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.

The new professional: underdog or expert? New Museology in the 21th century

For a long time, museum’s form and function were impregnated with social exclusion, only accessible for a prosperous and educated minority. It held the monopoly on the past and therefore in a way on the present and the future. However times have changed and different perspectives on museum practices have been taken. In 1989 the British Peter Vergo mentioned as quoted below, a number of possible museologies, including a ‘new’, and therefore presumably an ‘old’ type of museology: “At the simplest level I would define it, as a state of widespread dissatisfaction with the ‘old’ museology, both within and outside the museum profession; and though the reader may object that such a definition is not merely negative, but circular, I would retort that what is wrong with the ‘old’ museology is that it is too much about museum methods, and too little about purposes of museums; that museology has in the past only frequently been seen, if it has been seen at all, as a theoretical and humanistic discipline.” (Vergo, 1989)