Local authorities in financial crisis have three ways to treat museums:
1. As ornamental nice-to-have’s that are nothing to do with the big social issues people and councils will face, and therefore should be cut to release money to spend on critical things like education, social care, and the like
2. As a set of assets and infrastructure that can be re-aimed at the heart of the big issues over the next decade; re-directing their firepower at core issues when councils will need every asset at their disposal to deliver against the big challenges (and they’re assets they already have, so don’t need to buy)
3. As a therapeutic balm to a society under stress. People are going to need some sanctuary from the pain and cultural services might well be the escapism everyone needs because they’re about everything other than the challenges at hand

Option 1 is reactionary, takes no account of the cultural sector creating £5 of economic activity for every £1 invested in it (DCMS, 2009); nor of things like the statistically-significant relationship between engagement in culture, and well-being (University of London and DCMS, 2010); nor of the fundamental role of museums in de-coding and explaining other cultures in a country where migration is transforming many cities at a tremendous rate; nor of the fact that the culture budget is already tiny so cutting it will make only a tiny dent in the big numbers; nor that cities and towns will likely end up with ornamental services where the shine has come off and museums simply trim opening hours, make some redundancies, stop doing education, and go back to their default setting of caring for their collections.

Option 2 looks much more interesting; and much more efficient. Re-directing museums at the big social topics in a time of economic famine will bolster councils’ work in those crucial issues and it can be done by using museums’ existing assets – people, buildings, and artefacts – rather than creating anything new or spending more money. The cultural budget can even be trimmed in places (to satisfy the ‘everyone has to take the same medicine’ politics of austerity). But (much more significant in terms of numbers), councils only have to pay the marginal costs of adding social outcomes to museums’ to-do list (because the infrastructure already exists), and those marginal costs are low because museums are cheap.
It’s a model that focuses sharply on delivering what museums do best, rather than blindly defending the institutions per se.

Option 3 might sound fanciful in a country with a reputation for stiff upper lips and a stoical spirit of the Blitz. But a blitz it is likely to be, and with stats like 1 in 4 of us facing mental ill-health already (likely to rise in an economic blitz where the heart gets ripped out of many people’s self-worth), we ought not to scoff. This is the 21st Century after all, and we can keep more than one idea in play at the same time; so a sanctuary-role for museums can run alongside a gutsy social-delivery one – both focused squarely on what museums can do better than any other local public service.

In short, in financially chastened times, councils could (should, surely) use every asset at their disposal to support their constituents under fire.
Museums are one of those assets. And they want to roll up their sleeves and help. They want to be part of the solution, not stand to one side and silently chronicle the upheavals.
The result will be better outcomes for people, delivered more cost effectively for councils by using museums to deliver them, and a gritty, gutsy role for museums in the future of British life, rather than just being a passive observer of its past.

There now, we’ve said it: a role for museums in the future as well as the past…..who’d have thought it?

Is it just me, or has anyone else been thinking that museums and galleries could help rescue our democracy? There are almost no public spaces left that are non-partisan enough to allow proper debate without trying to sell you something.

Think of lots of other organisations – their focus on advertising revenue or viewing figures or selling copies, or marketing something pollutes their motives for debate. Museums and galleries are still pure in that sense….nothing to sell you except understanding (unless you count trinkets in the shop on your way out). That means they could (should) do democracy very,very well because democracy needs three things: understanding of an issue (tick: museums are mainly about de-coding and explaining things to people); debate, discussion and collective deliberation (tick: museums have the space to discuss, and the skills to facilitate – or know where to find someone that does); and collective decision-making (half a tick: museums could underwrite, referee, and record people’s collective decisions and combine them with others around the country to get some critical mass). It’s their level-headedness and equitable public spaces, both de-contaminated from toxic hidden agenda that make museums special.

Discuss.