Righting America at the Creation Museum

museum + society, 2008

This paper explains how and why many American museums of science and nature moved away from the traditional content and methods of natural history in the period from 1930 to 1980. It explores diverse motivations for the shift from dead, stuffed displays to live, interactive exhibits, and the consequences of that shift for museums as both educational institutions and as institutions of research. Ultimately, it argues that debates over museums' content and display strategies drew strength from and reinforced a profound transformation in the institutional history of twentieth-century American science and technology: namely, the separation of research and public education. By the late 1960s, the American museum landscape had been transformed by this development. Older natural history museums competed for visitors and resources with 'new' style science museums, and although both remained popular cultural institutions, neither had achieved a coherent new institutional identity because debates about the role of the museum in science continued. Thus, we suggest, in the mid-twentieth century natural history and science museums were more important in both the history of biology and the history of science's public culture than has previously been acknowledged.

The Declaration by nineteen of the world's leading museum directors on " the importance and value of universal museums " deserves our detailed attention. The statement argues that " the universal admiration for ancient civilisations would not be so deeply established today were it not for the influence exercised by the artefacts of these cultures, widely available to an international public in major museums ". The concept of a universal museum and the attendant responsibilities implied by this are outside the scope of this note; for a view on this see O'Neill (2004). The real purpose of this declaration is to establish for " universal museums " a higher degree of immunity from claims for repatriation from their collections. To this end, the declaration states, " calls to repatriate objects that have belonged to museum collections for many years … should acknowledge that museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation. " (full text available in ICOM, 2004a) This then is a statement of self-interest, made by a group representing some of the world's richest museums. The presumption that a museum with universally defined objectives may be considered exempt from such demands is specious. The key debate today among the world community of museums is not about the desirability of " universal museums " but concerns the ability of a people to present their cultural heritage in their own territory. This is reflected both at political and professional levels through UNESCO legislation and, for example, the ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, respectively. This group of museum directors also imply in their statement that they speak for the " international museum community ". This also has seriously to be questioned. The concept of universality is embodied in the origin of public museums. They were formed from private, often noble and even royal collections, and were often the result of partnership between benefactor and state. Many of these collections were highly eclectic both in their subject coverage and geographical origin, a tradition which can be traced back to the European Renaissance but which took on new meaning as the spirit of the Enlightenment emerged. They were by then no longer collections of curiosities but well-ordered, classified assemblages from many parts of the world. Such was the case of the Tradescants' collection which formed the basis of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, the first public museum and opened in 1683; sources for the animal collection alone included Arabia,

Contributors from a variety of disciplines and institutions explore the work of museums from many perspectives, including cultural studies, religious studies, and visual and material culture. Most museums throughout the world – whether art, archaeology, anthropology or history museums – include religious objects, and an increasing number are beginning to address religion as a major category of human identity. With rising museum attendance and the increasingly complex role of religion in social and geopolitical realities, this work of stewardship and interpretation is urgent and important. Religion in Museums is divided into six sections: museum buildings, reception, objects, collecting and research, interpretation of objects and exhibitions, and the representation of religion in different types of museums. Topics covered include repatriation, conservation, architectural design, exhibition, heritage, missionary collections, curation, collections and display, and the visitor's experience. Case studies provide comprehensive coverage and range from museums devoted specifically to the diversity of religious traditions, such as the State Museum of the History of Religion in St Petersburg, to exhibitions centered on religion at secular museums, such as Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, at the British Museum.

Religions, 2017

The article takes as its point of departure the reflections of Henry Adams and Jacques Ellul on the possible gradual replacement of objects used in religious worship with objects used in technological worship, and advances the hypothesis that such a substitution is unlikely. Using information from psychology, history of religions, and history of science, the perspective proposed is that of a parallel historical analogous development of both religious and scientific attitudes of awe by the use of artifacts carrying two functions: firstly, to coagulate social participation around questions dealing with humanity's destiny and interpersonal relationships across communities, and secondly to offer cultural coherence through a communal sense of social stability, comfort, and security. I argue that, though animated by attitudes of awe ("awefull"), both leading scientists and religious founders have encountered the difficulty in representing and introducing this awe to the large public via "awesome" artifacts. The failure to represent coherently the initial awe via artifacts may give rise to "anomalous awefullness": intolerance, persecutions, global conflicts.