{ The Museum as a Site of Unlearning:

Materials and Reflections on Museum

Education at the Weltkulturen Museum}

Ambivalent
Relationships: The
Balance Between
Letting Go and
Holding On
Nora Schön

Stephanie Endter, Nora Landkammer and

Karin Schneider (eds.): The Museum as a Site of
Unlearning: Materials and Reflections on Museum
Education at the Weltkulturen Museum.

http://www.traces.polimi.it/2018/10/08/issue-06-
the-museum-as-a-site-of-unlearning/
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 02

When a tour about an exhibition is given in a museum, it is usually assumed that the
facilitator possesses the knowledge1 that is to be imparted. This presupposition im-
plies a knowledge gap between visitors and facilitators,2 which as a facilitator I am
driven to question.3 Shouldn’t we also listen to other kinds of knowledge, such as tho-
se possessed by visitors?4 To what extent can a facilitator in an ethnographic museum,
an institution that has long been subject to scrutiny in the context of colonialism and
postcolonialism,5 claim exclusive interpretive authority?

As part of my action research,6 I attempted to open up a space for criticism by hand-

ing over my authority as a facilitator to the
Since 2015, Nora Schön has been studying art visitors, and by challenging knowledge that is
at the University for Art and Design in Offen- presented as being verified by the authority of
bach am Main (HfG). Prior to this she received the institution.7 The top priority in my metho-
a bachelor’s degree in comparative religion
and cultural anthropology at Goethe Universi- dology was to break down the traditional for-
ty Frankfurt. She has worked as a freelance ed- mat of a guided tour.8 sI attempted to hold a
ucator at the Weltkulturen Museum Frankfurt
discussion with the visitors in the exhibition.
since 2016.
In a discussion, different perspectives can be
brought to bear on an issue or object. It is not
just a matter of letting the visitors speak, but
also of changing the attitude and approach of
the facilitator. The role of performing the all-knowing voice of the museum is refu-
sed, which also seeks to undermine the museum’s claim to be the definitive guardian
of knowledge. Space should be made in the museum for the knowledge of visitors: it
should be taken seriously and allowed to contribute to shaping the space of the mu-
seum.

The context in which I carried out this research was the educational activities related
to the exhibition The Common Thread: The Warp and Weft of Thinking (November 2016–
August 2017). The exhibition was concerned with textile-production techniques and
specific textiles from different parts of the world. The exhibition is described in more
detail in Stephanie Endter’s contribution to this volume.9 Together we worked out a
number of themes and issues that we considered relevant for viewing the exhibits,
even if the exhibition itself did not explicitly address them. I attempted to introduce
the issue of the politics of representation in ethnographic museums and questions
about the provenance and history of individual objects in colonial and postcolonial

1 › To start with, knowledge here means a stock of theories and facts that is perceived as true by groups of people.
2 › Though this is not necessarily the case, as a facilitator can be perceived to be incompetent, in which case the
knowledge gap is reversed.
3 › Marchart, Oliver, ›Die Institution spricht: Kunstvermittlung als Herrschafts- und als Emanzipationstechnologie‹
in Jaschke, B.; Martinz-Turek, C.; and Sternfeld, N. (eds.), Wer spricht? Autorität und Autorschaft in Ausstellungen,
Vienna, Turia + Kant, 2005, pp. 34-59.
4 › Jaschke / Martinz-Turek / Sternfeld (eds.) Wer spricht? Autorität und Autorschaft in Ausstellungen.
5 › See Julia Albrecht’s text in the present publication, and Kazeem, B.; Martinz-Turek, C.; and Sternfeld, N. (eds.), Das
Unbehagen im Museum: postkoloniale Museologien, Vienna, Turia + Kant, 2009.
6 › Altrichter, Herbert / Posch, Peter: Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht. 4th ed., Bad Heilbrunn,
Klinkhardt, 2007.
7 › Marchart, ›Die Institution spricht‹.
8 › In a traditional guided tour format, the contents of an exhibition are to be communicated to groups of adult
visitors.
9 › Stephanie Endter, ›Invisible Threads‹, in the present publication, available at http://www.traces.polimi.it/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/TR_WP3_The-museum-as-a-site_05.pdf.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 03

contexts into my work with visitors as a museum educator.

Such a positioning vis-à-vis the museum and the exhibition is important to me. As a
freelance employee in the museum my role is ambivalent. On the one hand it entails a
certain freedom in selecting and discussing topics, but at the same time, I also assume
the role of a service provider obliged to represent the museum.
In the course of my research, I tried out a number of different interventions designed
to break down these roles, to relate to them in a flexible way or to break with them
altogether. I chose the discussions in the exhibition model.10 By converting the tour into
a discussion in the exhibition, I could attempt to undermine or reshape the roles of
service provider and authorised speaker. For me this was about the possibility of at-
taining multiple perspectives regarding particular topics. By offering readings which
transcend curatorial frameworks and employing multi-perspectival approaches, I was
able to work with and investigate visitors’ expectations.

