Contribution short abstract:

This presentation discusses the public debates that took place during the autumn of 2024 concerning the closure of three notable Finnish museums due to government cuts, analyzed from the perspective of affective practices.

Contribution long abstract:

In August 2024, the Finnish Heritage Agency announced that negotiations were to begin in response to changing circumstances: due to a permanent deficit in funding and a new budget cut for 2025 as part of the government's saving program. The negotiations were expected to result in layoffs and other budget cuts within the Agency. Two months later, the results of the negotiations were made public, and one of the consequences was the closure of three museums for the year 2025: Seurasaari Open-Air Museum, Hvitträsk, the studio home of architects Gesellius, Lindgren and Saarinen, and Louhisaari Manor, the birthplace of Marshal of Finland C. G. E. Mannerheim.

The plans to close museums, particularly those considered to represent the core of Finnish heritage, caused astonishment among the public and politicians. Some interpreted the decision to close the museums as the Heritage Agency lobbying against the government saving plans – both positively and negatively. Others saw the decision as a final cry for help from the heritage sector. Understandably, the public discussion was also intertwined with party politics.

In my presentation, I analyze the public discourse that arose from the negotiations and closure decision within newspapers and social media. These public opinions reveal how affective practices relate to the meaning-making processes of heritage and heritage politics (Wetherell, Smith & Campbell, 2018). The cuts created a specific situation in which the value of heritage was re-evaluated.