FR :

Au cours des dernières décennies, la nouvelle muséologie et diverses études sur les pratiques participatives ont remis en question le rôle éducatif traditionnel unidirectionnel et le discours du musée. Les musées ont cherché de nouveaux cadres pour être pertinents socialement et inclusifs envers divers milieux sociaux et culturels. Ils ont aussi cherché à être représentatifs des multiples voix contemporaines (et historiques). Dans ce contexte, les musées ont tenté de démocratiser leur contenu et de présenter des récits multiples en travaillant avec les communautés pour fournir des points de vue critiques sur l’histoire, les théories et les pratiques muséales.

Cependant, les musées d’histoire, en tant que champs de bataille mémoriels et sites de participation publique inclusive, ont lutté pour trouver un équilibre entre polyvocalité et autorité institutionnelle. Un patrimoine parfois dissonant, la représentation des minorités et les multiples interprétations possibles des objets ont compliqué leur position institutionnelle. Les musées ont répondu en adoptant trois stratégies dominantes pour aborder les multiples récits conflictuels (antagoniste, cosmopolite et agonistique), chacune d’entre elles apportant des défis et des interrogations spécifiques.

Cet article adopte une approche théorique synthétique, décrivant d’abord les principaux défis de la polyvocalité et de la présentation de récits multiples dans les musées du point de vue de la société, des institutions et du public. Il examine ensuite les différents types de pratiques qui ont relevé ces défis et perturbé les pratiques muséales traditionnelles, en s’appuyant sur des exemples européens. Enfin, les conséquences de ces bouleversements sont examinées.

EN :

Examining participatory practises and inclusion projects requires reflecting on the museum as a political space and questioning the power relationships it nourishes. A review of the literature on the idea of the sense of belonging in a wide variety of disciplinary fields led to an awareness of the different dimensions of that feeling and its integration in the political discourse. More specifically, in terms of this article, the feeling of belonging is problematic in the context of art museums, where the concept is often translated to the institution’s benevolent attitude towards racialized groups that have historically been discriminated against and are not in the habit of visiting museums. When these people are invited to collaborate with the museal institution, the co-creation process generally proceeds according to codes established by the institution. This tendency to adopt a charitable position towards the Other, avoiding any sort of tension, is what we call “a irenic museum” (from the Greek εἰρήνη [eirnê] meaning “peace”). By focusing on what unifies rather than on what divides, the irenical approach avoids conflict in order to foster coexistence with one another.

By analyzing the process of co-creating a digital mediation system for the Arts of One World galleries at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA), we suggest a critical look at the design thinking approach centred on the human at PRISM, the museum’s Digital Mediation Innovation Lab. Can we move beyond the limits of the peace museum by promoting equal interaction between those involved?

FR :

À la suite du 11 septembre 2001, la question de la place des communautés musulmanes dans les sociétés européennes a atteint un sommet. Face à l’islamophobie grandissante, politiques et intellectuels ont appelé à montrer une autre image de l’Islam et des citoyens appartenant à cette religion et/ou à ces cultures. Pour effectuer cette tâche, les politiques se sont tournés vers les musées. Quoi de mieux qu’un musée possédant une collection d’arts islamiques pour servir de médiateur entre les citoyens et répondre au « problème musulman » ? Cet intérêt soudain pour les arts de l’Islam s’est traduit par un boom muséal. Berlin, Toronto, Doha, Kuala Lumpur ont vu la naissance de nouveaux musées ou le réaménagement de leurs salles dédiées à ces arts. Mais les arts peuvent-ils aider à déconstruire les clichés et les préjugés, et à réconcilier les citoyens entre eux ? La difficulté rencontrée est que les arts de l’Islam s’arrêtent au XIX^e siècle, et ne représentent, de ce fait, qu’un passé révolu de ces cultures. Ce passé est mythifié pour démontrer la beauté de ces cultures face à l’image péjorative de l’Islam contemporain perçu, de manière erronée, sous le regard de l’islamophobie. Entre volonté politique et exposition, il y a un écart de taille.