But what kinds of dynamics and ambivalent relationships arise between facilitators
and visitors? How can a facilitator relinquish power and yet communicate important
critical material at the same time?

The critique of the museum implies opening

up the role of the institutional representative
and the creation of spaces for discussion, but
such an opening does not immediately result
in critical engagement.
This tension became evident in my research, and is the subject of the following ref-
lections.

Becoming a museum educator through action research

Before I go into more detail about my experiments and findings, it is important to

shed some light on the framework of action research and its role in my praxis. At
the beginning of my research project, I was new to museum education. My academic
training was in cultural anthropology, comparative religion and fine arts. So I had
theoretical and thematic points of contact with the ethnographic museum, but in
terms of facilitation methods, I was a novice.

While learning facilitation methods, I set myself the task of simultaneously critiquing
these in the course of my research. By theoretically interrogating my experiences as
a practitioner, I simultaneously reduced and compounded my uncertainties regar-
ding this kind of work. We proceeded as a team as follows: following a guided tour
or workshop with visitors we transcribed the discussions as thoroughly as possible.

10 › During the exhibition, the facilitation was renamed The common thread between public tour and discussion in
the exhibition.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 04

This can be done by the facilitator or also by a second observer (co-researcher). In

concentrated analysis sessions we identified issues and formulated hypotheses that
could be directly incorporated back into our praxis. This meant that my research as
a whole was always explicitly related to praxis and will remain so, as new difficulties
will always arise on the basis of particular findings, experiences and issues. Moving
forward, these will lead to other challenges which are not confined to the research
context.

Discussions in the exhibition

As I mentioned above, the point of departure for my research consists in interrup-

ting the monologue of the institution on the basis of critical theories on museums and
their function as social institutions,11 as well as incorporating voices that are critical
of ethnographic museums.

As a facilitator I introduced questions about the museum, the exhibition and the ob-
jects on exhibit, questions that went beyond the curatorial framework. For example:

»How did the exhibited objects end up in the museum? … What are the sources of the
knowledge about the objects? Are these sources biased (e.g. by a Eurocentric perspective)?
… What are the effects of the specific mode of display of objects or images? Should the items
be displayed in this way … ? «12

Seeing as these issues were not directly addressed by the exhibition itself, the facili-
tator’s rhetorical abilities were needed to draw a connection between these questions
and what could be seen in the space.13 Working through these challenges formed an
essential part of my research, and in the process I gained confidence in dealing with
them.

I began each tour with an explicit call for active participation and by asking partici-
pants about their own knowledge: »I look forward to hearing your views and what
you know and perhaps one of you will be game to admit that they have some particular
knowledge to contribute?«14

In the entry room to the exhibition, in which various materials related to the manu-
facture of fabrics and textiles were on display in a vitrine, I posed open questions to
the visitors: What catches your attention? Is anything missing? Participants’ observa-
tions often led to questions about how the knowledge and interpretations present in
a museum come into being. This becomes evident in the following transcript excerpt:

»A woman said loudly: spruce cones, that’s pretty hard to believe. Nora explains that it

11 › Vergo, P. (ed.), The New Museology, London, Reactor Books, 1989.

12 › See ›Questions for an Exhibition‹ in this volume. (LINK).
13 › See Stephanie Endter, ›Invisible Threads‹.
14 › Stephanie Endter, transcript, 28.01.2017.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 05

was only archived as such. Then the man said: ›Ah, so someone has just stuck a label on it
and suddenly it’s from a spruce tree.‹

Nora continued her explanation and mentioned that it was probably a mistranslation.
Piña became pine. She points out that there are limitations to research. What is known
and how it is documented.«15

In this case, opening things up for discussion was linked with the very core of the
critique of the museum: the perspectival and contingent nature of the institution’s
knowledge. Challenging that knowledge also found expression in the fact that as a fa-
cilitator I disclosed the sources of my statements. I also directly related information
to its source; by for example referring to curators, ethnographers and colleagues, as
well as internet, newspaper or film sources, or else admitting that I didn’t have an
answer to every question, I was able to call into question the position of the omni-
scient facilitator and the facts I was conveying, meaning they were no longer percei-
ved as incontrovertible.

The dynamic of a discussion is determined not only by speaking, but also by uncon-
scious actions. As the research unfolded, the distribution of people in the space be-
came an issue. The layout of the exhibition favoured a classical guided tour or stage
model. When numerous people enter an exhibition space, forming a large group in
its centre because the objects are arranged around the walls, the facilitator is temp-
ted to detach themselves from the group by positioning themselves in front of it. One
reason for this is that the facilitator wants to be able to see everyone or be seen by
everyone.

