Cultures And Governance On Museum Studies Cultural Studies Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

In this chapter, it based on museum as a culture institution to analysis the relations between culture and governance, a Foucaultian approach is taken to understand Bennett's study on the mechanism of museum and its politic discourse. The museum as a culture institution of knowledge production and display has aroused the relations between culture and power. The couplet of knowledge and power is the main focus of Foucault which has influenced Bennett on his museum studies.

2.1 Museum as a Culture Institution

2.1.1 Museum as Collection

The basic functions of Museum are collection and exhibition. Bennett has traced the development routing of museum on the form of collection, and he made a contrast of the evolvement history between museum and prison under the influence of Foucault to analyze the power operation in culture institutions. In The Birth of The Museum, he considered the issues on the history, theory and politics of museum. As it has mentioned before, the first systematic collections that we know about were formed in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Then in the Middle Age, the collection is mainly in disorder, the collectors are generally the palace and the church. With the rising of humanism in the 14th century, the collection became systematic. In the 15th century, different context of objects were stored distinctively in different collection room, named kabinete (or studios), for the purpose of the knowledge accumulating of the collector. In the 15th and 16th century, the geography development and colonial movement broadened the horizon of European, accelerating the development of artifacts collecting. While in the early Renaissance period, the function of princely collections was 'to recreate the world in miniature around the central figure of the prince who thus claimed dominion over the world symbolically as he did in reality, as a vehicle for the display of royal power to the populace (E. H. Greenhill. 1989: 64). It represents the ceremony of festivals of the absolutist court, which is an ideal and ordered world from the controlling perspective of the prince who is in privilege. These collections were organized to demonstrate the ancient hierarchies of society and the resemblances by drawing things of the world together that Foucault characterized it as the 'Renaissance episteme'. It is an idea of accumulating everything, of establishing a sort of general archive, constituting a place of all time that is itself outside of time (M. Foucault 1986:26). Foucault argued that those heterotopias which far from being linked to the accumulation of time, are linked to time 'in its most fleeting, transitory, precarious aspect, to time in the mode of the festival' (Foucault 1986:26). However, the sixteenth century witnessed the emergence of absolutism and refeudalization of courtly society, the museum collections came to function mainly as court festivals or institutions designed to display monarchical power within the limited circles of the aristocracy again (T. Bennett 1990). It is obvious that the pre-modern museums are concerned with surprise creating or wonder provoking. It focuses on the rare and exceptional of objects, with an interest for their singular qualities rather than typicality, aimed at sensational rather than rational and pedagogic effect.

From the origin of the modern museum to the Enlightenment period of museum as cabinets of curiosity, then these collecting practices evolved through the classic 'Museum Age', to examine how the meanings and values of objects have transformed as they are collected and incorporated into museums. Museum in the modern times are the relics of bourgeois revolution, along with the routing of social democracy. The distinct features of modern museum are characterized by the principle of 'specialization and classification'. The organizing of collection, as Bennett claimed is not merely a matter of the state claiming the ownership cultural property or the museum opening its doors to the public, but was an effect of the new organizational principles governing the arrangement of objects.

2.1.2 Museum as Architecture

In a fundamental way, the museum can be regarded as buildings that contain objects on display, the setting of museum constitutes the relation the objects and visitors and the form of the gaze of power. The original museum was transformed from royal palace, aristocrat villa, or religion church, and many museums gone through a long history has transformed themselves to an artifact, just like Michaela Giebelhausen claimed that 'architecture is museum', and 'it is the structure of the architecture endows meaning to the museum.' (Zhou Feiqiang 12) The saying 'Roman is of no museum, but Roman itself is a museum' denotes an extended meaning and history of museum. On the transform of the museum space, Bennett mentioned that 'the organizing spaces of display that previously for the private pleasure of the prince or aristocrat were transformed towards an organization of space and vision that would enable museums to function as organs of public instruction (Bennett 1994).' H. Seling argued that museum architecture witnesses a spate of architectural competitions for the design of museums progressively away from organizing enclosed spaces of display towards an organization of space and vision that would allow museums to function as instruments of public instruction (H. Seling 1967).

