Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Identitätsfabrik reloaded?!

Guido Fackler, Brigitte Heck (Hg.)


Guido Fackler, Brigitte Heck (Hg.)

Identitätsfabrik reloaded?!
Museen als Resonanzräume kultureller
Vielfalt und pluraler Lebensstile

Europäische Ethnologie Band 10

IT LIT
Guido Fackler, Brigitte Heck (Hg.)

Identitätsfabrik reloaded?!
Europäische Ethnologie
Band 10

Würzburger
museumswissenschaftliche
Studien

Band 1

LIT
Guido Fackler, Brigitte Heck (Hg.)

Identitätsfabrik reloaded?!
Museen als Resonanzräume kultureller Vielfalt
und pluraler Lebensstile
Beiträge der 21. Arbeitstagung der dgv-Kommission
„Sachkulturforschung und Museum“,
veranstaltet
vom Referat Volkskunde
des Badischen Landesmuseums Karlsruhe
und der Professur für Museologie
der Universität Würzburg
vom 22. bis 24. Mai 2014
im Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe
Unter redaktioneller Mitarbeit von
Stefanie Menke und Carla-Marinka Schorr

LIT
Umschlagbild: © HTM Peenemünde GmbH

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek


Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der
Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind
im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
ISBN 978-3-643-12911-6 (gb.) (LIT Verlag )
ISBN 978-3-643-32911-0 (PDF) (LIT Verlag )
ISBN 978-3-937345-82-6 (BLM)

© LIT VERLAG Dr. W. Hopf Berlin 2019


Verlagskontakt:
Fresnostr. 2 D-48159 Münster
Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-62 03 20
E-Mail: lit@lit-verlag.de http://www.lit-verlag.de
Auslieferung:
Deutschland: LIT Verlag, Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster
Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22, E-Mail: vertrieb@lit-verlag.de
E-Books sind erhältlich unter www.litwebshop.de
I NHALT

E INFÜHRUNG & E RÖFFNUNGSVORTRAG


Guido Fackler und Brigitte Heck
Identitätsfabrik reloaded?! Museen als Resonanzräume kultureller
Vielfalt und pluraler Lebensstile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Thomas Thiemeyer
Identitäts- und Wissensparadigma. Zwei Perspektiven auf
kulturhistorische Museen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

E UROPÄISCHE I DENTITÄTEN – I DENTITÄTEN IN E UROPA


Sarah Czerney
Inszenierung kultureller Identitäten und Diversitäten im Musée des
civilisations de l’Europe et de la Méditerranée Marseille (MuCEM) . . . 35
Schoole Mostafawy
Wenn das Fremde identitätsstiftend wirkt. Fallbeispiele aus der
Karlsruher Sammlungsausstellung „WeltKultur/GlobalCulture“ . . . . . 47

PARTIZIPATION – W UNDERMITTEL GEGEN MUSEALE


I DENTITÄTSKRISEN ?
Regina Wonisch
Museum und Partizipation: Zwischen Vereinnahmung und
Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Yonca Krahn
Rufende Götter, eine Reise mit der Zeitmaschine und ein
Legionärspass: Identifikation mit regionaler Geschichte durch
partizipative Museumsarbeit. Eine Fallstudie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Jens M. Lill und Werner Schweibenz
Partizipative Erschließung von Bildmaterial durch Benutzerbeteiligung
mit Social Tagging und Crowdsourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

i
I NHALT

B EFREMDEN UND B EHEIMATEN


Sabine Zinn-Thomas
Homesick at home? Materialisierte Heimat und die Verheimatung des
Fremden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Marina Cvetkovic und Andreas Seim
„Hochzeiten in Bač“. Überlegungen zu einem Ausstellungsprojekt in
der Vojvodina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Katharina Schlimmgen
Kulturvielfalt und Gegenwartsbezug als Neuausrichtung: Versuche und
Auswirkungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

S TADTMUSEEN IM 21. J AHRHUNDERT: HETEROGENE


I DENTITÄTEN , MULTIVOKALE D INGE
Jens Stöcker und Markus Walz
Identitätsfabrik – ohne Fabrikantinnen, ohne Fabrikarbeiter? Zur
Relevanz eines Schlagworts im Kulturerbe-Diskurs und in der
aktuellen Praxis eines Stadtmuseums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Nina Gorgus und Dorothee Linnemann
Wie sich das Historische Museum Frankfurt neu erfindet: ein Bericht
aus der musealen Praxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

