Since the early 1990s and for little more than a decade, approximately 20 million of Eastern Europe’s young, most ambitious, and likely most talented workers have left their countries. I referenced the processes and consequences of this in my lecture, “Three Faces of Europe,” delivered in Krakow in 2006 and later in a publication under the same title (both accessible at [https://www.mnemosophy.com/the-vault]).
Subsequently, on relevant occasions, I have displayed certain slides, like this one, briefly in lectures in Norway (2018) and China (2023) to suggest that museums are too slow, lenient, or perhaps even uninformed to produce timely, practical analyses of reality that convey urgent developmental messages. While museums preserve memory, their duty to constantly compare it with the present needs of their communities demands they take on this role. Are most museums even aware of this responsibility? “Museology” itself appears to be a somewhat misplaced science centred around institutions, rather than grand ideas.
This very paradox lies at the heart of the issue. Decision-making, another name for wisdom applied to survival, aligns with museums’ capacity as scientifically curated repositories of human and societal experiences—much like libraries and archives. Museums are a goldmine of resources essential for a plausible, decent, secure, and honest future for humankind, including its natural environment. The slide, therefore, illustrates the impact of European integration within a relatively short timeframe.
While economic and political processes are often visible, culture and identity remain largely hidden, making the damage to these identity foundations across a supposedly free association of sovereign states easy to overlook. Illicit trafficking of cultural goods was an immediate, almost never discussed consequence, while acculturation, framed occasionally as inclusivity, was showcased in museums that acknowledged the injustices their institutions ostensibly oppose. Yet, who mentions the demographic disaster implied by emigration? And who is responsible for cautioning against and correcting these wrongs? Public memory institutions should be. The museums’ concept of inclusivity seemed so benign and correct but, in avoiding political stances, they failed to address issues like acculturation (often feared under the guise of globalisation as Americanisation) and, indeed, dis-culturation or de-cultivation. Ironically, by maintaining a permissive attitude aimed at financial security and adopting an opportunistic approach, museums themselves contribute significantly to these issues.
Comments