Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

This paper argues that, in a politically polarised world, heritage work has shifted from being for publics to being also in public. Engaging with heritage practices in public view should be understood as a core anthropological intervention in debates over history, heritage and collective futures.

Contribution long abstract

Populist and polarizing politics have become a central concern for museums and heritage staff as debates about what and for whom “heritage” is. Drawing on ethnographic research with museum and heritage professionals working in our fraught cultural moment, this paper examines how far-right, populist politics shape institutional practices, producing fear, self-censorship and loss of confidence among staff, alongside solidarity and collaboration.

I explore how collaborative forms of support help museums and heritage sites tell “difficult” or ostensibly controversial hi/stories despite anxieties about public backlash, particularly in relation to social media exposure. I argue that social media and the so-called “call out” culture therein have shifted heritage work from being work for publics to be work in public, where peers and publics can ask questions, recognise and critique the work of practitioners. Placing the specific case of the Migration Network (an output of the Migration Museum, UK) in dialogue with other publicly visible initiatives, including Fair Museum Jobs, Museum as Muck and The Shittish Museum, I argue that working in public, as well as for publics, is a crucial practice for confronting polarisation within heritage arenas.

Finally, I consider what anthropology stands to gain from such public-facing collaborations, suggesting that calling out, supporting and challenging heritage practices in public view should be understood as a core anthropological intervention in debates over history, heritage and collective futures.