Do Visitors Get It? A Sweatshop Exhibit and Visitors' Comments

Do Visitors Get It? A Sweatshop Exhibit and Visitors' CommentsAuthor(s): Mary AlexanderSource: The Public Historian, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Summer, 2000), pp. 85-94Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Council on Public HistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3379580 .

Accessed: 03/10/2013 15:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and National Council on Public History are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Historian.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.93.16.3 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:03:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncph

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3379580?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Do Visitors Get It? A Sweatshop Exhibit and

Visitors' Comments

MARY ALEXANDER

Why Do Museums Mount This Kind of Exhibition?

History museums interpret difficult, unpleasant, or controversial episodes, not out of any desire to embarrass, be unpatriotic, or cause pain, but out of a responsibility to convey a fuller, more inclusive history. By examining incidents ripe with complexities and ambiguities, museums hope to stimu- late greater understanding of the historicalforces and choices that shaped America.

-Spencer Crew, director, and Lonnie Bunch, associate director of curatorial affairs, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institu- tion

The above label, posted at the entrance to Between a Rock and a Hard Place: A History of American Sweatshops, 1820-Present, a temporary exhibition on view at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in

MARY ALEXANDER is an educator with extensive experience in museums in and around the Washington, D.C., area. She is the author, with George Hein, of Museums: Places of Learn- ing (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998). She administers the State of Maryland's Museum Assistance Program for the Maryland Historical Trust.

Thanks to Robert Goler, George Hein, Norman Schou, and Judy White for their invaluable suggestions. National Museum of American History Curator Peter Liebhold made his office available and provided thoughtful comments and friendship.

85

The Public Historian, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 85-94 (Summer 2000). ISSN: 0272-3433

? 2000 by the Regents of the University of California and the National Council on Public History. All rights reserved.

Send requests for permission to reprint to Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.



86 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

1999, made explicit for visitors the museum's intent to address a controversial aspect of American history. In "Dialogue," the closing section of the exhibition, visitors were encouraged to record their comments on the topic in spiral notebooks. After reading a few of the notebooks for a review of the exhibition for Technology and Culture, I was struck with the visitors' thoughtfulness and attention to the exhibit's subject.'

Like many museum staff, I came to these notebooks with assumptions about the typical museum visitor, especially in Washington, D.C. The vacationer (or so I thought) is on a forced march through the city's museums, often with family in tow. He or she is rather like a birdwatcher checking off sightings on a life list. Or, he or she is filling an hour during a visit to the city that is focused on another agenda. And let's not forget the young people who are in the museum as part of an involuntary school visit. None of these portraits is very complimentary, which made the comment book pages all the more startling and noteworthy. The quality of the visitors' comments-intelligent, articulate, sophisticated, and sometimes vehement-kept me reading. Over the next few weeks, I read all 1600 comments, allowing the impressions to wash over me. What follows are my impressions, conclusions, and some suggestions for future exhibit curators.

Let me give you a sense of the exhibition layout, because it clearly affected the nature of the comments. The exhibition's objects, quotes from sweatshop workers, and graphics depicting immigration patterns and the like, provided visitors with an overview of sweatshops in the garment industry in the United States since 1820. In addition to historical materials, the exhibition presented the 1995 case in El Monte, California, where employers held garment workers from Thailand in slave-like conditions. The exhibit's "Dialogue" section, about a quarter of the exhibition's floor space, featured large-scale photographs of six people from the garment industry and the government. Perhaps the most familiar figure was televi- sion talk-show host Kathie Lee Gifford. Next to the pictures were objects and text presenting each person's point of view. In the midst of this space were two large tables and chairs with red notebooks for visitors to write in, and along with notebooks were reproductions of newspaper articles about the exhibit and the controversy its planning had engendered. Each page of the red books specifically asked: "What should Americans know about sweatshop production in the United States? The curators of this exhibition asked the six spokespeople represented here to answer this question. Now we'd like to know what you think."