M USEALE V ERHANDLUNGEN EUROPÄISCHER P LURALITÄT


Helmut Groschwitz
Europa extrahieren und integrieren. Postkoloniale Museumsdiskurse in
Berlin und anderswo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Irene Ziehe
Kulturelle Vielfalt – vielfältige Kultur. Das Museum als Ort der
Selbstvergewisserung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

E MOTIONEN UND B ILDER


Uwe R. Brückner und Linda Greci
Szenografie – zeitgemäße Inszenierungsdisziplin für Resonanz- und
Identitätsräume im Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

ii
I NHALT

S CHLUSSVORTRAG
Peter van Mensch
Generators of culture or generators of identity?
Museological reflections on old and new approaches towards identity
and community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Autorinnen und Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

iii
G ENERATORS OF CULTURE OR GENERATORS OF
IDENTITY ? M USEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON OLD
AND NEW APPROACHES TOWARDS IDENTITY AND
COMMUNITY

Peter van Mensch

During the last decades of the 20th century, the Netherlands, like many other
Western-European countries rapidly developed into a society in which immi-
grant assimilation is one of the core issues in the national debate on cultural
identity. The aim of the present paper is to reflect on how Dutch museums
deal with this issue. The specific perspective used for this exploration is the
renewed interest in the relation between museums and place as, for example,
manifested in city museums. The paper argues that the ideals as expressed
during the late 1980s and early 1990s are still relevant but require a reconcep-
tualization of communities as crowds.

G ENERATORS OF CULTURE INSTEAD OF IDENTITY FACTORIES

From 27 August to 6 September 1989 the Fifteenth ICOM General Confe-


rence was held in The Hague, Netherlands. Theme of the conference was “Mu-
seums: Generators of Culture”. Almost simultaneously Gottfried Korff and
Martin Roth published their anthology on historical museums as laboratory,
theatre or identity factory.1 The use of the wording generators of culture versus
generators of identity is not without significance. Until far into the 1990s the
term ‘(cultural) identity’ was very seldom used in Dutch museum circles. The
theme of the ICOM General Conference thus reflects the dominant rhetoric
in the Netherlands. The same rhetoric underpinned a policy paper on muse-
ums published by the government in 1992.2 It was the first national policy
1
Korff, Gottfried / Roth, Martin (Hg.): Das historische Museum. Labor, Schaubühne, Iden-
titätsfabrik. Frankfurt a. M. / New York 1990.
2
Nota Investeren in cultuur. Ministerie van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur. Den Haag
1992.

197
P ETER VAN M ENSCH

paper in the Netherlands in which the concepts of cultural identity and mu-
seums were related. On behalf of the government, Hedy d’Ancona, minister
of Culture, stated that cultural identity cannot provide for a suitable guideline
for drafting a national policy on culture in general and museums in particular.
“Our national cultural identity comprises manifold identities of diverse com-
munities, including cultural minorities. One may wonder to what extend these
diverse communities can be lumped together [ . . . ]. In my opinion, it is ge-
nerally speaking more preferable to address the national cultural identity from
the notion that the specificity of our culture emerged from a continuous in-
teraction between communities rather than by looking for the ‘typical Dutch’
that would characterise us of old.”3 Instead of explicitly making a connecti-
on between (cultural) identity and (cultural) heritage, the document speaks of
“the preservation of cultural values in society”.4 In the same paragraph the do-
cument refers to the concept of generators of culture, adding: “Dealing with
the past is eminently a creative process. It is impossible to imagine a dynamic
society without it. The recognition that there is a constant interaction and in-
terdependence between cultural preservation and creation, between tradition
and renewal, is an essential part of my cultural policy.”5
While around 1990 neither the term ‘(cultural) heritage’ nor the term
‘(cultural) identity’ were widely used, by the turn of the century both terms
occupied a firm position in Dutch cultural policy. In addition, the issue of
national identity – with an emphasis on intangible cultural heritage as the ex-
pression of norms and values – entered the political arena, a process that was
fuelled by events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center (New York,
11 September 2001), the assassination of film maker Theo van Gogh (Ams-
terdam, 2 November 2004), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.6 In this
context the term ‘identity factory’ as denominator for (historical) museums
‘suddenly’ appeared, but was immediately rejected as being completely out-
of-date.7 25 years after the ICOM General Conference Dutch museums still
perceive themselves as generators of culture rather than generators of identi-
ty. In this respect the mission statement of the Nederlands Openluchtmuseum
3
Ibid., p. 44.
4
Ibid., p. 87.
5
Ibid., p. 85.
6
Meijer-van Mensch, Léontine / van Mensch, Peter: Proud to be Dutch? Intangible Heritage
and National Identity in the Netherlands. In: Stefano, Michelle L. / Davis, Peter / Corsane,
Gerard (Hg.): Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage. Woodbridge 2012, p. 124–136.
7
Heinrichs, Hendrik: Een identiteitsfabriek is echt uit de tijd. In: NRC-Handelsblad,
20.06.2007.

