You’re at a dinner party with museum colleagues. All kinds of questions and observations filter across the table and around the room. What did you think about the most recent conference? Why do most museums seem to avoid edgy and groundbreaking topics? Is government funding driving our approach to museum education?  Why is University X opening a new museum studies program when our job market is so weak? Are there ethical considerations in accepting funding from some sources and not others? How does this play out in the world of global museum projects?

I’ve created this blog as a space where we can discuss openly and frankly, but also in a constructive way, issues that we talk about among ourselves but don’t necessarily air in public. Why do these discussions need to be more widely shared? Because these issues are important. We have intense thoughts and feelings about them. We need the support of colleagues to have the confidence that what we are thinking may have merit; that the questions we are asking are being asked by others; that while we must be respectful of other people and ideas, we do not have to be as timid as the field seems to be in the discussion (and perhaps by extension, the exhibition) of sensitive and difficult issues.

At the recent conference of the American Association of Museums in Houston (May 2011), I was inspired by the sessions at which Thought Leader Lewis Hyde presented his ideas. During a conversation sponsored by The Museum Group, Dr. Hyde spoke about the difference between antagonistic and agonistic modes of thinking and discussion. Antagonism, as he says in his recent book, Common as Air, “pits enemies against one another, each side trying to destroy or silence its opponents; agonism, on the other hand, is a conflict among equals, and while some will be more persuasive, none are silenced, all are in play.” (p. 228)

This blog is intended to be a place of agonistic discussion. A place where differing ideas are considered by equals, and where a serving of disagreement may be considered nourishing. A site where widely differing ideas may be sampled or set aside, enjoyed and/or critiqued. To put it bluntly- I’d like to host a stimulating dinner party, but not a food fight.

I’d like to hear from readers the questions about the museum field they think are important but sensitive and not widely enough discussed.

My experience at the recent AAM Conference in Houston is a case in point.  I liked the way that AAM addressed the tanking economy and the resulting dearth of museum jobs head-on, with a large number of Career Cafe sessions. This concentration of programs communicated real concern for members, in my view. Did the sessions on the future of museums also look carefully at the impact of a worsening economy on our survival? Perhaps some of you who attended those sessions would like to comment. The conference also took a leap into the global museum community with a China track, the acceptance of signature sponsorship from Saudi Aramco, and with simultaneous interpretation of at least some sessions in Mandarin and Arabic. If there was substantive discussion of the political and social implications of international initiatives, however, I missed it. As someone who has worked in a number of countries and cultures, I appreciate and endorse the significant values of global collaboration. But are there areas where we should be cautious? Are there ethical issues to be considered? Human rights concerns? Are there any professional standards for both individual and institutional work abroad? Should there be?  I hope that some of you who are working on these kinds of projects will share your thoughts.   Do you discuss these issues with your colleagues? Have you developed protocols and standards for your own work? Let’s begin the conversation.