves available to schoolchil- dren in “Talkback Classroom,” a program transmitted like many others from our Broadcast Studio. We’ve also had space scientists, cartoonists, historians of fron- tier conflict or experts on prehistory-all talking at the Museum, mostly to full houses.

This shows that we are successfully ful- filling our role-to be a forum for nation- al discussion and reflection, to be a real agent for change. And there are other signs. Take visitor numbers-coming up to a million this week, which is, in fact, twice our original estimate-the Aus- tralian public are voting with their feet.

The vast majority of our visitors tell us that they appreciate the democratic approach, the mixture of famous and ordinary people, the fact that we don’t condescend to our visitors but give them something they can relate to-and their kids love it, too.

But I have to say that the small number of visitors who are dissatisfied are really outraged. They want their comfortable conception of Australian history con- firmed-and we let them down. We pre- sent them with complexity and debate, a whole lot of black faces, and one or two unpleasant facts. Frankly I think their problem may not be with the Museum, but with real life.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of Aus- tralians are going on their way better informed, a bit more thoughtful, and bet- ter equipped to deal with the claims and counter-claims of national public life. The way we do it risks the disapproval of some, but without risk there is no opportunity. Some people may well prefer a world without risk, where everything is fully guaranteed, pleasant, inoffensive, bland. But that’s not a world in which you could hope to learn-or to change.

How do we feel about being “contro- versial?” Well, it would be hard to avoid. Remember that the Museum of Australia Act obliges us to exhibit historical materi- al, conduct research and disseminate information relating to Australian history. And you can’t talk seriously about Australian history without treading on somebody’s prejudices. Blame Geoffrey Blainey if you must, or Peter Pigott or John Mulvaney, for insisting back in 1975 that Australia’s national museum should embrace controversy.

Let me assure you that I’m only human. I don’t enjoy being attacked. But it’s a whole lot better than being irrele- vant. One of our advisers, the historian, Professor Graeme Davison, said that if the National Museum offended nobody, it would be hopelessly bland. So if we tread on a few toes, or upset a few

236 FORUM

preconceptions, we’re obviously doing our job properly.

Australia should be proud of its muse- ums. They are places of entertainment, discovery and debate. They help us to get to grips with the big questions about our country and ourselves. In museum exhibi- tions today you can find dry facts and emotional insights-both intended to help you learn. Australia desperately needs places for intelligent dissent and debate. Museums can encourage people to understand the limits of their own experience, to cross the imagination boundary and gain insight into the view- points of other people, or other times.

You do have to challenge or surprise

people. You must push them beyond the comfortable or the familiar. You have to keep on reminding them that their kind of person, or their experience of life, is not the only one. We can’t hope to grow and mature as a nation without doing that. And from my personal perspective as an Indigenous Australian, I can assure you that Australia needs change. The National Museum has been working at it for a year so far, and we still have a way to go. Watch this space.

Thank you.

DAWN CASEY Director, National Museum of Australia

N o m 1. First anniversary address from the Director of the National Museum of Australia,

National Press Club, Canberra, 13 March 2002. Ms. Casey began her address by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people, traditional owners of Australia, and wel- coming members of the National Press Club, and other assembled dignitaries.

2. Museums in Australia 1975: Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections, Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra 1975, section 12.2.

3. Ibid., section 12.16. 4. Devine, M., Daily Telegraph, 12 March 2001, Sydney Edition. 5. “Museum offers tangled vision of Australia,” The Age, 10 March 2001.

“New museum, same old trivia,” Sunday Telegraph, 11 March 2001. 6. Museums in Australia 1975, section 12.8. 7. Windschuttle, K., “How not to run a museum,” Quadrant, September 2001. 8. Ibid., p. 15. 9. Ibid., p. 16.

10. “War of extermination-crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-1944,” mounted by the

11. Fitzgerald, M., Time Magazine, 12 March 2001. 12. McCulloch-Uehlin, S., The Australian, 24 March 2001. 13. Personal e-mail from Carol Enseki of the Brooklyn Children’s Museum. 14. “More edification, less of the gee-whiz factor,” The Austruliun, 12 March 2002.

Hamburg Institute for Social Research.