Vulnerability as a Key Concept in Museum Pedagogy on Difficult Matters

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in museum studies in exhibitions on what is termed Difficult Matters (Silvén and Björklund 2006)-such as rape and mass murder-and how such exhibitions may evoke ethical change. This raises the question about the conditions on which such exhibitions can lead to an ethical change. By developing a conceptual framework this article contributes to museum studies on Difficult Matters demonstrating how vulnerability can work as a key concept in a relational pedagogical understanding of the conditions for ethical change. Inspired by feminist ethics the article suggests that there is an "ambivalent potentiality" of the concept of vulnerability (Murphy, in Violence and the philosophical imaginary, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2012) and forwards a double perspective on vulnerability as condition: vulnerability is inherent to the human condition and always situational. From this point of departure vulnerability is fleshed out as a key concept in museum pedagogy via pedagogical thinkers inspired by the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas' ethics. Concepts like heteronomy, incarnation, Face and Saying/Said are introduced to define vulnerability and the relation between exhibition and visitor is defined as a teaching-learning relation conditioned by vulnerability. Vulnerability is defined as openness to an encounter with the Other as being different, which is conditional of an ethical transformation of existing perceptions of self, others and the world. Finally, inspired by feminist philosophy (Butler, in Precarious life the powers of mourning and violence, Verso, London, 2006) a norm critical is introduced. It is argued that displaying Difficult Matters in order to evoke an ethical transformation museum professionals need consider critically the norms of vulnerability at play in particular situations. On this basis, the concept of vulnerability can serve as a lever for discussions on the pedagogy of exhibitions on Difficult Matters and the ethical responsibility of museum professionals in public museums in this regard.& Katrine Tinning

Museum education and sustainable development: A public pedagogy

“…The first theme involves paying attention to complex sustainability issues such as climate change, migration and racism – which incidentally are nothing new for museums, even though they are not always named as relating to ‘sustainability’ (Silvén and Björklund, 2006). For example, Cameron (2010) discusses ‘hot topics’, Tinning (2017) discusses ‘difficult matters’, while Tøndborg (2013) looks at ‘controversial topics’. According to Rose (2014: 116), such controversial topics or ‘hard stuff in museums includes interpretative content about histories of mass violence, slavery, racism, genocide, war, the HIV/Aids epidemic, and other traumatic events’.…”

“…The second theme is that museums, with their collections of art, natural and cultural objects, have historically been viewed as pedagogical and, as such, providers of meaningful knowledge and experiences (Hein, 1998). Over the years pedagogical discussions about museum education have focused on different aspects, such as which knowledge and what kinds of experiences are considered important (Ljung, 2009; Tinning, 2017). In general, the museum discourse can be said to be characterized by a discourse of optimism on what museum exhibitions and objects can provide and evoke in terms of knowledge, learning or powerful experiences.…”

“…Such a ‘transformative turn’ of museums has added a new layer to the pedagogical role of museums by addressing them as ‘agents of social change’ (McCall and Gray, 2014: 22). Museum exhibitions on difficult matters are often constituted as having the power to contribute to change (Tinning, 2017). Different ways in which transformation can be achieved have been discussed.…”

Walking as Precarious Public Pedagogy

“…Puar, 2012;McCormack & Salmenniemi, 2016;Zymbalas, 2019), and I draw largely from feminist and anthropological scholars who address precarity as an ontological position that rests on indeterminacy, vulnerability, and responsibility (e.g., Berlant, 2011;Butler, 2004Butler, , 2012Butler, , 2016Haraway 2016;Puar, 2012;Tsing, 2016). The connection between precarity and pedagogy has been previously established (Fisher, 2011;Tinning, 2018;Zembylas, 2019), building on Judith Butler's (2004Butler's ( , 2012 theory of precarity. Butler defines the term as both ontological (inherent to the human condition) and situational (located in the politics of the body), each connoting fragility, exposure, interdependency and vulnerability.…”

“…Michalinos Zembylas (2019) recognizes implications for a critical pedagogy for precarity, challenging the very ambivalent nature of the concept as a paradox of constraints and possibilities, and calls for educators to reframe precarity so that the possibilities and perils of a universal moralizing of economic and social relationships can be examined in relation to the ways in which vulnerability is differentially distributed. Further, Katrine Tinning (2018) acknowledges the nexus of ontology and situatedness inherent in vulnerability-a key concept in Butler's theory of precarity-suggesting a pedagogy of vulnerability for teaching-learning relations in museum pedagogy that might encourage ethical transformation.…”