Last week I flew down to Florida to celebrate Mother’s Day with my 86-year old mother. The visit prompted me to think about recent findings on the critical role of mothers in nurturing their children’s interest in museums. I learned about this in April at the American Association of Museums Annual Meeting from Susie Wilkening at Reach Advisors, one of the country’s leading museum investigators.
Susie explained puzzling findings. Only a small percentage of mothers bring their children to all kinds of museum at all ages. (Reach Advisors calls these mothers “Museum Advocates.”) Most mothers take their children only to museums that they perceive as kid-friendly when their children are very young, typically children’s museums and zoos. They add in visits to outdoor history museums and science centers when the children are in late elementary years. They stop making visits to museums when they judge that kids are old enough to have other interests.
Susie wondered what made the difference in these groups of mothers. The demographic profiles for the groups were virtually identical; both included highly educated mothers. The only measurable difference was that Museum Advocate mothers were interested in museums themselves, while other mothers mostly went because it was good for the kids.
During her presentation, Susie and the small assembly of museum professionals threw out different hypotheses to explain the difference in behavior. Perhaps Museum Advocates had mothers who took them to museums. Perhaps Museum Advocates value learning more than others. Perhaps there are ethnic or cultural differences.
Because my mother made sure my brother and I visited all kinds of museums -- sometimes over-ruling our vetoes as uncooperative adolescents – I took the opportunity to begin my own research on mothers and museums during my visit.
“Why did you take us to museums?” I asked. She replied, “Because New York had some wonderful places and I wanted to expose you to things I hadn’t been exposed to growing up.” My mother, who grew up the youngest child of Romanian immigrants in Connecticut and who couldn’t afford college, wanted both my brother and I to have experiences and to know the world. She saw museums as a way toward that goal. “For me growing up,” she added, “my only resource was the library. I went all the time and read a lot.”
The other reason she took us to museums, she explained, “was because, I was interested in visiting myself…so was your father.”
My mother raised two children who became museum goers, readers and life-long learners. As a belated Mother’s Day appreciation, I offer thanks to my mother for seeing museums as a way to explore the world.
And, I’d like to ask everyone who reads this blog two questions:
1. How does your museum interest today relate to childhood experiences?
2. What was your mother’s attitude toward museums and why?
Your answers will help us better understand mothers’ roles in shaping their offsprings’ attitudes toward museums.
On a rainy Monday in April when hundreds gathered at Monument Circle to show support for culture in greater Indianapolis, I was sitting in the dry offices of the Institute for Museums and Library Services (IMLS), Washington, D.C.
I write now, not to explain why I wasn’t part of the rally but, rather to report on how the 62 grant proposals me and representatives from ten other states, helped review reaffirmed my long-held belief that cultural institutions make a difference in our lives today.
My experience in the museum field spans three decades; my grant reviewing over a dozen. In that time I’ve witnessed incredible change in the relationship between cultural organizations and their communities.
In 1978, I was selected as a finalist for a year-long paid internship at a prestigious east coast art museum and spent a grueling day interviewing with one curator after another. I ended the day in the executive director’s office. With frank curiosity I asked him, “What do you see as the role of this museum?” He replied without hesitation, “To be the arbiter of taste for the community.” I wondered, “Which community?” guessing that the Rothko’s and Chippendale chairs were not the same inspiration for the poor urban areas surrounding the museum as they were for the wealthy suburbs. I said only, “But every community has its own preferences.”
You see, 30 years ago, museums focused on what they wanted to tell and show; there was little sense of serving the public beyond those already interested in culture. Today, responsiveness to community is best practice.
In two days at IMLS, one of four federal agencies that distribute grants to all kinds of not-for-profit site specific learning places, I talked about science centers that take scientists to underserved neighborhoods to stimulate community dialogue; aquariums that offer after-school, weekend and summer programs for high school students with few options for out-of-classroom learning; art museums that involve the community in developing programs and exhibits to best serve a specific community’s needs; history museums that help teachers make classrooms more engaging and exciting.
My time at IMLS reminded me how hard my museum and other cultural organizations in Indianapolis work to reach out, to include, to enrich and to be the best community partners we can be. By helping IMLS determine who should be funded, I was helping further the important community-based work of cultural organizations here and across the country.
And should we organize another rally at Monument Circle, I will be sure to make the point that became clear to me in my two days away: Cultural organizations matter today because they’ve made community matter.