Exhibition and cognitive dominance

"Those who have information to display typically control the form and content of its presentation, and they may have the power and resources to impose their conception of "needed information" on others. This dominance is a particular problem within the exhibition stance because it is less obvious: Analysis, identification and moral response are recognized as social constructions, but information that is simply displayed can take on the appearance of a natural, inevitable, or objective representation of the world."

Teaching History for the Common Good, pg. 121

Barton and Levstik

This passage from Teaching History for the Common Good’s chapter on the exhibition stance explains both the power and the danger inherent in the exhibition stance of history. Historical displays and exhibitions, when created to help others understand “what happened,” can be very powerful and can leave lasting impressions on consumers of those displays. This is, of course, the intention of the creators of these displays; museum curators, monument and memorial designers, and those responsible for education centers at major historical sites, do not go through all the trouble of creating thoughtful displays in order to not leave an impact on visitors. That said, there is significant danger posed when visitors accept these displays, and the information and narratives the displays contain, in an uncritical way. As Barton and Levstik explain, the other historical stances are obviously social constructions, and are also clearly value laden. When history is displayed as product, however, students and others often believe that what is displayed is ‘what happened.’ In many ways, this overlaps with Bruce Lesh’s observation that students often believe that bias is something to be eliminated, that there is an irreducible truth to be found in examinations of the past. Again, this is not limited to young people. Adults frequently complain that the media is full of bias and that they just want newspapers and other outlets to “report the facts.” This fails to recognize that even something as cut and dry as an AP bulletin has a point of view and is the product of authorial and editorial choices.

It is both difficult and important to identify ways to help students (and others) critically engage with the products of museums and other organizations. James Loewen, in Lies Across America, offers ten questions to ask at a historical site. (http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/content.php?file=liesacrossamerica-tenquestions.html These help students interact in a more meaningful way with sites and museums. I have used modified versions of these questions when accompanying students to Jamestown, Williamsburg, Gettysburg and other historical sites. They definitely help students to peel back the gloss of these sites and consider what narratives are presented, whose views are valued and what intentions the site’s creators may have had. With middle school students, more simple and open-ended questions and thinking routines are appropriate. In our (Close Up’s) approach to the three memorials at the western end of the National Mall, we use a slightly modified version of the see, think, wonder routine to help students consider what message(s) is (are) sent to visitors by these memorials. While it is easy to approach memorials, and particularly war memorials, with a level of reverence that (while not necessarily inappropriate) makes it difficult to think clearly, it is useful to consider the German word for memorials: denk mal (which roughly translates into thought object).

That said, there is reason to fear that historical displays are getting ever more sleek and seductive. In Washington, DC, there are two great museums that exemplify this concern: the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Newseum. While the Holocaust Museum affords visitors an intense experience, and opportunities to reflect on the Holocaust in varied and meaningful ways, it is so well put together that it is very difficult to “pull back the curtains” and think about the choices made by creators and curators. The Newseum affords almost no opportunity to think critically about the role of the press in a democracy; instead, it celebrates the press and offers hagiography. While there is much to admire in the American media landscape, there are also serious deficiencies (reporting on drones, civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rationale for being in Iraq in the first place, just to name a few). That I like the Holocaust Museum and am disappointed by the Newseum speaks only to my bias; there are countless other sleek historical products available for students to consume all across the country, from the innocuous (the Experience Music Project) to the potentially harmful (the U.S. Constitution Center [where visitors literally drown in the progress and freedom narratives] and the aforementioned Newseum). It is becoming increasingly difficult for the field of critical pedagogy, underfunded and inward looking as it is, to keep up.