Toutefois, au-delà de la présentation des objets, la participation inclusive des communautés musulmanes pourrait être un outil pour faciliter ce dialogue. S’appuyant sur une étude empirique, cet article vise à montrer par l’analyse de deux projets, Multaka et TAMAM, mis en place par le Museum für Islamische Kunst de Berlin, de quelles manières le musée se transforme en lieu d’identité à la fois pour les communautés musulmanes et les réfugiés du Moyen-Orient. En effet, Berlin s’inscrit également dans un autre contexte que celui du 11 septembre, celui de la crise des réfugiés de 2015 qui a notamment réitéré ce questionnement au sujet de l’appartenance des musulmans et de leur patrimoine à l’Allemagne. Le musée par la participation vise à inclure ces communautés, devenant une « zone de contact » entre les communautés et leur patrimoine. Ainsi, il tente de répondre aux attentes de la société en permettant aux communautés de se réapproprier leur patrimoine. Mais jusqu’à quel point ces communautés participent-elles à l’élaboration de nouveaux discours ? Ces voix sont-elles accessibles pour les autres publics dans les salles d’exposition ? Cela permet-il un dialogue entre eux ? Face aux débats sur l’islam, et à la réponse forte du gouvernement allemand par le président Christian Wulff avec sa phrase : « l’islam appartient à l’Allemagne », le musée se veut un Heimat pour les communautés musulmanes. En revanche, définir ce lieu comme unique Heimat des communautés musulmanes ne crée-t-il pas au contraire une zone d’exclusion ? En l’absence de réponses à ces questions, la recherche doit se poursuivre.

EN :

For several decades, the museum has been reinventing itself in a democratic dynamic, as a forum and, more recently, as a laboratory, while waiting for the different types of publics, such as elderly people, a growing population, asking for aging assets inside institutions and the profit of their fundamental rights. These concerns have been addressed in a diverse and sustained approach based on international museological reflection.

However, in Peru, political and academic attention to inclusion and accessibility in cultural fields, and more specifically in museums, is very recent. This is why this article focuses on the current state of participation of a population that has great potential, but which has not been examined in depth. This study, moreover, provides a mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative) and multidimensional, with various techniques and research instruments such as the semi-fixed interview, the digital survey and the imaginary analysis form, with the participation of the program managers, its participants and specialists (one of them, an art historian and head of mediation and audiences in an art museum [MAC-Lima] and, the other, a university professor specializing in audience studies). Thus, the article is divided into two parts. First, we provide a historical, theoretical and contextual framework to show a general portrait of the participation of elderly people in Peruvian museums. Then we present the specific case of the «Storytelling grandparents» program at the House of Peruvian Literature (below CASLIT), between 2018 and 2022.

EN :

It is a fact that the museum today is no longer seen just as a single light in the darkness, a guardian of the temple of human genius, but more as an actor in the society which interacts with it through conservation and presentation for the purpose of knowledge, education and the pleasure of the public.

The scientific and cultural project (Scp) has thus become the most powerful and intimate expression of the museal project, drawing on an analysis of the institution’s vocation and environment. Nevertheless, even though the publics are among the target groups they’re aimed at, the mechanisms to meet them still have trouble taking them seriously into account.

Certainly, identifying them follows a well-established typology, increasingly diverse and continually renewed. Still, these categories derive more from rationales of communication than from appropriation.

Many museums have been able to find a degree of approval by communicating on the reputation of their collections and the attractiveness of their cultural programming; however, there is a negative turn-over of publics over time. Recent events linked to the global COVID-19 pandemic forced them to forge a new relationship with the publics, since events could no longer be staged.

Despite all efforts to democratize and to build public loyalty, museums are still restrained in terms of the official manifestation of inclusion in their scientific and cultural projects.

No doubt one of the main reasons is that inclusion has not yet assumed its full place. Even if we agree to accept the social role of the museum, its position in the scientific and cultural project remains at the discretion of the writers.