As a culture institution, museum constitutes a cultural space. It serves not only the collection and display of objects, but also produces knowledge to discipline both the order of objects and the behavior of the population. Bennett paid attention to Hooper Greenhill's division of museum space into two parts - hidden space and public space based on the division between the producers and consumers of knowledge in the space. This division assumes an architectural form in the relations between the hidden space and public spaces. In the hidden space of the museum the knowledge is produced and organized, and in the public spaces the knowledge is offered to visitors for passive consumption. The structure of museum space produces a mono-logic discourse dominated by the authority which takes control of the cultural voice of the museum. The authority power hide behind it functions to regulate and reshape the artifacts' exhibition and visitors' behavior. The public museum occupied a cultural space that was radically distinct from those occupied by its various predecessors. The architecture of modern museum is usually state-sponsored and designed, it incorporated a principle of self-surveillance and hence self-regulation into museum architecture. The architecture of museum is not only of aesthetic value, its structure also endowed meaning to the museum. Yoshio Taniguchi compares the architecture of museum to a vessel, only when exhibits and visitors enter the zone can it presents the success of it. The architecture should not decolorize the artifacts, rather to conceal itself instead (Zhou Feiqiang 22). It is architecture gives the image of 'museum within wall'. André Malraux put forward the idea of 'museum without wall', which broke down the thoughts of binding the architecture on artifacts, directing the research back to the aesthetic of artifacts. Bennett believed that the museum internal architecture institutes a new set of relations between space and vision, in which the public could not only see the objects exhibition but could see and be seen by them at the same time. The architecture of museum in space design has formed an intangible environment of mutual surveillance and inner gaze. For Bennett the architecture of the museum is more than expression, the architectural space of the museum also entails a spatial ordering of knowledge, as well as of bodily movements, experiences and perceptions, what he called the 'exhibitionary complex', which has provided a context for the possibility of permanent display of power and knowledge.

Bennett reviewed Foucault's study on the asylum and the prison as institutional articulations of power and knowledge relations, and made a compare between the structure of museum and prison. He attempted to apply Foucault's ideas into his museum studies. In 'The Eye of Power', Foucault discussed the space and vision relation. He argued that, as architecture ceases to making power manifest, it comes to serve the purpose to regulate public's behavior by means of new organizations of the relation between space and vision instead. This character is obvious in museum practice. Still, Foucault analyzed the idea of 'panopticon' put forward by Bentham in prison architecture to provide a panorama effect. It is a technique with the democratic aspiration of a society rendered transparent to its own controlling gaze, not only for regulation, but making the crowd itself the ultimate spectacle. Besides, Foucault invented the concept of heterotopies to consider the space of museum corresponds to utopia, which isolated space and time at the same time. The arrangement of relations between the public and exhibits combine the functions of spectacle and surveillance. It forms an illusory rather than substantive controlling vision, towards a specular dominance over a totality.

As to the relations of museum and prison, Bennett regards the prison and the museum as different set of institutions according to knowledge and power relations, because they run in opposite directions yet also parallel in histories. In the eighteenth century, the prison is a relatively permeable institution function for making power publicly manifest; however, it has increasing separated from society as punishment within the closed walls of the penitentiary since the nineteenth century. The course of the museum's development, by contrast, had transformed from the originally private and exclusive spheres into the public domain since the mid-nineteenth century. This embodies the inverse symmetry of trajectories, rather than Crimp's idea of parallel directions development.

2.1.3 Museum as Exhibition

As a culture institution, museum is the place for 'showing and telling', function of collection and exhibition are mixed together in the same space. Heidegger described the 'world-as-exhibition', (M. Heidegger 1977) a depiction of the world as 'ordered and organized' in the age of the world exhibition. As Weibel and Latour observed, the museum exhibition is 'a highly artificial assemblage of objects, installations, people and arguments', and yet these elements are brought into relation with one another within the exhibition. Bennett analyzed how the museum may be regarded as a cultural artifact constructed through its 'scientific' taxonomies, exploring the techniques of display and the performance of expertise to engage within the complexity.