198
G ENERATORS OF CULTURE OR GENERATORS OF IDENTITY ?

(Netherlands Open Air Museum, Arnhem) is significant. This museum is the


main museum in the Netherlands discussing traditions in everyday life.8 In
the English version of its website the goal of the museum is defined as “to
promote: interest in the history of everyday life in the Netherlands, respect for
our cultural heritage, understanding of our own cultural identity and that of
others.”9 The German version is identical. The Dutch version, however, avoids
using the terms heritage and identity: “For centuries the Netherlands accom-
modate a variety of lifestyles, traditions, beliefs and opinions. This diversity –
which in our rapidly changing world only increases – makes our unique socie-
ty powerful and vulnerable. [ . . . ] The museum combines present to the past,
offers to the Dutch insight into the dynamics of everyday life and contributes
to the development of a stable, social and creative society. Those who look into
his past, get to know themselves better.”10 Like the Nederlands Openluchtmu-
seum, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, proudly presenting itself as “the museum
of the Netherlands”, avoids using the term ‘(national) identity’ in its mission:
“At the Rijksmuseum, art and history take on new meaning for a broad-based,
contemporary national and international audience. As a national institute, the
Rijksmuseum offers a representative overview of Dutch art and history from
the Middle Ages onwards, and of major aspects of European and Asian art.
The Rijksmuseum keeps, manages, conserves, restores, researches, prepares,
collects, publishes, and presents artistic and historical objects, both on its own
premises and elsewhere.”11

F ROM ‘ IDENTITY FACTORY ’ TO ‘ CULTURAL BIOGRAPHY ’

Inspired by the book edited by Korff and Roth, Dutch ethnographer Gerard
Rooijakkers transferred the concept of identity factory from the German pro-
fessional discourse into the Dutch discourse, interestingly in connection with
the adoption of the concept of ecomuseum from the French discourse. “Mu-
8
About the history of the museum, see de Jong, Adriaan: Die Dirigenten der Erinnerung:
Musealisierung und Nationalisierung der Volkskultur in den Niederlanden 1815–1940.
Münster 2007.
9
Mission of the Netherlands Open Air Museum in English. Online: http://www.openairm
useum.nl/who-are-we/mission [21-6-2018].
10
Mission of the Netherlands Open Air Museum in Dutch. Online: http://www.openluchtm
useum.nl/wie-zijn-wij/missie [14-11-2014].
11
Vision and mission of the Rijksmuseum. Online: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/organisa
tion/vision-and-mission [21-6-2018].

199
P ETER VAN M ENSCH

seums, archaeological sites, monuments and landscapes, until now indepen-


dently co-existing, are combined with each other into mindscapes and so that
culture is not reduced and detached to a ‘musealised’ product. Therefore, whi-
le choosing a name, it was decided not to opt for the concept of (eco)museum
but instead for metaphor (identity) factory”.12 As such, Rooijakkers’ work re-
presents a spatial turn in Dutch museology, comparable to the paradigmatic
shift in cultural studies since the 1980s with a new interest in the geographical
space.13 The spatial turn in post-war museology started with the introduction
of the concept of site-museum in the 1950s,14 and was given a broader basis by
the introduction of the concept of ecomuseum in the 1970s.15 A major step in
the development of the spatial turn in museology was the 2016 General Con-
ference of ICOM at Milan, Italy. Theme of the conference was “Museums and
cultural landscapes”. In the brochure the concept of “musei diffusi” (extended
museums) is introduced: “The museums have responsibilities for the cultural
landscape; they should become: [ . . . ] extended museums and interpretation
centers of local heritage [ . . . ] custodians of the historical and cultural values
of the landscape and promoters of sustainable development”.16
Following the Dutch inclination to avoid the use of the term ‘(cultural)
identity’ in relation to groups of people – let alone the nation as a whole –
Rooijakkers used the term ‘identity factory’ in a special way: “In fact every
cultural institution puts a well-defined, dominant meaning on objects by its
way of selecting and presenting. Seen that way, cultural institutions can be
considered factories in which authorised meanings, without much discussion
or reflection, are constantly produced.”17 As such he refers to the identity of
places rather than the identity of communities.