This look at the museum’s territorial attachment was developed within the Culture et territoire research program at Île de la Réunion, where inclusive participation was studied from the perspective of the actors’ strategy to understand how certain museums like Stella Matutina interact with their territory and their systemic dimension (social, economic, political, cultural . . .). The analysis also included a study of cultural mediation at Stella Matutina in order to understand how the populations living near the museal institution were involved in their establishment and development within their territory. At the time when the debate asked about inclusion in the political sphere in connection with “citizen participation” and “social justice” (Salguero, 2020), to what extent are museums evolving and participating in the territorial transformation?

EN :

Some years ago Canada began a process of reconciliation with First Peoples, undertaking the difficult task of acknowledging its colonial and racist past. Recent news, particularly the discovery of unmarked graves on the grounds of former federal residential schools, marking the system as a symbol of Canadian colonialism, brings us face to face collectively with this reality, a less than sterling era in our history.

Museums and national heritage sites can, through their exhibitions, help to show the history and consequences of the federal residential schools, by institutionalizing and integrating them in the Canadian national narrative. While acknowledging this darker side of Canadian history seems vital to the process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non- Indigenous peoples, commemorating sensitive spaces of memory is equally important. The survival of this sensitive memory seeks to better know and understand the history and consequences of the federal residential schools. Yet it is understood that no heritage or museum institution is free of its ideological past. In this context, how is it possible to ensure that this new thread of the story is woven into the fabric of our national history? How can we prevent colonial ramifications from being transformed into a new instrument of domination? What stumbling blocks lie in the way of commemoration with a goal of reconciliation regarding the sensitive spaces of memory which are the federal residential schools? These questions can all affect the process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the country.

Within the scope of this edition on inclusive participation, this article brings forward a discussion of the approaches, means and conditions for initiating the commemoration of the sensitive spaces of memory which are the federal residential schools, aiming for reconciliation. It also touches on the hurdles facing this effort. It presents a synthesis of research, an attempt to examine the operational principles of the national narrative and of commemoration.

After a brief presentation of the contextual setting, two fundamental non-Indigenous principles implied in this context are presented, as well as their conceptual constellation. The first is the “duty of remembrance.” While it is essential in every commemorative effort since the Second World War, it is hard to see the emphasis placed on acknowledging the status of “victim” as compatible with the importance accorded to healing of Indigenous Peoples aiming, conversely, to transcend stigma. The second impediment lies within the principle of universalism, which is fundamental to all Western institutions–science, democracy, education, cultural accessibility, political programs, etc. Socially justified as a principle of equity, diversity and inclusion, universalism has a perverse effect which may dilute the regional and community characteristics of the commemoration of federal residential schools. It does so by smoothing out the diversity of the memories that the institutions choose to share and disseminate or to suppress and forget certain aspects, as well as the method of commemorating and patrimonializing them, and above all with whom. Thus, without prescribing a concrete or single solution, this article aims to shed light on the pitfalls inherent in the effort to commemorate the history and consequences of the federal residential schools, to institutionalize them and integrate them into the Canadian national narrative, in a spirit of critical self-awareness.

EN :

Begun in 2018, the action-research project Accessibilité des publics marginalisés au musée: des outils adaptés (Museum accessibility for marginalized publics: adapted tools) wished to include the publics in a reflection on inclusion in the museum. The initiative was undertaken after a research project InterReconnaissance, La mémoire des droits dans le milieu communautaire au Québec (2012-2017), as well as the InterReconnaissance, une mémoire citoyenne se raconte exhibition (Écomusée du fier monde, 2018-2019). This vast endeavour explored “the stories behind the story,” that is, the battles to defend and promote minority group rights since the 1960s.

The research-action project was based on the observation that the museal milieu faced a lack of knowledge, experience and resources to conceive accessibility for certain groups, most notably people living with mental health issues, handicaps and issues related to recent immigration. It was also necessary to make the exhibition accessible to communities within it and involved in its realization. This wish guided the team, composed of researchers, an artist and a cultural mediator, to consult with three groups concerned with mobilizing community networks and defending rights historically constituted and organized around, by and for these populations. This step then led to the creation and realization of cultural mediation activities adapted and developed in conjunction with the community movement.

