The Museum as an Agent for Social Change

Submitted by Tanya Huelett

Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett is the Program Director for the Core Exhibition at the Museum for the History of the Polish Jews. She began her talk on the topic of the museum as an agent for social transformation with two questions: How can a museum affect social transformation; How can this museum affect social transformation? 

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett shared her vision of social transformation in terms of the museum’s:

·         physical presence historical and educational philosophy  approach to wider community engagement

Kirschenblatt-Gimblett began by talking about the building’s glass facade. She acknowledged that many people feared that such a museum would make Jews too visible and easily targeted. She explained that much of the reason so many Jewish Poles hid their identity as Jews for so long had to do with both fear and shame. The museum’s architects wanted a space that physically refuted and rejected those impositions through its physical presentation; a space that spoke to life and possibility.

To that end, Kirschenblatt-Gimblett asserts that the glass facade makes the building open and welcoming. She says that the museum declares that the renewal of Jewish life doesn’t have to happen under the shadow of fear and shame.

So it was important to her and others that the museum be filled with light at every opportunity, so that it would be bright and transparent. That it would communicate open-ness, pride, and security. She also suggested that the physical transparency functioned in contrast to the communist regime and the dark, closed, imposing nature of its architecture and practices. 

Kirschenblatt-Gimblett acknowledged that some could have understood the glass as a reminder of fragility and Kristallnacht, but that the decision to build in glass was a declaration of strength and confidence. This discussion made me wonder about the distance that can occur between an artist’s vision and a consumer’s interpretation. I certainly felt the light and open-ness of the museum, but I also came to it free from site-specific  fear and shame; and without a personal connection to the history.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett also talked about the way that the museum approaches history. She stated that:

·         the museum does not offer a defensive or apologetic narrative of the history of Polish Jews or Jews in Poland.

>>>>They do not allow the history of Polish Jews to be dominated or determined by the Holocaust. >>>>They are not out to offer a singular ‘official’ narrative, or a revisionist history.

Rather, they offer an integral history of Polish Jews, a relational history that looks at history ‘in common’, and an open-ended history. Moreover, the museum seeks to offer a number of voices, a number of experiences and a number of points of entry within which museum-goers might find themselves.  Kirshenblatt-Gimblett said that the museum’s investment is in spurring exploration, not offering instruction. They want people to find their own meaning and find their own inspiration.

In terms of the museum’s approach to community engagement, she outlined a few key goals:

·         >>>>To find funding to bring all Polish school children to the museum at some point in their educational journey.

>>>>>To operate a mobile museum that enables community activists to write a proposal to bring the museum to their communities. Thus enabling the museum and its approaches to come to people that might not otherwise come to it.

She also talked about the profound learning that occurred as the museum worked to create a representation of an historical Jewish synagogue in the museum. They worked with a US based design firm and Polish students to conceive of and create an elaborate wood structure with a beautiful and intricately painted ceiling. As they worked on portions of this replica, they took the work to various parts of Poland (e.g. wood work in one place, painting in another) and invited local communities to engage in the work and learn about the history of Polish Jews in their localities. This approach was absolutely transformational for some communities and offered an educational experience more powerful than many of us in the audience could have imagined. I am struck by the imagery of inviting communities to participate in the creation of a museum’s physical structure. Moreover, I am enticed by the idea of inviting others to share in a process of learning and working together to create a visual representation of a silenced past. It is incredibly compelling to think that it might be through such a process that people seek to understand what existed, what was lost, and what is still possible.

Finally, Kirschenblatt-Gimblett reiterated that there are many goals to this museum. Certainly to share stories of how Jews lived for 1000 years as part of Polish society, but also to aid the process of reclaiming Poland’s pluralistic past as Polish society positions itself and its identity in the future. I wonder how well the museum will be able to achieve these equally ambitious aims, and whether they will come into conflict or perhaps enhance one another.

Both the board and staff have generally been fascinated with Kirschenblatt-Gimblett’s ideas and vision. Some of it doesn’t line up exactly with the way Facing History understands the work of history (Facing History seeks to do something much more specific than spur exploration and curiosity. We want students to dig deep into historical experiences, to understand and evaluate moral and ethical actions and decisions, to value and activate their own agency) but there’s great overlap in goals, and a great deal for the organization to learn as we continue to think about history as both the vehicle and the focus of much of our work. 

Museum for the History of the Polish Jews, Warsaw