Relevance and Subjectivities

The Annual Meeting of the East-Central American Society for Eighteenth Century Studies was held this past weekend in Bethlehem, PA.  Jan Ballard, Executive Director at Jacobsburg Historical Society, chaired a panel on, "Public History: Making 18th-Century Life Relevant to 21st-Century Lives."  The speakers and topics were: 

• Rusty Baker, Membership & Marketing Coordinator, PFMHO, "Statewide Funding Issues in Historical Organizations"
• Bernard Fishman, Executive Director, Rhode Island Historical Society, "The John Brown House in Providence, RI: Bringing Your Historic Home From Saint, To Sinner, To Historian"
• Diane Windham Shaw, Director, Special Collections & Archives, Lafayette College, "Retooling an 18th Century Hero for the 21st: A New Look at the Marquis de Lafayette"

The theme of relevance was mentioned in all three presentations.  Whether in the form of a personal connection to a place or a concept, an appeal to one's sense of nationalism, a topic of interest in popular culture (youth, celebrity, and mentorship were all mentioned), or the existence of beauty, something about or within a museum must resonate with a visitor if a connection is to be created.  I was reminded of the set of questions raised in the last couple of weeks in my Managing History Class.  Does the object define the experience or does what the visitor brings to the object define the experience?  

I have just finished reading Mary Kelly's book, Learning to Stand and Speak: Women, Education and Public Life in America's Republic. Her argument is that a subset of white elite and middle class women living during the Early Republic and Antebellum eras in America were able, due to the possession of economic, social, and cultural capital, to attend female seminaries and academies which offered courses similar and often identical to those offered at male colleges.  This education provided access to ideologies and ideas which these women questioned, debated, and internalized, creating personal subjectivities.  These subjectivities, or inner senses of self and mission, contained a dedication to learning and a mandate to present what was learned in social settings for the purpose of stimulating further discussion and debate.  

When working on understanding the concept of subjectivities, I thought of the phrase, "Everything within us that we bring with us to the table." My next thought was, "Ought we be speaking terms of subjectivities when we discuss the relationship between seeker and museum?  Does understanding what one's own subjectivities are affect the relevance we attach to an object or concept?  Can we as historians make assumptions about other's subjectivities in order to present a topic accurately and in a relevant manner?   Should historians take individual's perspectives and opinions into consideration?    How do you decide whom to target?  Do you change the object if you change your assumptions about other's perception of it? 

Going back to relevance as key within a museum setting for creating a sense of ownership or sparking curiosity or in simply attracting visitors.  What is our obligation as public historians to create that relevance?  Where on the spectrum do we need to fall between defining that relevance ourselves and in trying to predict cultural subjectivities and shaping the relevance to match?   I don't have answers yet.  But I think the questions are fascinating.