You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Philadelphia History Museum(s)
A better alternative would have been to support the existing institutions.
So instead of building a big-box History Center, we'd get what? ... a robust History System. You point out that maybe we've had one all along and just need to recognize and support it. What would it take to do that adequately - at a level that would really make a difference. What's stopping that from being reality?
This was one of the issues I had with the TDC piece. They outline the need for a History System, and the obstacles that have prevented its implementation in the past, but don't go far into specifics of what that system would look like or how to get there. (Unless I completely missed that part??) So I tried to imagine what a history system would look like instead.
I think one of the primary obstacles to implementing a system like this is the very nature of a non-profit organization existing within a capitalist society. The drive to make money, the constant need to report to a board of trustees who play a large role in fundraising, the encouragement to stick to more conservative decisions instead of taking risks, and the overall tendency to see other institutions as competition rather than partners... I'm not sure if a truly cooperative system is possible without a major paradigm shift of seeing value in increased accessibility, audience engagement, and educational opportunities instead of revenue and other financial markers.
The business jargon in the article makes the solution seem really vague, but one part of the History System plan that stuck out to me was the reporting back to partners and other vested interests in the nonprofit history world. As I mentioned in my blog, this insular and elitist approach got us into this underfunded, underutilized mess and is EXACTLY why someone might propose a History System in the first place.