12
Rooijakkers, Gerard: Identity Factory Southeast. Towards a flexible cultural leisure infra-
structure. In: Dodd, Diane / van Hemel, Annemoon (Ed.): Planning cultural tourism in
Europe: a presentation of theories and cases. Amsterdam 1999, p. 101–111, here p. 108.
See also Mols, Pieter: Over-leven, mensen in de Kempen. Van cultuurhistorisch museum
naar identiteitsfabriek. In: Jaarboek 1999 Nederlands Openluchtmuseum, p. 154–175.
13
Dörin, Jörg / Thielmann, Tristan (Ed.): Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur-
und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld 2008.
14
Allen, Douglas: Site museums in Scotland. In: Museum 8 (1955), Vol. 2, p. 101–112. See
also: Musées de site archéologique. Paris 1982.
15
Davis, Peter: Ecomuseums. A sense of place. London / New York 2011.
16
International Council of Museum: Museums and cultural landscapes. 3–9 July 2016. First
announcement. 2014, p. 13. Online: http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/IC
OM_2016/neu_final_First_Ann_2016-2.pdf [21-6-2018].
17
Rooijakkers 1999 (note 12), p. 108.

200
G ENERATORS OF CULTURE OR GENERATORS OF IDENTITY ?

Rooijakkers’ initial proposal to use the term ‘identity factory’ was not fol-
lowed. Instead another term, also promoted by Rooijakkers, came to the fore:
‘cultural biography’. The term had in 1986 been introduced by Igor Kopytoff
in his influential article on commoditization of things.18 In 1999 Rooijakkers
used the term in several articles and it was immediately adopted by specia-
lists in the field of landscape preservation.19 The term replaced the use of the
concept of cultural history values that was used before.20 The term ‘identity’
was avoided, and the publications show a certain ambivalence concerning the
term ‘heritage’, partly since ‘heritage’ presupposes an owner. Unfortunately,
the integrated institutional approach that was advocated by Rooijakkers was
not followed; museums and landscape preservation developed in different di-
rections. In this context it is significant that the concept of ecomuseum has
never seriously been discussed in the Netherlands. However, the implementa-
tion of a spatial turn into a biographical approach in which different heritage
institutions collaborate did successfully take place in an urban context.

T HE BIOGRAPHY OF PLACE IN MIGRANT SOCIETIES

In a series of texts Léontine Meijer-van Mensch has given detailed informa-


tion about three city museums in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Zoetermeer
and Rotterdam) that looked for new strategies concerning the basic dilem-
ma that arises from the topographical turn in a contemporary urban context:
What is the relation between people and place?21 In cities, such as the three
18
Kopytoff, Igor: The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: Appadu-
rai, Arjun (Ed.): The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge
1986, p. 64–91.
19
Kolen, Jan: De biografie van het landschap. In: Vitruvius 1 (2007), p. 14–18. The term
biography had already been used before in a publication on the interpretation of landsca-
pes by the U. S. geographer Marwyn Samuels. See: Samuels, Marwyn S.: The biography
of landscape. Cause and culpability. In: Meinig, Donald W. (Ed.): The interpretation of
ordinary landscapes. New York / Oxford 1979, p. 51–88.
20
Nota Belvedere. Beleidsnota over de relatie cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke inrichting. Mi-
nisterie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen. Den Haag 1999.
21
Meijer-van Mensch, Léontine: Welches Museum für wen? Besucher und Museum – zwei
Welten prallen aufeinander. In: Henkel, Matthias (Ed.): Wie viel Museum braucht eine
Stadt? Nürnberg 2011, p. 85–93; Meijer-van Mensch, Léontine: Stadtmuseen und “Social
Inclusion”. Die Positionierung des Stadtmuseums aus der “New Museology”. In: Gemme-
ke, Claudia / Nentwig, Franziska (Ed.): Die Stadt und ihr Gedächtnis. Zur Zukunft der
Stadtmuseen. Bielefeld 2011, p. 81–92; Meijer-van Mensch, Léontine: Von Zielgruppen
zu Communities. Ein Plädoyer für das Museum als Agora einer vielschichtigen Constituent

