Maintaining Aboriginal engagement in Australian museums: two models of inclusion

Abstract

Recent decades have seen efforts by museums to become more inclusive and to open up space for the sharing of different voices and different perspectives. Such efforts have been driven by broader social and political changes in support of these inclusive practices. In Australia, where the political context has shifted away from policies of Aboriginal self-determination, a potential gap has opened between museum and government priorities with regard to Aboriginal engagement, putting efforts toward inclusion at risk. It is therefore vital to consider how museums have enacted practices of inclusion and to consider their vulnerabilities to changing social and political contexts. To illustrate such consequences, this paper considers Aboriginal inclusion within two Australian state museums, the Australian Museum and Museum Victoria, and argues that inclusionary practices need to enter institutional structures in order to have sustained meaning despite broader political change.

Keywords:

• Australian Museum
• Museum Victoria
• Bunjilaka Aboriginal Cultural Centre
• Aboriginal Australia
• Australian Aboriginal policy
• inclusion

Notes on contributor

Lainie Schultz received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the Australian National University in 2014, with a focus on Aboriginal rights and museum anthropology. She is now working at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in Cambridge, MA.

Notes

1. The fieldwork was conducted at the Australian Museum from August 2010 to January 2011 and at Museum Victoria throughout May 2011. This research was conducted under the supervision of the Australian National University Ethics Board, as part of my graduate studies, with formal permission from each museum and with informed written consent from all interview participants.

2. NSW's first ‘Protector of Aborigines’ was appointed in 1881.

3. Opened in 1985.

4. The primary focus of ‘Closing the Gap,’ endorsed by the Australian Government in 2008, is addressing quantifiable Aboriginal disadvantage in areas such as life expectancy, health, education, and employment.

5. The Immigration Restriction Act (1901), popularly known as the ‘White Australia’ policy, intentionally favored immigration from certain European nations, in particular to the limitation of people from Asia and the Pacific Islands. This policy became embarrassing to Australia following World War II and was progressively dismantled by subsequent governments.

6. An example for consideration would be the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, founded in 1997 on the principle of national unity, and in direct opposition of the perceived divisions created by policies favoring immigrants and Aboriginal people.

7. See Carroll et al. (2003), ‘Review of the National Museum of Australia,’ also known as the ‘Carroll Review.’

8. Renamed several times and now the Powerhouse Museum.

9. In 2011, the Museum rolled out a new organizational chart, with ‘Corporate and Knowledge Services’ made its own division, previously a part of ‘Public Programs and Operations.’

10. To clarify then, Museum Victoria is the ‘museum,’ while these other institutions constitute its buildings or ‘campuses.’ Staff at each location are thus all employed by the Museums Board of Victoria, and departments physically located within one campus may provide services across all others.

11. Collected by George Murray Black during the 1930s–1950s from along the central Murray River for the purpose of scientific study, this collection was significant for its size, as well as for the frequent removal of remains from traditional burial grounds.

12. ‘Koorie’ or ‘Koori’ is a collective term for Aboriginal Australians, in particular from the southeast.