From South Africa to the United States, conflict around heritage preservation has been at the forefront of global consciousness as ongoing controversies over the presence of monuments to oppressive powers are challenged. The vandalism, violence and protests manifesting as a result of this reify the social importance of collective memory, the care of which is often entrusted to cultural and heritage institutions.
‘Heritage is a powerful tool. It can inculcate a sense of belonging. It can be used to include or exclude, to give accurate or false impressions. It can also be used … to deny, cover up and sanitise the personal and community histories of a sector of … society (Agyeman, 1993).’
Many institutions within the heritage sector have historically served a small fraction of its public, and have consequently alienated much of the communities to which they are responsible (Cameron, 1971) (Clay, 1994). Denying marginalised communities historical, cultural and social affirmation enforces white supremacist ideology and the colonial origins of museums and other heritage institutions. Such obfuscation invents discontinuities in historic narratives,
minimising the contributions of many and inhibiting the education of all (Howe, 1977).
However, over the last few decades, efforts have been made by many western institutions to implement programming to reach previously excluded communities. This shift has raised questions of ownership, access, and interpretation of cultural narratives (Simpson, 2001).
Who has the privilege to tell the stories of marginalised groups? How can institutions born from colonial ideology serve communities they have traditionally exploited?
This Terms of Reference will discuss the social, political, and educational impact of public cultural presence and the power of heritage institutions. How do cultural workers and educators work as memory keepers? What are their ethical duties in preserving voices vulnerable to erasure?