201
P ETER VAN M ENSCH

mentioned before, a substantial number of inhabitants have a migration back-


ground. Recently published statistical data, for example, show that only 30 %
of the people living in the Berlin neighbourhood of Prenzlauer Berg are born
in Berlin.22 The others have a migration background either from other parts of
Germany (“Schwaben”) or from abroad. How do they identify with the history
of the place? The number of publications on the history of Berlin neighbour-
hoods, such as Prenzlauer Berg, is steadily growing, but do these publications
make a durable connection between the (history of the) place and the (identity
of the) people? And, what about the people that were born here, and whose
parents were perhaps also born here, but moved to villages such as Basdorf?
The parents, or probably their parents, may also have an immigration back-
ground. How to make a sustainable connection between the biography of the
place with the biography (biographies) of the people that live there or have
lived there while avoiding the issue of ownership?
The three Dutch city museums as mentioned before, have developed three
different strategies as an answer to this dilemma. The City Museum Zoetermeer
invited residents of the city to donate one object that expressed their feeling
of being at home in Zoetermeer. It was an open call de facto excluding former
residents, but not distinguishing between groups of people on the basis of race,
religion, gender, etc. The Amsterdam Museum facilitated the creation of a web-
site “Het Geheugen van Oost” (“Memory of East”) as platform for sharing
experiences and views of residents and former residents of Amsterdam-East.
Since many of the former residents have moved to cities around Amsterdam
(Almere, Purmerend) the website was a tool to re-establish the bond between
the neighbourhood and its former residents, and to make connections between
the old and the new inhabitants. The Rotterdam Museum abandoned the idea
of having one central city museum and adopted the concept of pop-up exhibi-
tions following the ideas of Michelle DelCarlo.23 The main goal of this model
is to create face-to-face conversations between the participants on topical issues
relevant to their daily lives as local residents.

Community. In: Gesser, Susanne / Handschin, Martin / Jannelli, Angela / Lichtensteiger,


Sibylle (Ed.): Das partizipative Museum. Zwischen Teilhabe und User Generated Content.
Neue Anforderungen an kulturhistorische Ausstellungen. Bielefeld 2012, p. 86–94.
22
As published by the Berliner Morgenpost 07-11-2014. Online: http://www.morgenpost.d
e/berlin/25-jahre-mauerfall/interaktiv/article33254520 [14-11-2014].
23
DelCarlo, Michelle: Conversation and community: an exploratory study of the pop-up
museum concept. Thesis. University of Washington 2012.

202
G ENERATORS OF CULTURE OR GENERATORS OF IDENTITY ?

The three projects are attempts to break away from the old community
focused paradigm in museum work. The ICOM Code of Ethics for Muse-
ums (2004) is to large extend still based on an ethnic informed definition of
community, especially when it speaks of community of origin24 = source com-
munity25 = creator community26 . This paradigm is discussed (and criticized)
by Emma Waterton and Laurajane Smith in a special issue of the International
Journal of Heritage Studies on heritage and community engagement: “Reified
and unreflexive notions of community have been conveyed across the sector,
constructing and dividing society into seemingly homogenous collectives.”27
Communities, so Waterton and Smith, are “social creations and experiences
that are continuously in motion, rather than fixed entities and descriptions,
influx and constant motion, unstable and uncertain.”28 The basic dilemma
was clearly expressed by Meldin, one of the boys interviewed in recent youth
project of the Nachbarschaftsmuseum Berlin e.V and the Museum Europäischer
Kulturen – Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: “Und wer bin ich? Meine Eltern kom-
men aus Bosnien, bin in Österreich geboren, lebe in Berlin, Neukölln. Bin
ich Deutscher? Bosnier? Österreicher? Deutscher mit Migrationshintergrund?
Wer bin ich? Wer? Auf dem Papier bin ich Bosnier, aber wie fühlt sich so
was an? Ich fühle mich weder mit Bosnien noch Deutschland oder Österreich
verbunden.”29 [“And who am I? My parents are from Bosnia, I was born in
Austria, I live in Berlin Neukölln. Am I German? Bosnian? Austrian? German
with migration background? Who am I? Who? On paper, I’m Bosnian, but
how does that feel? I still feel neither connected with Bosnia nor with Germa-
ny or Austria.”] Many young people living in the Netherlands with a similar
biography would identify with this feeling of Meldin.