The visitors seemed to delight in writing in these comment books, reading the comments of others, and sometimes commenting on other visitors' comments. One says: "These comment books are excellent-They open communication, encourage internal analysis of materials-and offer

1. For the complete review, see Technology and Culture 40, no. 4 (October 1999): 861-65.



DO VISITORS GET IT? n 87

an outlet for expression-WONDERFUL" (A).2 Visitors clearly appreciated "talking back" to the museum. A few comments assumed the form of personal letters to the exhibit's curators. In some instances, writers an- swered the questions posed, and in others they simply shared their thoughts on the exhibition, museums, American history, or economic theories.

Visitors occasionally recounted personal stories of grandmothers, moth- ers, aunts, and some dads working in sweatshops or doing piece work at home. Often these stories included the details of how the relatives got jobs, raised kids, kept families together, and in later life, enjoyed the American dream. One writes: "I remember helping my grandmother make paper flowers 'piece work' at home almost 50 years ago--didn't realize until now that I shared in this 'piece' of American history" (20). These writers relate to the exhibit through a personal prism. They reminisce and add their own experiences to those depicted in the exhibition.

As Freeman Tilden suggested in Interpreting Our Heritage in 1957, successful museum interpretation touches visitors personally. His first principle of interpretation is: "Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the person- ality or experience of the visitor will be sterile."3 Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen in their recently published The Presence of the Past further support Tilden's time-honored conclusion. "When they [their respondents] con- fronted historical accounts constructed by others, they sought to examine them critically and connect them to their own experiences or those of people close to them."4 But had the visitors' comments simply included such personal reminiscences, I would not have been driven to keep reading. Their comments were more complicated and intriguing than simple storytelling.

Beyond citing personal connections to the exhibition, many welcomed the controversial nature of the exhibit and supported the museum's coura- geous approach. Perhaps the copies of newspaper articles in the "Dialogue" section describing the opposition to the exhibit during its planning stage prompted these comments. These articles quoted clothing manufacturers who questioned the appropriateness of this exhibition for a national (pub- licly funded) museum. Industry leaders had opposed the museum's attention to this negative aspect of their historical (and recent) employment practices and imputed a political agenda. One comment read: "The museum should be applauded for establishing this exhibit. . .. The purpose of our study of history has to be connected to what is relevent [sic] in our present. In addition, it should motivate us to act to remedy the continuing ills of our

2. Curator Peter Leibhold has marked each of the red books with a number or letter for ease of reference, and some are dated, too. All examples cited here are selections made from recurring comments.

3. Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957), 9.

4. Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 179.



88 m THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

society" (24). But one visitor's comment sums up the argument that museums should address controversy and in doing so provide learning opportu- nities for visitors: "My first reaction to your exhibition was negative. It disturbed me and I didn't come to the museum to be disturbed, I think I came for enjoyment. After a closer examination of your show (1 hr.) I have changed my mind. Your show has forced me to look at an issue that should be examined and acted upon. Thank you for forcing me out of my narrow view of what the function of a museum should be" (23).

The visitors' comments that really surprised me were the many that sought to place this exhibition (and sweatshops) in a larger historical context. These writers moved away from recounting personal memories or reacting to the exhibit's press to suggest historical parallels. They frequently opined on related subjects-offering their own conclusions or seeking to under- stand this exhibition in terms of other topics. Their interests encompassed unionization, the Great Depression, economic globalization, NAFTA, and the economic systems of capitalism and communism. Some comments considered a broader context for issues raised by the exhibition, whereas others asked questions about how it reflected another subject. Through their comments, they assumed the role of curator, interpreting the historical materials from their own perspective. Here's just one example: "Please put more focus on the poor working conditions of the industrial revolution. Dangerous machinery regularly killed and maimed workers before government began regulations such as Osha [sic]" (L).