The routing of museum exhibition is continuously under change. Originally, artifacts were collected based on exotic and uniqueness. In the sixteenth century, according to Foucault, knowledge was based upon notions of 'similitude' and 'resemblance'. The seventeenth century witnessed the beginning of the growth of a particular kind of taxonomic knowledge based upon the ideas of objective observation, visibility, mathematization and ambition of a science of order. The eighteenth century witnesses the principles of scientific taxonomy in museum displays which stress the observable differences between things rather than hidden resemblances; the representative function of objects were accorded priority over the exotic or unusual in series. The period from the late eighteenth century sees further changes, in particular an 'opening up' of the museum to a much broader public. Things were inserted within evolutionary series representing the flow of time of rather than parts of taxonomic tables.

The museums exhibitions constitute the relations between objects in sequences, and are bound up with the development of distinctive modern ways of seeing the world. 'The exhibitionary complex', as Bennett described, involving the transfer of objects from the enclosed and private domains into progressively more open and public arenas so as to inscribing and transmitting the messages of power (Bennett 1994). Exhibition is connected to knowledge production, making exhibitions educative for and legible to the new mass public. As Bennett argues, this was also bound up with ideas about transforming the public, and producing citizens who would themselves take on the task of self-education and improving themselves. He applied Foucault's understanding of disciplinary power to analyze the exhibitionary complex of the museum, and related it to the rhetorical strategies of power suggested by Gramsci's theory of hegemony. Political rationality as he claimed, 'concerns how we should understand the role that museums were called on to play in relation to the social order and the part that the new principles of public legibility were expected to perform in enabling museums to fulfill that role.' (Bennett 1998b: 26)

The exhibition of museum functions as an automated learning environment. Vidler argued that the museum should aim to 'speak to all eyes' (Bennett 1998b), to make nature readable, coding nature's messages into the artifact environment of the museum (Bennett 1998b). In this way, visitors to the museum are envisaged as an autodidactic one. With clear and detailed labeling of exhibits, museum functions as an automated learning environment-that is, as a collection of objects whose meaning is to be rendered auto-intellectual through a combination of transparent principles of display and clear labeling. It is need to arrange and label museum displays in ways calculated to enhance their public legibility by making their meaning instantly readable for the new mass public. The visitors are never in a relation of direct, unmediated contact with the 'reality of the artifact', hence, with the 'real stuff' of the past. This illusion, this fetishism of the past, is actually an effect of discourse itself.

Bennett is interest in the proposition that museums should 'speak to the eyes'. He describes the method of typological method, putting forward by Henry Pitt Rivers, which aspires to order the arrangement of ethnological objects in a manner to allow the direction and significance of human evolution to be taken in at a glance. Pitt Rivers's purpose was to arrange his collections 'in such a manner that those who run may read' (A. P. Rivers.1891:115-116). The collection is presented to the eye of the public in a most instructive and attractive manner. The visitors come to the museum, not only to obtain an aesthetic feeling by immerse them in the artifacts, but also is to receive a kind of a sense of history. This can arrive by connecting themselves with the artifacts directly, to experience the holiness of genuine art and a feeling of excitement. That is what Walter Benjamin called 'aura' in the original work which cannot be replaced by a reproduction. The traditional one way exhibition communication has been revised not only for the interest of the visitors' needs and preferences, but also attempting to go into dialogue with the users on a shared vision for the museum.

2.1.4 Museum and Representation

Generally speaking, representation of museum concerns the ways in which the meaning are formed, conveyed, and shared. The museum space provides a microcosmic reconstruction of the order of things representing the world outside the walls. The consequences of particular forms of representation in terms of the distribution of power as they are related to the ideology discourse of the museum. For artifact, once placed in the museum, it becomes inherently a rhetorical object, thickly lacquered with layers of interpretation like a book or a film. Hall argued that, language system is operated through representation, meaning is produced or constructed rather than 'discovered'.( S. Hall.) In the same way, the exhibition can also be treated as language communication to convey meaning. It has transformed the analysis of museums to 'texts' or 'media', so as to analyze the process of production (encoding/writing) and consumption (decoding/reading) in meaning of presentation, as well as content (text) and the interrelationships between these.

In the early time, the object exhibition depends on texts to uncover the complex relations behind the objects. From 17th century on, with the development of science and humanities, the knowledge structure has changed radically. In contract, the new exhibition required no explanation by text, because the knowledge can be presented before people's eyes when objects that belong to the same category are put together by taxonomy classification. Under this exhibition method, visitors can have a dialogue with the nature world (Xu Ben 50).