However, for a discussion of the type I

intended, it is advantageous for the facilitator
to position themselves within the group,
because it allows for a situation in which one
person stands in front of the group and the
others all listen can thereby be avoided.

The path taken through the exhibition has an influence on the discussion. It is possible
for the facilitator to set the path in advance. In that case, the points at which the group
stops to discuss things are clearly specified. However if the facilitator lets the visitors
enter the next room first and follows them to whichever spot they gather at, then the
progression of the discussion in the exhibition, and thus also the dynamic of the di-
scussion itself, is co-determined by the interests of the visitors.

I concluded from my experiments that the active participation of the participants led

15 › Stephanie Endter, transcript, 28.01.2017.

AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 06

to moments in which they linked the critical knowledge that I had provided to their
own interests and were able to appropriate it for themselves. So for example I noted
down in a memo after a tour:

»The teacher came up to me and asked again about the Standing Rock poster. I explained
the context to her.16 She seemed almost apologetic as she mentioned that she was aware
that it’s actually not okay to say Indians, but that she was thankful that I had provided
her with other concepts. We talked about it for another five minutes or so. I gave her a few
more suggestions about what kinds of creative activities she could do with her students
(for example working on and researching identity) and then we parted ways.«17

Silencing critical voices?

There is a tension in the relationship between conveying critical knowledge and

breaking down the established role of the facilitator. Discussion techniques with their
successes and failures can be seen in the following example from the discussion tran-
script taken down by a co-researcher during one of my discussions in the exhibition ses-
sions. The label on the vitrine read:

»Pre-Columbian weaving: well preserved, exquisitely colourful textiles and small looms
from grave finds on the coast of Peru provide us with a glimpse into the weaving practices
of the South American highlands from the time before the arrival of Europeans. Textiles
produced by the kilim split weave technique had loopholes in the fabric for spirits to slip
through. Ornately carved weaving swords and spindles were placed in graves alongside
the deceased.«

From the discussion transcript:

»Nora continues into the next room.

Two women admire at the fabric – Wow. They move closer and marvel.
Many of the discussion participants have gone to the films and are sitting quietly in the
black seats.

Nora stands by the vitrine containing the ›grave finds‹. Gradually the women gather
around it. Nora […] responds to a question by saying ›I have no notes‹ and continues:
›Now you may well wonder, what are these things doing here?‹ The question ebbs away.
The women speculate how the objects were woven, so that’s where the thread comes back…
Nora waits. A woman asks how old the textiles are. Nora replies that they are pre-Colum-
bian, so from before 1492 […]. She explains that there is a theory that they are masterpie-
ces that were placed in the graves.

16 › In the spring of 2016, the Sioux tribes living on the Standing Rock Reservation in Dakota protested against the
construction of an underground pipeline. Artists Shan Goshorn and Sarah Sense had mounted a placard with »Stand
with Standing Rock« written on it in the exhibition, which visitors were invited to sign as an act of solidarity.
17 › Nora Schön, transcript, 4.6.2018.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 07

A woman starts talking about pyramids in Mexico and the climate there, another addres-
ses the woman next to me and says goodbye. The discussion peters out. There are many
conversations all going on at once. The discussion becomes technical, the label on the wall
is consulted. Nora keeps on getting into one-on-one discussions. Many conjectures prevail
simply due to how loudly they are expressed: portfolio, sampler, beginning on two sides,
not finished, last work, demonstration cloth, moth holes… A woman reads out that the
label says that spirits slip through the holes. […] Seven people are at the vitrine, seven
watching the film.

After a while Nora gathers the separate discussions and remarks together, suggesting that
everything is mere interpretation. And then as an example she suggests that perhaps in
2000 years people will conclude from archaeological finds that we worshipped plastic.«18

Here the traditional guided tour format was broken down in order to hold a discus-
sion in the exhibition. To a certain extent the facilitator loses her speaking position
as a powerful representative of the institution, and thereby also her role as the sole
source of knowledge. The visitors’ discussions create a multi-perspectival approach
to the exhibition’s contents and objects. One person for example spoke of a trip that
one of the exhibition pieces reminded them of. Another shared their knowledge by
means of a cultural comparison. The knowledge provided in the exhibition space in
the form of labels was consulted. What we can designate as the outcome (and what in
the end is also highlighted by the facilitator) is a relativisation and unsettling of the
interpretations and meanings ascribed to a given object.

The fact that the facilitator is not perceived as an authority in this context is demon-
strated for example by the fact that her suggestions are not always listened to, or
don’t elicit a response. But in the process, the very aspect that would have been es-
sential for a critical facilitation practice was lost, namely the attempt to discuss the
acquisition history of the textiles. »You may well wonder, what are these things do-
ing here?« This question invites people to reflect upon the context in which textiles
from graves made their way to Europe and the ethical implications of this. But this is
precisely what was skipped over.

