The controversy over the Enola Gay display has reminded me of a pet
thought experiment reguarding displays and the balancing of various
community viewpoints. The normal museum approach is to attempt to walk a
fine line down the middle of issues of contention, attempting to present
an overall impartial and accurate view while avoiding offence to anybody.
Sometimes this is impossible to do, either because the viewpoints are so
antagonistic that there is no common ground or because the possibilities
of offending some pressure group or other are so manifold that when all
the 'offending' information is deleted all that is left is an object
label. Judging from some of the postings I have read the Enola Gay
exhibit may be heading in that direction.
 
Does anyone know of any museum where a controversial display has been
presented by showing *both* sides of an issue and letting the public draw
conclusions from the contrast? One might, for instance, discuss the
Aboriginal land rights issue in Australia. One side of the display takes
the viewpoint of the Aboriginals without compromise, and the other side
that of the white settlers. Think of it as a debate between showcases.
 
The general reaction I get to this idea runs along the lines of expected
riots and bomb threats :-) However, it seems to me that it's just another
approach to balancing viewpoints. If you can't stand on the pivot point,
then you can get the same result by putting equal weight on both pans.
 
Peter Volk
Social History
Queensland Museum
Australia
[log in to unmask]