The most startling group of comments were from visitors who sought direction from the museum. These writers frequently suggested that the exhibition had raised an important moral and ethical issue-not simply a reflection of some history long ago-and they wanted to know how they could act in a responsible way. In fact, many writers mentioned the sweatshop owner's "personal responsibility" and the impact of their own shopping habits. Some lamented that buying "American" did not ameliorate conditions in sweatshops. These writers projected the exhibition's historical perspective forward to today. Some even asked why the museum did not post a list of clothing manufacturers who do not rely on sweatshop labor at the exhibition's exit. "This exhibit is great, but people need to know what they can do about this problem. Why not provide us with a list of 'good guys'? Or are there any 'good guys' who eschew sweatshop labor?" (R).

One set of writers (about 400 of the 1600) who captured my attention were those who identified themselves as students (or their loopy handwrit- ing suggested teenage writers). Their contributions ranged from notes to one another, rather like messages added to school yearbooks, to thoughtful discussions of the causes of sweatshops and the possibilities for their elimination. Some acknowledged their own roles as consumers fueling the economic pressure for the cheap goods often produced by sweatshop labor. These young people revealed a sophisticated understanding of the topic and a concern about the injustice of sweatshops. Nor were there any comments



DO VISITORS GET IT? * 89

questioning the right of museums to address this subject. Here are two examples: "The sweatshop era is important to our nation's history because it reminds us that we have to take an active role in maintaining America's freedom. Freedom not only from tyranny and oppression, but also from injustice. ... Remember compassion is not enough, you must act." Signed: 9th grade student (Texas) (13). "Americans are spoiled rotten. We want what we want, when we want it, and we don't care who has to suffer to get it. We also aren't willing to pay anything but the absolute lowest price for an item. This is why we still have sweatshops, because although America has grown, it hasn't changed. Americans, consumers and businessmen alike, still want 'cheap stuff just like they did in the 1920's." Signed: Student (H.S.) (New Hampshire) (13). These comments from young people were nearly as diverse as those of adult visitors and suggest that they are paying attention in ways that may surprise museum staff, and perhaps even their parents.

When I began reading these comment books, I expected to read stories from visitors or to be subjected to a visitor's argument for or against the Smithsonian's role as a creator of exhibitions. I did not anticipate the frequency of such sophisticated discussions of historical and economic themes. The exhibit, perhaps especially the "Dialogue" section, provoked visitors to reminisce, argue, draw parallels, and generally take time to react to the exhibit and seriously respond to the museum. The visitors used the exhibit as a starting point for their own intellectual musings. They moved beyond personal stories to serious discussions of the exhibit, the museum as educator, and the role of U.S. economics in a shrinking world (to suggest only a few of their interests). In a most intriguing way, the exhibit engaged and empowered the visitors.

Roy Rosenzweig, in his closing essay in The Presence of the Past, says: "The most significant news of this study is that we [as historians and museum curators] have interested, active, and thoughtful audiences for what we want to talk about. The deeper challenge is finding out how we can talk to-and especially with-those audiences."5 This sample of 1900 comments suggests that the exhibition engaged its visitors. Through their comments, viewers "talk with" the curators, meeting Rosenzweig's challenge. They broaden the exhibit's interpretive message, molding it to their experiences and interests. In today's parlance, they "make meaning" for themselves from it. The exhibition's subject matter, curatorial voice in the labels, display techniques, and the "Dialogue" setting itself succeeded in drawing in visitors. And we only heard from those with the time or the inclination to write.

Are There Lessons for Industrial History and Other Museums?

Again and again, museum evaluators report that American museum visitors are well educated and economically secure. We should not assume

5. Ibid., 189.




that because they are often casually dressed and enjoying recreational time, they have left behind their intellects, personal experiences, enthusiasms, and passions. That visitor, scantily clad in shorts and tee shirt, may hold a Ph.D. in the exhibition's topic. Though museum visitors are enjoying informal learning within the museum's exhibitions, their informality is not evidence for either lack of interest or ignorance. Their minds are engaged, as these comment books reveal.