24
ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris 2004, here article 6.
25
Peers, Laura/Brown, Alison (Ed.): Museums and source communities. London 2003.
26
Byrne, Sarah et al. (Ed.): Unpacking the collection. Networks of material and social agency
in the museum. New York 2012, here p. 8.
27
Waterton, Emma/Smith, Laurajane: The recognition and misrecognition of community
heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (2010), Vol. 1–2, p. 4–15, here p. 5.
28
Ibid., p. 8–9.
29
Results of the project “MuseobilBOX – Jugendkulturen im Museum” were shown at the
Museum Europäischer Kulturen as annex to the exhibition “I’m not afraid of anything!
Porträts junger Europäer”. See Irene Ziehe’s contribution to the present book.

203
P ETER VAN M ENSCH

F ROM COMMUNITY TO CROWD

The internet contributed a completely new understanding of ‘community’.


Opposite of embodied or face-to-face communities, the new type of commu-
nities are less defined by criteria derived from place, race, gender, etc. The
ultimate consequence of this new paradigm is the introduction of the concept
of ‘crowd’. Jeff Howe coined the term crowdsourcing, building on the work
of James Surowiecki on the wisdom of crowds.30 Crowdsourcing, as defined
by Howe, is “the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designa-
ted agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally
large group of people in the form of an open call.”31 Building stones of the
concept are the terms “undefined” and “open call”. It is about the strategic
use of free-choice, issues based communities. The most concrete applicati-
on of the concept of crowd in the heritage sector is given in the Framework
Convention On the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (the so-called Faro
Convention) issued by the Council of Europe. The Convention speaks of he-
ritage community, defined as consisting of “people who value specific aspects
of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public acti-
on, to sustain and transmit to future generations.”32 The concept of heritage
community challenges the traditional opposition between curators as experts
and “the other” either as source community or as visitor (contemporary com-
munity33 ). This involves a new definition of expertise. Leadbeater and Miller
proposed the term “Pro-Am”.34 They explain that in the course of the 20th
century formerly amateur activities became “more organised, and knowledge
and procedures were codified and regulated. As professionalism grew, often
with hierarchical organisations and formal systems for accrediting knowledge,
so amateurs came to be seen as second-rate. Amateurism came to be to a term
of derision. Professionalism was a mark of seriousness and high standards.”35
This is exactly what happened in the museum field in the course of the 19th

30
Howe, Jeff: Crowdsourcing. How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business.
New York 2008; Surowiecki, James: The Wisdom of Crowds. Why the Many Are Smarter
Than the Few. New York 2004.
31
Howe (note 30), definition given on the back cover.
32
Framework Convention On the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe
(2005), here article 2b.
33
ICOM (Ed.): Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris 2004, here article 6.
34
Leadbeater, Charles / Miller, Paul: The Pro-Am Revolution. London 2004.
35
Ibid., p. 126.

204
G ENERATORS OF CULTURE OR GENERATORS OF IDENTITY ?

century36 and in the broader heritage field somewhat later. The emerging idea
of the professional expert did create “a gap between heritage, management and
people, allowing the imprint left by the latter to be diluted in comparison to
the other two, and thus the particularities of interaction with heritage objects,
acts, places and landscapes remain surprisingly muted”.37
Leadbeater and Miller observed the emergence of a new breed of ama-
teurs in the last two decades: the Pro-Am, amateurs who work to professional
standards. Crowdsourcing attempts to mobilize this knowledge. Neither Lead-
beater and Miller, nor Howes speak of museums and heritage. In these fields
it might not be appropriate to speak of “a new breed of amateurs”. Neverthe-
less, there is a growing awareness that the concepts of ‘expert knowledge’ and
‘authority’ should be re-defined. As Leadbeater and Miller also understood the
new paradigm is not without its tensions: “Some professionals will seek to
defend their endangered monopoly”. However, “The more enlightened will
understand that knowledge is widely distributed, not controlled in a few ivo-
ry towers. The most powerful organisations will combine the know-how of
professionals and amateurs to solve complex problems”.38

36
Meijer-van Mensch, Léontine / van Mensch, Peter: From disciplinary control to co-
creation. Collecting and the development of museums as praxis in the nineteenth and
twentieth century. In: Pettersson, Susanna / Hagedorn-Saupe, Monika / Jyrkkiö, Teijamari
/ Weij, Astrid (Ed.): Encouraging collections mobility – a way forward for museums in
Europe. Helsinki 2010. p. 33–53.
37
Waterton, Emma: Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives with com-
munity values: cultural landscapes in England. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies
11 (2005), Vol. 4, p. 309–325, here p. 313.
38
Leadbeater / Miller 2010 (note 34), p. 16.

205