Museum training to develop the social awareness of cultural identity in a time of universalization

The main theme of the ICTOP'94 Lisbon meeting is museum personnel training for the universal museum. At the very beginning it is important to identify what the notion universal museum can cover. It is necessary to underline the ambiguity of the term. On the one hand, the word 'universal' can be taken to refer to the variety of collected museum materials or museum collections, on the other hand it could refer to the efforts of the museum to be active outside the museum walls in order to achieve the integration of the heritage of a certain territory into a museological system. 'Universal' could also refer to the "new dimensions of reality: the fantastic reality of the virtual images, only existing in the human brain" (Scheiner 1994:7), which is very close to M. McLuhan's view of the world as a 'global village'. Thus, what is universal could be taken as being common and available to all the people of the world. 'Universal' can imply also the radical broadening of the concept of object: "mountain, silex, frog, waterfonts, stars, the moon ... everything is an object, with due fluctuations" (Hainard in Scheiner 1994: 7), which will cause the total involvement of the human being into his/her physical and spiritual environment. In the process of universalization, links between cultural and natural heritage and their links with human beings become more solid, helping to create a strong mutual interdependence.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)