Andrea Witcomb urged the rethinking of the role of the museum in representing the community. She suggested that museums should strive to give a voice to the powerless. The curator should play a new role of a facilitator, rather than the traditional role of being the implementation authority of an established cultural policy. The Government cannot assume that there are “communities” out there waiting to accept the constitution’s imprint of what culture is. Museums are institutions which produce the notion of respecting communities with diversified cultures. The museum is in itself a community that participates in the production process.
Yet curators often find themselves trapped in the difficult situation of how a community should be represented. What museums have got to work with are “objects.” Objects are silent. Their history is not with themselves but with the people who once possessed them. For one community to understand another, objects from that community have to be interpreted through particular narratives. Before even these objects enter an exhibition, the “museum community” has to come to terms with the represented community on what meaning associated with the object has to be selected as narratives. This is a process of understanding and reconciliation. Objects are often tied to personal experiences and emotions. Objects owners don’t always understand why their treasured experience needs interpretation, even less so the notion of being interpreted in a particular manner for the purpose of a grander narrative.
Merriman also sees the problem with the silence of the objects. He pointed out that the traditional approach of UK museums is to host exhibitions primarily driven by objects. Museums then complain that “they have nothing to show” that represents disadvantaged communities because the material culture of these communities are rarely collected by museums. Even when objects are in the collection, museums have been silent on the cultural background of the people who once owned these objects.
Witcomb pointed out that some curators have been shying away from recognizing there is a difference of interest between communities (in this case museums and the represented community) to avoid the implication of binary system of meaning and politics. They therefore try to have their own definition of a community and then find places for objects under such definition. Witcomb sees this approach as a power exercise and can easily cause angst from the represented community. She advocated the importance of two-way dialogue between the museum and the represented community. The value of the dialogue is one that of civic reform. It allows the community to see themselves in new light, as if from the outside. It creates a sense of pride as the community takes an active role in telling others their history, their contribution to today’s society, and by doing so they are showing the respect for cultural diversity.
Merriman, using “the People of London Project” as an example, suggested that instead of displaying objects as an end in themselves, these objects should be placed against a theme as evidence of activities of their possessors. By creating historical context for these objects, curators can inject contemporary relevance to the audience and ignite respect for different communities who, at a certain point of time, have been an integral part of the nation’s cultural diversity.
These two readings prompt me to think about how the Filipino domestic workers will be represented, if at all, in a HK museum. Notwithstanding their population, Filipino workers have been an inferior group in our society. Yet their presence in HK in the past 30 years have not just allowed for the female workforce to contribute to the economic development of HK, but have brought rather considerable changes in family relationships. I have witnessed many well-dressed working mothers holding their brand name handbags instead of their babies for the worry of the baby spoiling their outfit. And it is no surprise for us to hear stories of babies getting more attached to the Filipino helpers than their parents and some even cried when their mothers hold them once in a while over the weekends. Yet besides photos of Filipino helpers gathering at Central on Sundays, how can we give voice to them as individuals who have lived like one of our families for a considerable period of time? How can we appropriately give a place of their personal sacrifices to the economic development and the increasing status of working female? The notion of cultural diversity goes beyond accepting residency of different ethnic groups in a city. It is to give a name and a face to individuals from the powerless community as recognition of their dignity as human being.
1Mar2010