The museum has been constantly subject to demands of reform. The discourse of reform, mainly characterized by two principles: first, the principle of public rights, that museums should be equally open and accessible to all; second, the principle of representational adequacy, that museum should adequately represent the cultures and values of different groups of the public( T. Bennett 1990). Principle of representational adequacy required to tell the story of Man, whether on the basis of the gendered, racial, class or other social patterns, therefore any particular museums display can be inadequate and in need of supplementation. However, the space of representation in the public museum are hijacked by all kinds of particular social ideologies: it is sexist in the gendered patterns of its exclusions, racist in its assignation of the aboriginal populations to the lowest pattern of human evolution, and bourgeois in the respect articulated to bourgeois rhetoric of social progress. In the nineteenth-century museum the cultures of subordinate classes were-and largely still are-a simple absence, excluded not only as a matter of definition (the working classes were not regarded as having a culture worthy of preservation) but also as a matter of deliberate policy (of 'improving' the people by exposing them to the beneficial influence of middle-class culture). As Bennett mentioned, a visit to institutions like the Victoria and Albert is, accordingly, to experience and witness the power of the ruling culture (Bennett 1988b: 73).

Bennett has concerned with the political polemic of the museum as the public museum has played a double role. 'On the one hand, the democratic rhetoric of museum as vehicles for popular education; on the other hand, their actual functioning as instruments for the reform of public manners (Bennett 1995a: 90).' It represents an ideal and ordered world unfolds before, emanating from a controlling position of knowledge and vision, fashioning a new space of representation achieved order and rationality. As a culture technique, the museum has meant and functioned as a powerful means for differentiating population. Various technologies are used for regulating the behavior associated with popular assemblies. Man as Foucault puts it, 'appears in his ambiguous position as an object of knowledge and a subject that knows (M. Foucault 2002), he suggests a discovery of the 'politics of truth' of the museum, which generates the concern of Bennett's idea on museum politics.

2.2 Museum and Governance 

2.2.1 Governmentality-A Foucaultian Approach

This part is a main focus of the thesis. From the perspective of governmentality, it concerns the relations between museum and governance to recognize the operation of museum mechanism and politics. First, it gives a detail analysis on the concept of governmentality - a Foucaultian approach taken by Bennett, and then it applies the theory into the governance of museum to consider it from the three aspects: ordering objects, mobilizing knowledge, and civilizing people. Governmentality

Governmentality is a concept developed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. The term is thought to be made by the linking of governing ('gouverner') and modes of thought ('mentalité'). It is a concept instigated by M. Foucault (P. Miller, C. Gordon, ) to encompass the mentalities, rationalities, and techniques used by governments, within a defined territory, actively to create the subjects (the governed), and the social, economic, and political structures, in and through which their policy can best be implemented. However, Foucault does not only use the political definition of 'governing' or government that used nowadays, but also a broader definition of governing or government, which signified problems of self-control, directing the soul, household management etc. In short, government is 'the conduct of conduct'. Foucault's governmentality functions as the institutional administration of individuals and populations. Foucault often defined it as the 'art of government'. Besides, the notion is always linked to other concepts, such as biopolitics and power-knowledge. Post-Foucauldian encourages to develop an analytic gaze at the 'microphysics of power', in which power exists in and through the technical forms.

The concept of governmentality has provided a new understanding of power. Power not only in terms of hierarchical, top-down power of the state, but also include the forms of social control in disciplinary institutions (schools, hospitals, psychiatric institutions, etc.), as well as the forms of knowledge. Power can manifest itself positively by producing knowledge and certain discourses that get internalized by individuals and guide the behavior of populations. This leads to more efficient forms of social control, as knowledge enables individuals to govern themselves.

The concept of governmentality, Mitchell Dean suggests, is characteristically concerned to provide a 'thick' description of the practices of government (M. Dean 2002: 121). According to Bennett, Michel Foucault's concept of governmentality examining the role played by various forms of knowledge and expertise in organizing differentiated fields of social management in which social conduct is subjected to diverse strategies of regulation. The perspective of governmentality typically looks at those mechanisms, focusing on their mundane details and particularities to identify how particular forms of power are constituted there. Besides, Bennett has discussed Mitchell Dean's argument of an 'analytics of government'. This concept focuses on how distinctive relations of power are constituted in and by the exercise of specific forms of knowledge and expertise, and on the ways in which these give rise to specific mechanisms, techniques and technologies for shaping thought, feelings, perceptions and behavior, and to pay particular attention to the technical forms which are from different systems of classification and exhibition arrangements.