In this example, we can see how the facilitator succeeds in relinquishing power, but
her attempt to critically discuss the grave finds is ignored. The situation is ambiva-
lent, because the facilitator (the person who wants to criticise) has disempowered
herself through her method of giving her voice to others.

Further questions arise from a critical analysis of the simplistic notion of giving
up the power of the role of the speaker. The power relations turn out to be more
complex. In a discussion in the exhibition, visitors are encouraged to speak. But some
people don’t like to speak up in such a situation. This means that the facilitator may
end up putting a certain pressure on visitors. Then there are others who are used to
speaking in public, and they spend more time speaking. If the facilitator gives up
their authority too completely, then there is also no longer any moderation of what
is said, as could be seen from the transcript excerpt above.

18 › The facilitator is me (Nora), and the transcriber is a co-researcher, Stephanie Endter. Stephanie Endter, transcript,
28.01.2017, pp. 4-5.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 08

So the hierarchy between facilitator and visi-

tors is successfully dismantled, however a new
hierarchy within the group may immediately
establish itself.
In the above excerpt the transcriber notes, »Many conjectures prevailed simply due
to how loudly they were expressed«. This can lead to power relationships between
different social positions and forms of knowledge being recreated within the group.
In the episode above, technical considerations and the text on the label prevail, that is,
approaches that correspond to the conventions of considering objects in ethnographic
museums. This was only inhibited by the repeated intervention of the facilitator. A si-
milar dynamic also emerged in other contexts, such as when a visitor began speaking
of other things that she associated with the objects. She performed a kind of instruc-
tor’s role and took over the discussion. In this way an undesirable dynamic can rapidly
emerge, in which those who speak loudest are also allowed to speak and are listened
to.

As soon as the facilitator relinquished her moderating role, a hegemonic discourse es-
tablished itself in that the labels were consulted (and not questioned) and the loudest
(and not the most critical) voices prevailed. When the facilitator then started speaking
again, she took the power of definition back. As such, the work of facilitating becomes
a balancing act between letting go of control and holding on to it.

We can conclude from this that the dissolution of the classical guided tour format po-
ses new challenges for the facilitator. The task ceases to be one of recounting and re-
producing knowledge, becoming one of moderating a discussion instead.

In their role as moderator, the facilitator

must accept the responsibility of deciding
what content furthers the discussion in terms
of multiplying perspectives and critically
questioning what is on display, and which
contributions might need to be interrupted.

In addition, the facilitator has the task of situating what is said in a broader context.
The facilitator is constantly engaged in a balancing act, in which power is surrendered
and knowledge questioned and continually narrowed down and situated. For this ba-
lancing act, the following questions are helpful:
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 09

What must definitely not be left unsaid? For

which statements do I need to claim the po-
sition of speaker assigned to me? Who hasn’t
spoken yet?
As the research unfolded, I developed a clearer and more confident way of dealing
with the discussions and content, which I aim to use as a basis to continue experimen-
ting with this balancing act.
AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIPS 10

Bibliography
—

Altrichter, Herbert and Posch, Peter, Lehrerinnen und Lehrer

erforschen ihren Unterricht, 4th ed., Regensburg, Klinkhardt, 2007.
Jaschke, B.; Martinz-Turek, C.; and Sternfeld, N. (eds.), Wer
spricht? Autorität und Autorschaft in Ausstellungen, Vienna, Turia +
Kant, 2005.
Marchart, Oliver, ›Die Institution spricht: Kunstvermittlung als
Herrschaft‹ in Jaschke, Martinz-Turek and Sternfeld (eds.), Wer
spricht?, pp. 34-59.
Vergo, P. (ed.), The New Museology, London, Reaction Books, 1989.

WEB:
Kohl, Karl-Heinz, ›Dies ist Kunst, um ihrer selbst willen‹, Zeit,
6.09.2017
http://www.zeit.de/2017/37/humboldt-forum-exponate-herkunft
[accessed 30.04.2018].
Reference
—
Schön, Nora: ›Ambivalent Relationships: The Balance Between
Letting-Go and Holding-On‹. In: Endter, Stephanie / Landkammer,
Nora / Schneider, Karin (eds.): The Museum as a Site of Unlearning:
Materials and Reflections on Museum Education at the Weltkulturen
Museum, 2018, online at http://www.traces.polimi.it/2018/10/08/
issue-06-the-museum-as-a-site-of-unlearning/
Translation from German: Gegensatz Translation Collective.

This publication ensues from the research project Transmitting

Contentious Cultural Heritages with the Arts. From Intervention to
Co-Production, which has received funding from the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant
agreement No. 693857.
For further information please visit www.tracesproject.eu
The views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.