Two stances characterized the project. While they are not mutually exclusive, they delineate the trends that can shed a novel light on the actions and role of museums. The first is defined by an anthropological research approach that allows the recounting of history through the memory of its principal actors. It is also revealed by the polyphonic approach of the exhibition and the validation of these people, their actions and their impact on Quebec society. The exhibition thus makes another history visible and promotes acknowledgement of it by bringing it into the museum, contributing to the defense of rights.

The other rationale is rooted in a consideration of the conditions encouraging museum visits by the most marginalized groups through concerted action with community organizations. It is the foundation of a variety of strategies adopted to create an activity of cultural mediation and co-creation to meet the needs and wishes of the invitees, as well as contributing to an activity that is meaningful for the groups, by pursuing the goals of appropriating and transmitting knowledge, but also self-emancipation and self-expression. Here, the project is based more on a logic of inclusion that museums have increasingly adopted in recent years.

In this article, we propose a theoretical exploration of these two approaches. It also allows us to analyze the participation of the publics in light of the principles of the museal tradition of ecomuseology. In addition to painting a reflective and critical portrait of our action and the project we have dedicated ourselves to in recent years, we think that this work will encourage reflection on the effect of different participatory modes of the publics at the museum, particularly groups experiencing exclusion. We also hope that it will help illuminate museal action and the various possible dimensions of the museum’s social role.

EN :

As a national observatory and think tank on museums and heritage, the Office for Museum Cooperation and Information (OCIM) has for forty years conducted national, territorial and thematic surveys on the development of museums, heritage, and scientific, technical and industrial culture (PCSTI). It is dedicated to understanding how institutional and professional practices evolve and what are the new and emerging trends in the field, and to supporting museum professionals and institutions in developing their projects and missions. This article presents the first results of the surveys “Approches sociales et inclusives des musées et des lieux de culture scientifique” (Social and inclusive approaches to museums and scientific cultural spaces) (2020, n =74) and “Chiffres clés des acteurs du PCSTI” (Key statistics in the field of PCSTI) (2021, data 2020 – n = 196), both intended to show how public engagement is an integral part of professional practices in mediation in the field of PCSTI in France. The two surveys reveal different ways in which inclusion and participation are embodied in the museum context, with their strengths and limitations. The article reflects on the place of ideas such as inclusion in the design of public engagement programs and strategies and how in recent years the vocabulary has evolved from using expressions like “facing the publics” or “for the publics” to the more inclusive “with the publics.” Who do we include under the umbrella expression “with the publics”? What methods can be used –whether new or not– to encourage public participation and inclusion in museums? How do these methods impact on professional mediation practices, exhibition design, management, and more generally museum thinking? Participatory museum, inclusive museum, citizen museum, museum as forum: what are the possible developments? This article provides insight on the relationship between the museum and the public, their roles and levels of engagement; whether the hope of “being inclusive” or “more inclusive” not as a turnkey project but very much as the spark that ignites a gradual shift with lasting impacts.

EN :

The new definition of a museum put forward in 2022 by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) affirms the importance of a museum “open to the public, accessible and inclusive” and that “fosters diversity and sustainability”: the principles of accessibility, inclusion and participation are becoming a requirement as new norms for a museal institution and the evolution of its role and missions. They embody the necessary conditions to dust off the image of a cloistered museum, disconnected from its publics, and to build a welcoming museum space for active engagement with all publics. Still, beyond the affirmation of this political discourse, accessibility, whether seen by professionals as an injunction or a conviction, indeed an opportunity, is lagging; a study conducted in France in 2017 on accessibility to the culture for people with disabilities shows a number of difficulties in accessing culture, which throws the museal offer into question: how is the accessible offer structured for visitors with disabilities? And what is its participatory scope? To answer these questions, this article proposes to outline the content and evolution of this offer. Thus, firstly, the aim is to describe and present the sociopolitical and ideological context of museum accessibility in France; it looks back at the influence of cultural democratization as well as the emergence of inclusive pressure and accessibility, bolstered since 1975 by a legal framework. Secondly, the article will focus on the evolution of welcoming publics with disabilities and the variety of arrangements made to unite accessibility and participation.