As to the Foucauldian legacy, Bennett mentioned that it stresses the importance of the roles played by different forms of knowledge and expertise in organizing specific strategies, techniques and mechanisms for shaping and regulating human conduct in the context of differentiated fields of social management (Bennett 2004: 27). It is through the deployment of particular forms of expertise in particular relations of government that particular ways of speaking the truth and making it practical are connected to particular ways of acting on persons and inducing them to act upon themselves, which in turn form particular ways of acting on the social. Distinctive forms of rule and self-rule associated with liberal forms of government which, in positing the freedom and autonomy of the person, stress the need to recruit the voluntary and active participation of individuals in their own governance. It cannot neglect that forms of expertise that are associated specifically within the cultural sphere and the role that they play in organizing cultural resources into means of government. The deployment of governmentality theory in museum is to regard the museum both as a culture institution and a politic project, to analyze the relations between knowledge and power, between visitor and objects, and how the resource of museum function as a technique to regulate the public behavior and to civilize the population. Ordering Objects

As it has explained in the previous chapter, accumulation, organization and display of objects are the fundamental functions of the museum. The order of things is constructed through the techniques of display and the performance of curatorial expertise. Objects arrangements base on particular ordering methodology or principle in the culture institution is a routing to make power manifest. The distinctiveness of museum lies in its role 'as a vehicle for the display of power. (T. Bennett. 1990)' The governmentality theory has provided a perspective to analyze the relations between museum and governance, between knowledge and power, to understand the disciplines of the organization of objects in museum and the operation of power.

Foucault's primary concern is on the problem of order. The development of modern forms of government, as Foucault argued is related to the emergence of new technologies which aimed at regulating the conduct of individuals and population, such as prison, hospital and asylum, etc. By conjuncture governmentality theory into museum discourse, Bennett attempts to explore the motivations behind collecting practices, and to investigate the relations between objects, knowledge and power, to explore the disciplines of ordering. According to the new organizational principles governing the arrangement of objects, Bennett had reemphasized that museum exhibitions should 'speak to the eye'. However, this is not just a matter of new labeling practices. It involves a fundamental re-conception of the status and role of the museum objects which now forms part of a rationalized exhibition space in which both objects and the relations between them have been thorough bureaucratized in a special order that they might serve as the instruments of the museum's commitment to a new form of public didacticism (Bennett 1995a:39-44).

How objects are organized and related to one another and the relations between objects and visitors constitute the 'exhibitionary complex'. The exhibitionary complex, according to Bennett, 'is a response to the problem of order, which seeks to transform that problem into one of culture, a question of winning hearts and minds as well as the disciplining and training of bodies (Bennett 1988: 76).' People are placed on the side of power rhetorically so as to produce a place for the people in relation to order. Patrick Joyce (P. Joyce 2003) had illuminated the process of the transition from the 'display city' of the eighteenth-century to the 'moral city' of the nineteenth century, to separate the new institutions of culture art galleries, libraries, museums, concert halls from commercial zones and city slums in order to civilize and moralize the circulation of bodies in the city. Mobilizing Knowledge

Governmentality is to consider the knowledge production process and the operation of power, and to mobilize the knowledge by present it for the consumption of the population. As space of artifacts collection, museum functions as a tool for the governance on the population and the maintenance of social order. It is regarded as a technique rhetorical of power. There is a tension between meaning production and the operation of power within the representation space of museum. As Foucault argued that, power and knowledge are thoroughly mutually implicated: power is involved in the construction of truths, and knowledge has implications for power (Foucault 1977). The production, distribution and consumption of knowledge are always political in this sense. The couplet of knowledge and power of Foucault is affected by the technologies of vision embodied in the museum architecture of the exhibitionary complex.

