No. 52 (2024): "Begin Human in Nature. Anthropocene and social sciences"
Articles

Decentering autonomy: towards a phenomenology of vulnerability in museum curatorship

Àger Pérez Casanovas
ZURCIR. Laboratorio de pensamiento Fronterizo. Barcelona. España
Bio

Published 2024-06-18

Keywords

  • Autonomy,
  • New museology,
  • Ethics of care,
  • Vulnerability,
  • Crip theory

How to Cite

Pérez Casanovas, Àger. (2024). Decentering autonomy: towards a phenomenology of vulnerability in museum curatorship. Revista Sarance, 52, 130-149. https://doi.org/10.51306/ioasarance.052.06

Share

Abstract

Hooper-Greenhill stated that “the balance of power is shifting in museums away those who care for objects, moving toward the inclusion, and often prioritization, of those who care for people” (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994, p. 1). The museum has become  a device that shapes subjectivities through the curation of an aesthetic experience. From this perspective, the question emerges as to what role museums play in subjectivation as well as in the decentering of the human. The article argues that museology is a privileged field for designing experiences that question the human being as the center from a phenomenology of vulnerability. Through the politics of the museological device, we present how a subjective experience can be configured that generates a crisis of its self-consciousness as autonomous, self-sufficient, and detached from otherness and the environment. Taking care itself as a museological principle, the museum space provides an experience of attentiveness, trust and openness to the other (responsiveness to need; Held, 2006, p. 15) that reveals vulnerability at a lived level.   

This experience is characterized at the phenomenological level as an experience oriented towards the other: human, non-human agents and the environment. Faced with unidirectional visions of care (care for; care about - Milligan and Wiles, 2010), a double level of vulnerability then appears, which translates into the decentering of the subject, towards two apperceptions of oneself as affected by care needs. First, I am temporarily capable: the privilege of an autonomous and non-dependent body is always subject to potential disability, illness, pain and deterioration. Second, I am organism and prey (“I am meat and part of the trophic chain like the rest of living beings”; “the climate emergency is not alien to me because I need space and a habitable environment to sustain me”).  Emerging from this phenomenological experience of vulnerability is the possibility - or even more, the need - to imagine sustainable futures that allow human life by recognizing and placing mutual care and vulnerability management at the center. This article presents how museum devices are able to generate this experience of vulnerability through the creation of networks of care characterized by attention, trust, and intimacy in the CRIP TIME collective exhibition.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alonso Fernández, L. (2006). Museología y museografía (3.ª ed.). Del Serbal.
  2. Alonso Fernández, L. (2012). Nueva museología (2.ª ed.). Alianza.
  3. Askew, L. (2009). "At home’ in state institutions: The caring practices and potentialities of human service workers." Geoforum, 40, 655-663.
  4. Balaguer, A. P. (2020). La insurrección de la vulnerabilidad. Para una pedagogía de los cuidados y la resistencia. Universitat de Barcelona Edicions.
  5. Benjamin, W. (2005). Libro de los pasajes. Akal.
  6. Benjamin, W. (2009). E. T. A. Hoffmann y Oskar Panizza (Jorge Navarro Pérez, Trad.). En W. Benjamin, Obras II (pp. 253-260). Abada.
  7. Bennett, T. (1995). The Birth of the Museum. Routledge.
  8. Bounia, Al. (2020). Museums, activism, and the ‘ethics of care’: Two museum exhibitions on the refugee “crisis” in Greece in 2016. En L. Colomer y A. Catalani (Eds.), Heritage Discourses in Europe: Responding to Migration, Mobility, and Cultural Identities in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam University Press.
  9. Cachia, A. (2013). ‘Disabling’ the Museum: Curator as Infrastructural Activist. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 2(4), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v2i4.110
  10. Cachia, A. (2022). Curating Access: Disability Art Activism and Creative Accommodation. Routledge.
  11. Conradson, D. (2003). Spaces of care in the city: The place of a community drop-in centre. Social and Cultural Geography, 4(4), 507-525.
  12. Darling, J. (2011). Giving space: Care, generosity and belonging in a UK asylum drop-in centre. Geoforum, 42(4), 408-417.
  13. Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Gallimard.
  14. García Serrano, F. (2000). El Museo Imaginado: Base de datos y museo virtual de la pintura española fuera de España. Proyecto y catálogo. Musima.
  15. Heidegger, M. (1991). El ser y el tiempo (J. Gao, Trad.). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  16. Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.
  17. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1989). The Museum in a Disciplinary Society. En S. Pearce (Ed.), Museum Studies in Material Culture (pp. 61-72). Leicester University Press.
  18. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their Visitors. Routledge.
  19. Ignagni, E., Chandler, E., Collins, K., Darby, A., y Liddiard, K. (2019). Designing Access Together: Surviving the Demand for Resilience. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 8(4), 293-320. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v8i4.536
  20. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
  21. Leopold, A. (1998). La Ética de la tierra. En T. Kwiatkowska y J. Issa (Eds.), Los caminos de la ética ambiental: una antología de textos contemporáneos. Plaza y Valdés.
  22. Little, J. (2012). Pampering, well-being and women’s bodies in the therapeutic space of the spa. Social and Cultural Geography, 14(1), 41-58.
  23. López Gil, S. (2013). Filosofía de la diferencia y teoría feminista contemporáneas. ¿Cómo pensar la política hoy? [Tesis doctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid]. Biblos e Archivo. http://hdl.handle.net/10486/660400
  24. McRuer, R. (2002). Compulsory Able Bodiedness and Queer/Disabled Existence. En S. L. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann y R. Garland Thomson (Eds.), Disability Studies: Enabling the Humanities (pp. 88-99). Modern Language Association.
  25. McRuer, R. (2006). Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York University Press.
  26. Milligan, Ch., y Wiles, J. (2010). Landscapes of care. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 736-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132510364556
  27. Mingus, M. (2017, August 6). Forced Intimacy: An Ableist Norm. Leaving Evidence. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/forced-intimacy-an-ableist-norm/
  28. Munro, E. (2013). “People just need to feel important, like someone is listening”: Recognising museums community engagement programmes as spaces of care. Geoforum, 48, 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.008
  29. Parr, H. (2007). Mental health, nature work, and social inclusion. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3), 537-561.
  30. Parry, M. S., Tijsseling, C., y van Trigt, P. (2020). Slow, Uncomfortable and Badly Paid: DisPLACE and the benefits of disability history. En A. Chynoweth et al. (Eds.), Museums and Social Change: Challenging the Unhelpful Museum (pp. 134-148). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429276903
  31. Pfeffer, S., y Sailer, A. (2020). CRIP TIME [Exhibition catalogue]. Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt. https://cms.mmk.art/site/assets/files/6630/mmk_booklet_crip_time_en.pdf
  32. Plumwood, V. (1996). Being Prey. Terra Nova, 1, 32-44.
  33. Plumwood, V. (2003). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.
  34. Rich, A. (2003). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980). Journal of Women’s History, 15(3), 11-48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2003.0079
  35. Taylor, B. (1991). Displays of Power with Foucault in the museum. Circa: Contemporary Visual Culture in Ireland, 59.
  36. Taylor, S. R. (2019). The Body is Not an Apology: How Disability Justice Is Radical Self Love! [Conference session]. 14th Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Conference, University of Georgia Mary Frances Early College of Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd9OQdu2wUI
  37. Wiles, J. (2003). Daily geographies of caregivers: mobility, routine, scale. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 1307-1325.