Replying to:

>Date: Thu Feb 22, 1996  5:43 pm  EST
>From: Museum discussion list
>      EMS: INTERNET
>      MBX: [log in to unmask]>

>Subj: Re- touching museum objects (long)

>Who's [sic] culture are you discussing in our multicultural society?  I
suspect
>the museum professional's culture.  In your museum's mission statement I
>suspect that there are some references to serving and educating the
>public (all cultures) Museum professionals must make accomodations for
>those that want to lick paintings and see what marble genitals feel
>like-  if they are to thrive and not just survive.

The absurdity of the relativistic notion that all cultures are equally valid
in all situations sometimes becomes obvious.

First, one can look through history and say of some cultural practices that
however "valid" one wishes to consider them in their original time and place,
they are not acceptable here and today.  Perhaps one can argue that
cannibalism was OK in some primitive societies, that human slavery was
acceptable in the ante-bellum American South, or that genocide was a
culturally valid practice of the Third Reich, but no one endorses such
behavior today.

Second, if my culture of respect for others and their objects is no more
deserving of respect than someone else's culture of disrespect and
self-gratification, is not the reverse also true?  In other words, if neither
culture is morally privileged, then in a space where only one can prevail at a
time, isn't my right to impose moderate, respectful behavior just as valid as
a loud, disrespectful visitor's right to impose noise, disorder and damage?

Abraham Lincoln used this argument against slavery:  "If A. can prove, however
conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.-- why may not B. snatch the
same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?"  If rowdy visitors
are entitled to impose their behavioral codes on museums, why can't museums
snatch the same argument and educate visitors to follow their codes of
behavior?

Of course, the key to this argument is that the premise is false.  Lincoln
only rhetorically conceded the possibility that "A can prove...that he may, of
right, enslave B." to show that it still wouldn't lead to the justification of
slavery.

Similarly, I don't accept the premise that a culture of ignorance and
disrespect is just as valid as one of knowledge and respect for others,
present and past.  If I did, why would I bother working in a museum?

Gerry Prokopowicz, Ph.D.
Historian, The Lincoln Museum
Fort Wayne, Indiana
[log in to unmask]





**************************************************************************
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of The Lincoln Museum.
**************************************************************************