Component 1.4.1: Thematic Analysis: Anthropology as a Way to Combat Human Bias in Museums
Humans, no matter how hard we try, are inherently biased. There are so many different kinds of biases that humans experience. For instance, confirmation bias is when we interpret new information as a confirmation of our beliefs (Casad 2016). Another form is gender bias which is the preference for one gender over the other because of assumptions we automatically make (Leontien 2022). There are an almost limitless amount of other biases humans have, both consciously and unconsciously. One of the most important surrounding the topic of museums is cultural bias. This bias is based on the assumption that our culture and our cultural experiences are the best, or correct, or trying to understand another culture through the lens of our own. Instead of looking at a new culture as something entirely separate from our own, we subconsciously compare it to ours. This can lead to the idea that our own culture is better, others are weird, or that some people are living incorrectly.
An example of a cultural bias is food choices. My family eats a dish called salmon pie, which probably isn’t weird if your family is a bunch of fairly recent French-Canadian immigrants like my mother’s side is. However, whenever someone marries into the family, they are often surprised, shocked, or even horrified that we put salmon, mashed potatoes, and onions into a pie crust and then put ketchup on it (which yes, is probably weird even by French-Canadian standards). The smell upsets some people, while the orangey-pink color upsets others. I, however, find it both normal and delicious, because I’ve grown up eating it. The process of me enjoying this because it was what I was exposed to and my dad learning to like this food, are both considered forms of enculturation. Enculturation often leads to cultural bias in the future.
In anthropology, the concepts of enculturation and cultural bias are incredibly important. As anthropologists, whether cultural, biological, or archaeologists, our goal is to be as unbiased as possible in our recording of events. In the case of ethnographies, we try to become part of the culture without disturbing it which is an impossible task. We also work to record our own biases in response to the culture we’re experiencing. Many early male anthropologists did not even interact with women during their fieldwork, greatly limiting their understanding of the culture. Branislaw Malinowski is a prominent example of this, he generally avoided women during his time in the Trobriand Islands. This led to him missing the importance of women in the Kula ring, an important trading ritual (Tomlinson 2003). In this case, he experienced multiple kinds of bias, including gender bias for not valuing women, and cultural bias for not understanding that they might have an important role in a culture that is not his.
After seeing the failures (and successes) of previous anthropologists, a few have started being up front with their own biases. Essentially exposing as many aspects of themselves as they can before they start their ethnographies as a way for the reader to understand where the author is coming from, and where they may have fallen short (Pack 2006). Even for authors who do not do this in their actual papers, it can be a good exercise before going into the field or even during or after because it helps you look at these situations from another perspective. Knowing and understanding your own biases is important in ethnographies which try to be as scientific as possible by recording any information they can.
In a museum environment, understanding your own biases can be incredibly important for creating exhibitions, displays, and labels that are accessible to as many people as possible. Accessibility takes many forms, it could be making things accessible to those with physical disabilities, designing exhibits that are child friendly, or making sure not to use flashing lights in a video.
One way of doing this might be to look at the language you use. Are there sayings included that may not be universal? For instance, the saying “break a leg” might not be known to someone who has limited experience with plays/musicals, or might be completely unheard of for someone whose first language is not English. Is the language you’re using making assumptions about your audience in a way that might be othering? Other language problems may be using large complex words where it does not benefit the text. When we use words like umbrage instead of annoyance, or gregarious instead of social, we’re assuming guests will have both heard and understood these relatively uncommon words before or have the ability to look them up.
Another way our own biases can impact us in museum spaces is the use of out-of-date terms. Some museums may still have labels left with previously acceptable racial slurs on them. For some people, this language may not even be noticeable, whether it’s because they are used to the damaging language or because they’ve never heard it before so the term has no relationship with anything damaging to them. Using frameworks like the one Marenka Thompson-Odlum created for the Pitt Rivers Labelling Matters project is incredibly important to pick up on these different uses of language. In reference to the Skull Collection, the labels for many of the skulls can be extremely distressing, especially in conjunction with a stolen ancestor. These labels can open old wounds for community members and make it difficult for them to interact with their own ancestors. Though some may disagree with changing these labels when we’re coming from an anthropological perspective, it is important to remind ourselves that though we do not have any problems with this language, that does not mean the next person to experience it will feel the same. We all have our own experiences that change the way we think and believe, and anthropology recognizes those differences. Understanding our biases and keeping them in check is an important part of moving forward as a culture.
Leave a Reply