Paper Short Abstract:

Asbestos objects are hazardous but also evoke silent issues: negative emotions, a fraught history, and unheard voices. By using a case study, interviews, a focus group, and controversy mapping, this presentation visualises emotions, silences, and power dynamics surrounding these contested objects.

Paper Abstract:

Asbestos-containing heritage objects challenge museums due to health hazards and safety concerns. However, there are also silences surrounding this heritage that are currently overlooked: (1) the negative emotions asbestos evokes because of its fatal health risks, (2) the fraught history behind the asbestos industry that knowingly endangered lives and until today does not take responsibility, and (3) voices outside museums, such as people who suffer from asbestos diseases, that are not heard. When confronting these silent perspectives with the dominant museum perspective there can be friction. For example, an asbestos object can be unique and of high historical value. However, for individuals harmed by asbestos, these values may be secondary to personal suffering and negative emotions.

This presentation explores these complexities through the case study of one museum object. By engaging multiple stakeholders – such as museum professionals, heritage communities, and individuals affected by asbestos – the study moves beyond the material hazards of asbestos to address emotion, unheard voices, the contested history, and affected people. Using interviews, a focus group, and controversy mapping, the research unfolds in three phases. First, individual interviews map personal emotions, experiences, and viewpoints. Next, the stakeholders interact during a focus group, using the methodology of Emotion networking to express their feelings, articulate their perspectives, and reflect on how hearing other voices influences their stance. Finally, a controversy map is presented and visualises the emotions, viewpoints, silences, and dynamics between different stakeholders while uncovering how knowledge claims and power structures play a role in this.