In the nineteenth century, museums transformed from semi-private institutions restricted largely to the ruling and professional classes into major organs of the state dedicated to the instruction and edification of the general public. As a consequence of these changes, museums were regarded by the end of the century as major vehicles for the fulfillment of the state's new educative and moral role in relation to the population as a whole (Bennett 1988b:1). While in the late nineteenth century, museums were intended for the people, they were certainly not of the people in the sense of displaying any interest in the lives, habits, and customs of either the contemporary working classes or the laboring classes of pre-industrial societies. In Science in Action, Bruno Latour argued that the natural history museum through the activity of collection has facilitated the 'mobilization of worlds' in the sense to make it possible for things collected from diverse distant locations to be assembled in one place and thereby contribute to the construction of a kind of 'universal' knowledge. (B. Latour.) The exhibition practices of those museums in translating pasts into a significant component of late nineteenth century public culture service as new strategies of cultural governance.

The discourse of aesthetics has played a significant role in developing new forms of self-government, aesthetic technology helps with the form of self-governance. It was an active component in the eighteenth century culture of taste and played a major role in the subsequent development of the art museum, providing the discursive ground on which it was to discharge its obligations as a reformatory of public morals and manners. As the public museum exemplified the development of a new governmental relation to culture, works of high culture were treated as instruments enlisted in new ways for tasks of social management, aiming at reshaping social behavior. Museum cultural technologies aim to organize a voluntarily self-regulating citizenry, and culture was produced as an autonomous realm to work as a moralizing, improving force on the population, to materialize the power of the ruling classes, promoting a general acceptance of ruling-class cultural authority. Besides, Bennett considered how guides might best perform their function of imparting knowledge to a general public with varying levels of education. These technologies made the visitor to become the subjects rather than the objects of knowledge, in seeing themselves from the side of power, both the subjects and the objects of knowledge. Through interiorizing its gaze of self-surveillance, hence, they developed the ability of self-regulation (Bennett 1988a). As it turned out, the museum speaks to the ears as well as the eyes. Civilizing People

The governmentality of public museum as cultural institution is concerned with 'disciplining' and 'civilizing' audiences. Compare with Foucault's research on the prison which is oriented to discipline and punishment so as to effecting a modification of behavior, than the museum is oriented to show and tell, so that the people might look and learn.

In the beginning of the industry time, the working poor were treated differently from those individuals with privilege whom claimed with morality. It is thought that 'they could not govern themselves, but to be governed from above' (M. Poovey.1995). The influence of Malthusian placed a premium on the need for working class men to develop new forms of self-restraint. Romantic conceptions of art allowed the sphere of the aesthetic to be thought of as a resource for harmonizing the person, to achieve the effect of body politics. On the basis of evolutionary principles, Huxley advocated to develop a public didactics which converted the lessons of nature into a morality directed at the working man. He denied that nature could furnish a template for morality just as he also denied that the laws of natural evolution could provide any guarantee for the continued furtherance of social evolution. Huxley argued in Evolution and Ethics (1894), it was equally true that natural processes of competition stood in need of a cultural supplement if they were to serve as a template for social development (Bennett 1998b:27-28). The task of the continuing reformation of society in accordance with meritocratic principles by stimulating a 'regulated restlessness' that both encouraged progress as a moral imperative while simultaneously curbing it within limits consistent with the principles of gradual social evolution. This represents the standpoints of elitism, with the rhetorical of moral education and civilizing program for the governance of the society. Huxley had conceived to construct a universal historical narrative through the disciplinary synthesis of natural history, ethnology and archaeology to convert the wildness of the aboriginal people into progressive human and technological evolution.

The museum has functioned to induct the poor into programs of self-governance and self-management. Actually, in the earlier and mid-century phase of museum development, the workingman was still envisaged as a primary target of the museums' pedagogic mission (Bennett 1998a: 148), which is influenced by the masculinized domain in the main culture. As museums are accorded a greater value as cultural resources to be harnessed to the tasks of forming a citizenry, programs of civic formation eventually directed at the population as a whole. In America, for example, women who had previously been excluded from the association were admitted into membership in the 1870s. The child who had either been a neglected or wholly disparaged, from the 1880s, in the guise of future citizen becomes an increasing object of attention within the policies and practices of museums. Finally, women and the child were added alongside the workingman to the range of constituencies.

