博物館及人權架構

Museums and the Human Rights Frame

10.6686/MuseQ.201407_28(3).0002

Richard Sandell；陳佳利(Chia-Li Chen)；城菁汝(Ching-Ju Cheng)

博物館與人權 ； 人權政體 ； 展示多元性別 ； LGBTI與人權 ； museums and human rights ； regime of human rights ； exhibiting LGBTI ； human rights and LGBTI

博物館學季刊

28卷3期（2014 / 07 / 01）

7 - 26

繁體中文

人權理念是一組價值、規範、信念而形成的道德架構及理想標準，透過此架構，社會平等及公正可能達成；人權理念也受到全世界相當廣泛的支持，能使不同的社會團體、機構及政府部門產生非凡的共識，並跨越國家與文化界限。儘管人權理念具廣泛性、全球性訴求，但應用在地方上，要如何重新劃分界限，區分誰該享有、誰不該享有人權，卻經常存有爭議。國際上有越來越多不同類型的博物館及美術館計畫，運用人權的語彙、概念與架構作為方法，以擴展相關主題，然而卻很少有相關的實徵研究調查上述現象，及瞭解其對博物館、觀眾和積極參與人權抗爭相關機構及社群團體的意義。本文結合社會人類學、社會運動研究、博物館與文化研究理論，發展跨學科分析，以解決此尚待探討的領域。回應社會人類學於特定環境中，深入地進行人權實踐過程之實徵研究的要求，本文以格拉斯哥當代藝術博物館「吶喊展」為單一個案研究，檢視人權展覽計畫如何一方面考量在地議題及關懷，另一方面，如何與超越地方及國家邊界的全球人權論述協商，並進一步探討此特殊人權個案之發聲，如何被不同觀眾所感知、接受、挪用或反對。

The idea of human rights--as a set of values, norms and beliefs, as a moral framework and an ideal standard through which social equality and fairness might be achieved--is one that enjoys considerable support worldwide, capable of generating an extraordinary level of consensus amongst diverse social groups, institutions and governments, and across national and cultural boundaries. Despite this widespread, global appeal, attempts to apply rights at the local level, to redraw the boundaries that distinguish those who enjoy rights from those who are denied them, rarely proceed uncontested. Despite a remarkable proliferation in the numbers and types of museum and gallery projects internationally that have, over the last decade, taken up the language and idea of human rights to frame their approach to wide ranging subjects, very little research has been carried out to empirically investigate this phenomenon and its implications for museums, audiences and those agencies and social groups actively engaged in human rights struggles. This paper develops an interdisciplinary analysis that combines theoretical perspectives from social anthropology, social movement studies, and museum and cultural studies to address this under-researched area. Responding to calls within social anthropology for in-depth empirical investigations of rights processes within specific settings, the sh[OUT] exhibition by the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow is applied as a case study to examine how a rights project is constructed through negotiation between local agendas and interests on the one hand and, on the other, a global rights discourse that transcends local and national boundaries. Furthermore, the ways in which this particular articulation of rights is perceived, taken up, appropriated and resisted by diverse constituencies are explored.

1. Grant, G., 2009. It Wouldn't Happen to the Koran: Pope Attacks Glasgow Art Gallery's Invitation to Vandalise a Bible, Daily Mail, 28 July
2. (2009).sh[OUT]: Contemporary Art and Human Rights. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Art and Culture.Glasgow:Glasgow Museums Publishing.
3. Canadian Museum for Human Rights, 2011. Mission Statement. Online. Available at: www.humanrightsmuseum.ca (accessed 2011/09/20).
4. Home Office, 2011. Equality Act 2010. Online. Available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities (accessed 2011/09/20).
5. Abercrombie, N.,Longhurst, B.(1998).Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and Imagination.London:Sage.
6. Bruce, K.,Hollows, V.(2007).Towards an Engaged Gallery.Glasgow:Culture and Sport Glasgow (Museums).
7. Cameron, F.(Ed.),Kelly, L.(Ed.)(2010).Hot Topics, Public Culture, Museums.Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars.
8. Cowan, J. K.(Ed.),Dembour, M.(Ed.),Wilson, R. A.(Ed.)(2001).Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
9. Donnelly, J.(2003).Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
10. Duffy, T. M.(2001).Museums of "human suffering" and the struggle for human rights.Museum International,53(1),10-16.
11. Hooper-Greenhill, E.(2000).Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture.London:Routledge.
12. Karp, I.(Ed.),Lavine, S. D.(Ed.)(1991).Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.Washington, DC :Smithsonian Institution Press.
13. Macdonald, S.(2008).Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond.London:Routledge.
14. Macdonald, S.(Ed.)(2006).A Companion to Museum Studies.Massachusetts:Blackwell Publishing.
15. Morley, D.(1980).The Nationwide Audience.London:BFI.
16. Morphy, H.(2006).Sites of persuasion: Yingapungapu at the National Museum of Australia.Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations,Durham, NC:
17. O'Neill, M.(2011).Religion and cultural policy: Two museum case studies.International Journal of Cultural Policy,17(2),225-243.
18. Radway, J.(1984).Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature.Chapel Hill, NC:University of North Carolina Press.
19. Rapport, N.,Overing, J.(2000).Social and Cultural Anthropology.London:Routledge.
20. Sandell, R.(2007).Museums, Prejudice and the Reframing of Difference.London:Routledge.
21. Sandell, R.(Ed.),Dodd, J.(Ed.),Garland-Thomson, R.(Ed.)(2010).Re-Presenting Disability: Activism and Agency in the Museum.London:Routledge.
22. Sandell, R.,Dodd, J.,Jones, C.(2010).An Evaluation of sh[OUT]: The Social Justice Programme of the Gallery of Modern Art, Glasgow 2009-2010.Leicester:Research Centre for Museums and Galleries.
23. Schulze, R.(Ed.)(2011).Non-Discrimination in European Private Law.Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck Verlag.
24. Wilson, R.(1997).Human Rights, Culture and Context: Anthropological Perspectives.London:Pluto.
25. Wilson, R.(Ed.),Mitchell, A.(Ed.)(2003).Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlement.London:Routledge.
26. 黃默編(2007)。人權字典。臺北:教育部。