Learning to Listen in the Museum
A Personal Reflection on Participation and Power
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7203073 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Meggy Merlin Mokay (0009-0008-1918-3798, Yogyakarta State University, corresponding author), Hilma Pami Putri (0000-0002-7769-1167, Yogyakarta State University), Haya Haratikka (Yogyakarta State University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-14 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Museum Anthropology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0892-8339 • E-ISSN: 1548-1379 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/muan.70030 |
| OpenAlex | W7124221869 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
In recent years, the term participation has become the new mantra in the museum world. Cultural institutions strive to present themselves as open and collaborative spaces, as if dialogue with the public were the core of new inclusive practices. However, behind this progressive enthusiasm, we often ask: to what extent does participation truly enable others to speak in their own voices? This reflective question became the starting point for us—three researchers working in the fields of museum studies and visual culture—to examine how the practice of listening can be meaningfully realized within curatorial spaces. This reflective essay stems from our readings and observations of various participatory museum projects in Europe and Asia. We are not writing as curators or institutional managers, but as cultural researchers seeking to understand how museums frame “the other” through curatorial narratives—not just through the objects on display. From the studies and curatorial reports we have reviewed, we observe a recurring pattern: museums tend to speak more than they listen. Even when the theme is “listening to the other,” the institutional voice remains dominant. The reflections in this piece come from our experience reviewing projects as well as our long-standing involvement in research on representation and power relations in museums. As authors, we position ourselves as researchers outside the institutional structure but close to the critical discourse on voice, agency, and participation. Our observations of the dynamics of meaning negotiation in community-based projects further emphasize the importance of listening as an ethical practice that museums have not yet fully realized. Participatory practices in museums are often still at a symbolic level (Mygind et al. 2015). Institutions may involve the public, but control over curatorial decisions largely remains with that institution. This condition is described as controlled collaboration—a form of involvement that grants a voice but not necessarily agency (Gibson and Kindon 2013). This phenomenon is not limited to Europe; it also appears in Southeast Asia, where exhibitions or community-based projects involving Indigenous groups often end up as one-way consultations. We recall the Multaka project: Museum as Meeting Point project in Berlin, an initiative of the Museum für Islamische Kunst that involved Syrian and Afghan refugees as museum guides (Weber 2015). Our analysis of Multaka does not come from direct involvement, but from a review of literature, curatorial reports, and research publications. Broadly, the program is positioned as a space for cross-cultural dialogue and a social integration strategy through refugee participation. However, various reports indicate a deeper complexity: participants' narratives were often adapted to align with the institution's image. This underscores the paradox of participation—a seemingly open dialogue that nonetheless operates within representational and institutional boundaries (Linn et al. 2024). In many reports on participatory projects, listening is treated as a procedural step—a series of consultations, public forums, or visitor surveys. However, true listening cannot be simplified into a procedure. It requires a willingness to set aside authority and open up space for unexpected directions. Co-creation understood as a willingness not to control the outcome (Barnes 2019), positions listening as an act of courage—the courage to not know, to suspend judgment, and to allow meaning to unfold outside institutional authority. In this framework, listening serves as a process of epistemic decolonization, an effort to shift the center of knowledge from the museum toward more egalitarian relationships (Wali 2023). When a museum learns to listen, it practices a new form of solidarity that opens itself to the diversity of ways of knowing the world. In contemporary museum discourse, including Chynoweth et al.'s (2020) discussion, the practice of listening is understood as a process that challenges institutional power structures. Our reflection aligns with this literature, emphasizing that listening is not merely a procedural step, but a continuous negotiation between voice and silence that shapes the relationship between the museum and the community. Thus, our understanding of listening rests not only on theory but also on empirical experience regarding the institution's limitations in managing differences. Silence is often overlooked in museum practice, yet it is precisely in silence that sensitive issues and power relations frequently hide behind claims of