Under Foucault's concept of liberal government, museums formed a part of new strategies of governing aimed at producing a citizenship, monitor and regulate its own conduct. Drawing on the concept of liberal government, Bennett suggested that the development of public museums is part of the new strategies adopted by governments to produce citizenry that monitored and regulated their own conduct. The private space of museums that had previously been restricted is made public in order to incorporate the masses into this strategy. Nowadays, there is a surge of the new liberalism which is characterized by licensing state action in the cultural and moral sphere, including cultural resource of the public museum. It is a new education movement aims to cultivate an independent, questioning and self-activated approach to learning and moral development. It did so, however, less with a view to directly promoting moral goodness than to helping free individuals from the hindrances which might impede their ability to develop their moral potentialities themselves by providing the contexts and resources that would assist in this.

Bennett's primary interest lies in the concern of the role museum played in the transition of human behavior. In Britain, as he mentioned, human behavior had transformed from the classical liberalism of the mid-century period, to a more active moral and educative role that was proposed for government in the formulations of new liberalism (Bennett 2004: 4). In Australian context, Bennett analyzed the civilizing program of assimilating the aboriginal into the white society to develop of a dynamic of civilization. As Nikolas Rose argued that particular self-governing capabilities can be installed through our freedom and self-cultivation, in order to bring our own ways into alignment with political objectives. 'The autonomy of the self is thus not the eternal antithesis of political power, but one of the objectives and instruments of modern mentalities for the conduct of conduct (N. Rose.1996:155).'

2.3 Museum and the Public

The opening of the museum to the public is under a transformative process. At the very beginning it was thought that, if museums opened to the public, they are bound to fall victim to the disorderliness of the crowd. The fear of the crowd (or mob) reflects the represents the privilege sense of the elites, they afraid the unruliness of the mob would damage the ordered display of culture and knowledge, especially the aura of culture and knowledge, because the image of the poor are connected to the disorderly crowd of the fair, like the political mob.

Pitt Rivers attach importance to the need for museums to reach working-class constituencies whose occupation had previously been grounds for their exclusion from the world of culture and knowledge. He points out that their capacity for abstract and theoretical thought is limited. Similarly, Pierre Bourdieu in 'Art and Theory: the Politics of the Invisible' argued that display in art galleries remains invisible and unintelligible to those not already equipped with the appropriate cultural skills (Bennett 1995a: 10). There is the need for the individual to acquire civic virtue through exposure to art, however, the working class visitors come with an inherent deficiency, so the museum must compensate for and overcome through unambiguous classificatory principles, rational layout and use of space, and clear and descriptive labeling. Barry advocated that the public exhibition of art should be accompanied by textual supplements in which the civic value of the art displayed might be explained to those, who while they might have the eyes to see, would still be culturally blind to art's lessons. Bennett shows a special interest in Pitt Rivers' argument that the very purpose of his ethnological displays was that their lessons should be accessible to 'those who run' without the aid of textual supplements. As he argued that in order to allow the museum to become an effective instrument of public education, it requires the museum to present itself to its visitors as a readable text (Bennett 1998b).

In late nineteenth century, the development of natural history, ethnology and anatomy collections were calculated to allow the visitor to retread the paths of evolutionary development which led from simple to more complex forms of life. The tendency of natural history and ethnology museums was in the opposite from the art museums, from assemblages of objects of scientific or curiosity value into instruments for a civically orientated public didacticism (Bennett 1998a:149). Historical sciences played an increasingly crucial role in governmental processes aimed at forming and shaping the attributes of citizens. Its role had earlier been supplanted by aesthetics as a resource to equip populations with a capacity for self-management (Bennett 1998a:150). Finally, the exhibition transformed the mob into an ordered crowd.

New technology on behavior management allows the museum to offer a technical solution to the problem of risk by providing a mechanism for the transformation of the crowd into an ordered self-regulating citizenry. The museums were conceived as a means to improve the mental influence of middle-class culture, and an antidote to the forms of behavior associated with places of popular assembly. Under the program of cultural government, the popular body is targeted as object for reform, rhetorically to incorporate the people within the process of the state. In the contemporary agendas of neo-liberalism, Andrew Barry argued, the interactivity associated with modern museum displays is intended to make the visitor 'a more creative, participative or active subject without the imposition of a direct form of control or the judgment of an expert authority' (Barry, 2001:149). In correspondence with Latour's saying 'give me a laboratory and I will raise the world' (1990), Bennett claimed that 'give me a museum and I will change society' in view of the museum's civilizing capacity (Bennett 2005).

