I have been enjoying this discussion because I think it really shows how much the role of museums in society has changed, as well as how much we really haven't changed with time. I was really struck by Julia's statement of "inculcation of the middle-class ideal to the masses" perception, something that really is a hold over from the 19th century. Museums grew and flourished in the 19th century (at least in parts of Europe) because museums were viewed as a way to give the "unwashed masses" a taste of culture. At the risk of sounding cynical, don't we still do that to some degree even in the 1990's. Maybe not overtly, but certainly in our desire to serve society. And we are serving a society that cannot agree on what our cultural stories are or should be. I like the idea that museums are moving towards being venues where all of society has a voice, but it seems to me, as others have mentioned, that giving voice is not the same as outright endorsement. We really walk a fine line in the preparing exhibits, and it is a fine line separating various viper filled pits. We must give voice without sacrificing good scholarship, appease donors who may not like controversy, entertain and educate those who come through our doors and visit our displays, and continue to justify our existence and value to legislative bodies. Not an easy task at all. This whole discussion has been great! --john chadwick [log in to unmask]