Museum falsifier of history: a subject or a tool?

The article deals with the prerequisites and conditions for the development of practices to falsify history in museums. The problem of studying these practices and resilience is becoming increasingly important with the increasing public awareness of the museum business, increase of museum institutions visitors, development of specific techniques for working with the museum visitor audience. In connection with not random is the transformation of museums in the area of ideological and political confrontation, reflected in the increasing number of museum and ideological projects, such as "museum of Soviet occupation" in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as the active discussion of the falsification of various historical themes in various museum events taking place on the Internet and in the media. These processes make the study of the museum as a specific subject of history falsification topical along with identifying and describing its features. The article suggests an inevitable inclusion of museums in interactions with key carriers of significant social influences -stakeholders. This inclusion is a natural result of the evolution of museum enthusiast voluntary associations that arise in the interests of self-expression of creative figures in regular institutions that organize specific production processes. The regular nature of the facilities requires regular access to the infrastructure, resources, financial resources and availability of institutionalized rules of operation. This, in turn, leads to the vital needs of the museums in the relationship with stakeholders. These relationships can be arranged according to various scenarios, including the "monopoly" model of the relationship, suggesting the imposition of falsifying implementation practices by stakeholders on museum institutions for manipulation of consciousness of museum audience ("ideological" falsification). This imposition is in return for access to the necessary factors of museum production and ignores many specific features of museum production technology. The latter circumstance contributes to the violation of these technologies and to the criminal and technical history fraud. Thus, the very nature of the museum, its unavoidable dependence on agents of important social influences, creates a risk of systemic conditions for the development of practices to falsify history.

Keywords

Authors

References