2.4 Museum Politics

The museum as a cultural institution, it is also a site in tension of cultural politics, as Bennett argued that the space of museum has been subjected to constant process of politicization (T.Bennett 2007). The fact is the state could retain effective direction over policy through indirect management of culture institution. Macdonald argued that museum politics lies not just in policy statements and intentions but also in apparently non-political and even 'minor' details, such as the architecture of buildings, the classification and juxtaposition of artifacts in an exhibition (S. Macdonald.).

Objects arrangements in museum under specific discipline are in according with specific political purpose. The assemblage of texts, rules, bodies, objects, architectures in museum is the result of professional arrangement to form a particular relation with the public, which embodies the governmentality function of museum. Under political and economic pressure, the professionals in the museum have to shift their attention from their collections towards visitors. This entails a corresponding shift in the identity of the museum professional, from 'legislator' to 'interpreter' of cultural meaning. Politics is, therefore, a matter of negotiation: a dynamic power-play of competing knowledge, intentions and interests. Bennett concerned with the ideological effects of museum, so it is necessary to dissolve objects too readily into texts in order, thereby, to make museum arrangements readable as ideologies, but the ordinary civilians are always lack of this capability.

Museum exhibition have played a pivotal role in the formation of the modern state as a set of educative and civilizing agencies. Bennett regards the institution of museum as part of the state apparatus, focusing on analysis the mechanism of museum and its function related to population governance. He borrowed the term - 'political rationality' from Foucault to analyze the legibility of museum of its operation both as artifacts collection and the vehicle for civic education. After his thorough discussion on the political rationality of museum, Bennett put forward the conception of museum politics. As he argued that, 'I want to advance a conception of museum politics which, aim to dismantle the space of the museum by establishing a new set of relations between the museum, its exhibits and its publics which would allow it to function more adequately as an instrument for the self-display of democratic and pluralist societies' (Bennett 1995a:102). Considering the principle of the adequacy of museum representation, Bennett points out that since its goal is unachievable, it is better to transform the relations between museum exhibits, organizers and the museum visitors.

Bennett emphasizes the construction of an active role of the visitors. He believes that if visitors are capable to read the information of museum exhibition in the right way, as a lesson in ruling-class rhetoric rather than as an object lesson in things, even the most conservatively organized museum can be put to good use. As he pointed out, few museums draw attention to the assumptions which have informed their choice of what to preserve or the principles which govern the organization of their exhibits; similarly, few visitors have the time or inclination to look beyond what museums show them to ponder the significance of how they show what they show (Bennett 1988b). An appropriately altered social order concerns the ways in which reconfigurations the objects relations, and the relations between objects and persons. The question of how things get displayed in museums cannot be divorced from questions concerning the training of curators or the structures of museum control and management. Bennett suggests the role of the curator to change their role, to shift away from that of the source of an expertise in organizing a representation and claiming the status of knowledge, towards the possessor of a technical competence to assist people with their learning from the museum. In the modern context of multi-discourse, the museum has functioned as a site to embrace plural and differentiated statements and culture, enabling it to function as an instrument for public debate.

Bennett combines Gramscian paradigm with Foucaultian approach to consider the relations between state and people, and takes it as an antidote to the one eyed focus of the Foucaultian approach to regard museum as instruments of discipline. To see from the Gramsci perspective, the museum involved a rhetorical incorporation of the people within the processes of power. The pedagogic effect of museum is a good example of what Gramsci considered the state to be conceived as an 'educator'. However, from the Gramscian paradigm, the museum are represented as instruments of ruling class hegemony, as amenable to the governing cultural politics, thus museums are supposed to forge new articulations capable of organizing a counter-hegemony (Bennett 1995a). To combine these perspectives reflects Bennett's pragmatic intention to deconstruct the politic space of museum and to construct an active role for civic population as the subject of knowledge. In all, Bennett's concept of museum politics has explained on the 'politics of truth' of museum, deconstructed the museum space, and constructed a new relation between the exhibition and the public.