Museums have experienced three revolutions. The first revolution took place around the year of 1900 with the advent of the institutionalization and professionalization of museums; the second revolution happened in the 1970s, when the collection-based museums were replaced by function-based museums (Mensch 1992); the third revolution occurred more recently, with museum practices as a tool for social development (Heijnen 2010). Among the three revolutions, the second may have a more far-reaching influence on the museum community because it re-positioned the nature and role of museums through advocating a new approach to museology.
The early 1970s witnessed a series of social crises characterized by uneven development between countries and the increasing tension between cultural development, economic growth, urbanization, and scientific and
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 Ra te of a dop ti on Bulgaria Finland Latvia Spain
technological progress. How the museum community responded to the challenges created by the social crisis was at the core of discussion among a group of Latin American museologists at the Round Table on the Role of Museums
in Santiago (Chile) in 1972. Their discourse was based on the argument that the
awareness of the problems of the rural environment, of the urban environment, of scientific and technological development and of lifelong education should be strengthened in Latin American society, the solution of such problems relied on the understanding by the community of the technical, social, economic, and political aspects involved, and hence, museums could and should play a decisive role in the education of the communities to assist in the creation of such awareness.
The Round Table of Santiago gave rise to a series of further discussions and practices about the linkage between museums and the community, which finally led to the emergence of new museology as a new museological approach. New museology emphasizes a museum’s social relevance in its objectives and basic principles, with priorities such as the identity of a society and community, tackling problems and devising possible solutions, and achieving the integrated development of a region and its population (Hauenschild 1988).
ICOM played an active role in the diffusion of the new museological approach. Following the Santiago Round Table (Chile) in 1972, ICOM sponsored a series of international conferences to develop the theme of new museology for further discussions and practices throughout the world, such as the 1st International-Ecomuseums/New Museology Workshop in Quebec (Canada) in 1984, the Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico) in 1984, and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela) in 1992. In addition, ICOM also legalized International Movement for
New Museology (MINOM) as its affiliated organization in 1985.
The new museology theory contributed to the emergence of new types of museums, like the “ecomuseum”, “integral museum”, and “community museum” (Santos Primo 2007). These new types of museums were established in pursuit of the application of the new museology approach, which distanced themselves from the traditional museums, as summarized in table 2.
The diffusion of new museology also aroused different interests and concerns about museums’ social roles among different regions of the world:
inequality and injustice in Latin America, the sustainable development agenda and social inclusion policies in the UK, emancipation movements in North America, and the growing multiculturalism in Europe (Santos Primo 2007; dos Santos 2010), which in turn formed different dependent paths to tackle these concerns and develop possible solutions. For example, the Latin school gave priority to development, i.e. heritage as a tool for empowerment whilst the British School emphasized “an awareness-based institute” to broaden the audience, access, participation and social inclusion as its focus points (Heijnen 2010).
Table 2 Comparison between new museums and traditional museums in terms of the adoption of new museology
New museum Traditional museum
Objectives Coping with everyday life
Social development Preservation and protection of a given material heritage Basic
principles Extensive, radical public orientation Territoriality
Protection of the objects
Structure &
organization Little institutionalization Financing through local resources Decentralization
Participation
Teamwork based on equal rights
Institutionalization Government financing Central museum building Professional staff
Hierarchical structure Approach Subject: complex reality
Interdisciplinary Theme orientation
Linking the past to the present and future
Cooperation with local/regional organizations
Subject: extract from reality (objects placed in museums) Discipline-oriented
restrictiveness
Orientation to the object Orientation to the past Tasks Collection Documentation Research Conservation Mediation Continuing education Evaluation Collection Documentation Research Conservation Mediation Source: Hauenschild 1988
In Asia and other regions where the new museology movement was relatively less active, the new model of museums was initially spread through international cooperation. The early ecomuseums in China, such as Soga Qingmiao Ecomuseum, Zhenshan Buyi Ecomuseum, Tang’an Dong Ecomuseum and Longli Han Castle ecomuseum, resulted exclusively from the Sino-Norwegian cooperative cultural project between 1997 and 2004, where the Norwegian government provided the initial funding and professional support of ecomuseum, and the Chinese government provided the following funding to continue to develop them. But even this ecomuseum project witnessed the divergence of the concepts and methods among stakeholders: the European professionals aimed to preserve traditional culture in the face of industrial development; the Chinese government regarded it as a component of an economic policy for developing living conditions of locally diverse ethnic groups; and local villagers saw it as economic resource to improve living standards (Jin 2011).
Nowadays, new museology has more and more influence on the museum community. Some regional and national museum associations, such as in Latin America and Spain, list the promotion of new museology as a major mission; other museum associations advocate social value and the social role of museums more prominently. For example, American Alliance of Museums (2008) talked about trends and potential futures of museums in the geopolitical and economic landscape. The Netherland Museum Association (DSP-groep 2011) emphasizes five types of value including collection, connection, education, experience and the economy as the social significance for museums. The Museums Association (2013) in the UK highlights the increased impact of museums and propose to adapt museum contributions to contemporary life.
But the influence of new museology is not straightforward. The new museological approach and model doesn't replace the traditional roles and functions of museums and instead, an element of tension persists in the museum’s daily routines between the new model and the traditional one in terms of professional and hierarchical differentiation, organizational and managerial limitations, ambiguous policy discourses and effectiveness of implementation, and the practical application of new museology is reliant on the value and status that a museum works hold and how they act at the ground level (McCall & Gray
2014).
In any case, the far-reaching influence of new museology on museums, governments, and political agendas for regional development is largely responsible for inspiring the third revolution of museums.