institutional neutrality (Weiser et al. 2023). Silence can serve as a productive space for reflection—a sign that communication is still ongoing, rather than a failure. In some contexts, silence represents a subtle form of resistance to power structures that do not permit freedom of expression. One of the museum projects in Europe, for example, involved a refugee participant who refused to use the curator's prepared text and insisted that their own writing be displayed word for word (Pérez-Castellanos 2023). The museum eventually agreed, and that section became the most memorable element of the exhibition. This story shows that listening does not mean accepting uncritically, but creating space for uncomfortable differences—even differences that challenge the institutional framework. In such experiences, silence is not merely an absence of sound; it signals an ongoing negotiation. A museum that dares to listen to silence can discover new forms of dialogue—conversations that proceed slowly, without haste. The effort to amplify public voices in exhibitions often creates tension for curators, who must maneuver between listening to the public and maintaining the institutional direction (Lawrenson and O'Reilly 2023). They worry that excessive listening could cause the museum to lose its purpose. This anxiety is understandable, as every institution has its own mandate and history. However, power in museums operates not only through policy but also through visual language and exhibition narratives (Carfora et al. 2024). By recognizing this, museums can begin to view authority not as a right to be preserved, but as a responsibility to be shared. When visitors are given space to write comments, share personal experiences, or negotiate the meaning of an object, the relationship between the museum and the public begins to shift. Participation becomes a way to build new forms of trust. In this case, listening serves as a means to renegotiate the meaning of authority—not by eliminating it, but by making it more flexible and responsive. Decolonization is not just about returning looted artifacts, but also about changing the way institutions understand knowledge and social relations. In the museum context, listening means acknowledging that a single narrative about the past is no longer sufficient. Digital innovation can open up new forms of public involvement, but without critical awareness, technology can easily replicate old patterns of control in more subtle ways (Derda 2023). Listening must be understood as an ethical and reflective practice that goes beyond public consultation. It requires museums to suspend their authority, create space for alternative forms of knowledge, and allow themselves to be transformed by the voices they hear. Listening, in this sense, is an active, mindful, and responsible form of engagement—and a crucial step toward decolonizing the ways of knowing within the museum sphere. For the practice of listening to evolve into an institutional culture, museums must rearrange their working methods. Even small steps can mark a meaningful beginning: creating shared spaces for reflection among curators, researchers, and communities; integrating participatory evaluation into the curatorial process; and treating public experience not just as data, but as a source of knowledge. This approach requires time and patience—but that is precisely where its strength lies. Listening cannot be rushed, as it involves cultivating trust and a willingness to change. A museum that listens does not lose its authority; rather, it rediscovers it in a more human form—an authority based on dialogue. This reflection is not intended as an evaluation of any specific institution, but as an invitation to reconsider the meaning of listening. Listening is both an ethical and decolonial practice that encourages museums to suspend their authority, open up to other voices, and allow transformation through equal dialogue. Amidst the strengthening rhetoric of inclusivity and collaboration, museums have great potential to become spaces for ethical learning—places where knowledge is not just transmitted but also negotiated through encounters. The power of the museum of the future may not lie in how much they teach, but in how deeply they are willing to learn—from their public, from communities that were once overlooked, from marginalized archives, and even from the silence that resists easy interpretation. Listening is not a sign of weakness, but the highest form of responsibility toward humanity. A museum that learns to listen becomes a space that not only preserves the past but also cultivates the future. We would like to express our gratitude to the Education Fund Management Institution for its research funding support, which formed the basis for this reflection. This work was supported by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (202311211143267). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Active listening · Agency (philosophy) · Citizen journalism · Meaning (existential) · Negotiation · Participatory action research · Point (geometry) · Power (physics · Reflection (computer programming · Representation (politics) · Theme (computing) · Art Education and Development · Diverse Music Education Insights · Museums and Cultural Heritage · Participatory Visual Research Methods
| Highly cited | No |
|---|