I’ve recently read English Heritage’s consultation on under-represented heritages [1] and it got me thinking, yet again, about target audiences. Here are some of the points that struck a chord with me:
We don’t want [insert under-represented heritage here] sites
In fact, one respondent called this idea ‘horrible’ (p. 10). In other words, they didn’t suddenly want a load of sites that were designated as Black, Muslim, LGBT, whatever. And there were a couple of reasons why:
The groups aren’t separate
It was actually in the disabled group that they pointed out that disabled people are also lesbian, gay, black, Muslim…But that’s not all:
Groups don’t like to have their marginalisation constantly reinforced
This was specifically said with regard to the language used by organisations: how are the groups represented? They didn’t want to be represented as always different.
Don’t we all have an ethnicity?
…asked one participant when it came to judging categories for searching heritage lists, such as the category ‘Ethnic History’ – which, alas, doesn’t mean ethnic at all, it means non-White, non-European, non-Western. But the point that touched me the most was this one:
It is ‘very dangerous’ to address [insert under-represented heritage here] history only to members of that community
This came out of the LGBT group, where they felt that for their ‘political safety’ (p. 25) everyone needed to understand why their history was important.
For me what emerges from the above is one key point: these people don’t want to be singled out and ‘targeted’. They’re just part of our whole wide wonderful and diverse world. The moment we focus in on one attribute of a person (“gay”) and then target a programme at that, mostly what we’re signalling is that we, too, see difference, exclusion and marginalisation. We’re effectively reinforcing that segregation by addressing, as they said, members of that community alone, when the real need may lie somewhere else entirely – for example in addressing our own and society’s focus on just one attribute. That’s an uncomfortable thought, I know. But the reality is that there are museums, as mentioned in this report, that simply ignore for example the homosexual attraction their key historic figures may have felt. And that, more than any lack of targeted programming, may be the reason why people feel our museum is not for them.
So do let’s search our visitor data for under-represented audiences, but let’s understand that what it tells us is not something about those that don’t come. First and foremost it tells us something about our own organisation. If there is a black strand to the story of our site, then let’s tell it. But let’s not set out to tell it ‘for black people’, let’s tell it for people. Let’s include that ‘ethnic’, LGBT, disabled imagery in our children’s activities as a matter of course, not because we’re doing a programme specifically for these groups. If there are barriers that may prevent people from coming, be that cultural barriers or physical, then let’s address those barriers – let’s not address the people, as if they were the issue. That’s what is the underlying principle of equalities legislation and practices, and it’s what museums should apply too. Once we normalise what we consider an attribute that makes someone hard to reach, our place will become more welcoming to them. And we may just find that they visit without a single targeted programme on the schedule.
And I will no longer have to use language that talks of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Notes
[1] As an aside, the selection of those consulted is quite interesting: Participants were shortlisted based on whether they had published a major body of research in one of the areas identified as under-represented. Bless the LGBT expert who noted that it would be more relevant to speak to the local community. If English Heritage is truly committed to giving equal consideration to communal value then this approach to currently under-represented heritage is unlikely to reach those communities.
Nicole Deufel's Blog 