The comment books offer more than the prosaic visitor comment cards that elicit "thank you for this exhibit." They might be better described as visitor "commentaries." The writers for the most part talk with the museum about what's on their minds. Curator Liebhold reports that this is the museum's third effort to establish within an exhibit a venue for visitor feedback. The "Dialogue" section, by featuring individuals and their perspectives, may have contributed to the visitors' comfort in adding their own voices to the dialogue. They took the exhibit at its word. This is a worthy effort, worth imitation. Such a venue enriches the visitors' experience with the exhibition and offers the museum insight into visitors' interests, which can be critical to serving them. Like the ever popular focus groups, these comments are invaluable for planning.

If you ask visitors for comments, take time to reflect on what they say. Several messages are clear from Between a Rock and a Hard Place: (1) Visitors do appreciate the complexities of our past, are not offended by them, and in some cases seek guidance for their own actions based on historical mistakes. (2) The negative aspects of our past offer lessons for our future and do not put off the audience, neither young visitors nor old. (3) Present your topic and ask visitors to add their voices, and they will do so with intelligence, sophistication, and more than a little wit.

Most of all, be brave. Only two visitors to the exhibit railed against the museum (and their arguments were articulate, though to me, wrong- headed). The comments of the great majority of visitors suggest that museums should not reject out-of-hand controversy and the negative aspects of our history. One visitor puts it this way: "I appreciate your attempt not to isolate 'history' in the safe past and replace it with idolatrous 'heritage"' (F). Visitors seemed to appreciate the interpretive nature of exhibitions, to assess the messages through their personal filters of knowl- edge and experience, and to value the museum as a venue for such ex- changes. They appeared, as I have said, engaged rather than enraged.

Verbatim Transcripts of Comments

My mother works for a company that produces the costuming for many Broadway shows such as Phantom of the Opera & Lion King. She is in the same Union (UNITE is its new name, it used to be ILGWU) and without these unions & labor regulations my mother & her co-workers would not



DO VISITORS GET IT? V 91

be employed. The Quality of the work would suffer as would the poor people that are driven like slaves for ridiculously low pay. You can see into sweat shops from the Manhattan Bridge Subway tracks. You can see the women & men trying to make a life for them selves. Legal action must be taken against the "masters" of the sweatshops. (E)

Thank you for this & the earlier exhibit on the union movement. More Americans need to know about the exploitation of labor in this nation as in much of the rest of the world. The U.S. value of labor-due both to the scarcity & the labor movement has achieved, did achieve high wages for

What should Americans know about sweatshop production in the United States?

M C The curators of this exhibition asked the six spokespeople represented here to answer this question.

-r Now we'd like to know what you think.

C. ' ,ob-

-J t ,'

F 0-/,"S -t, XLt, ( /-.. , a4"

r ,

I .

.._el jI- r

fzt... ;'

If you wish: (Continue on back) Name ' : (

/-,7 City and State 1(1 ~ .

' Your Job

.

i

.... i u ......



92 m THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN

workers. But no more. Younger people don't know how much hardship went into forming unions, how much suffering was experienced, in order to develop the energy, the drive to coalesce to fight for decent working conditions & wages. As a society we love cheap, illegal immigrant labor & then turn around & scapegoat them. (21)

Too many people (including myself) are likely unaware that the problem of sweatshops is still an issue in the United States. Before asking what people should know about the problem. We should ask do they even know there is one? (B)

I share many of perspectives that have already been expressed, and I agree that it is a complex and troubling time. I would just like to comment on the role of historians and historical museums in contemporary issues like this one: We need more historians and curators like Paul [sic] Liebhold and Harry Rubinstein [sic] who have the courage, sensitivity, and patience to study and educate us about living history. Rather than shying away from controversy, as they were so strongly pressured to do, we have the responsibility to tackle difficult issues like the history and development of sweatshops. In order to come to solutions, we cannot isolate the discussions from its historical context or from its links to American and global systems and structures. I hope that this museum will continue to build the crucial bridge between the history of scholars and the history we are living today for the benefit of the American public and I hope others will follow their lead. (23)

Had this exhibit focused more on the history of the sweat shop and the union movement that sought to improve working conditions, it would have made a more forceful statement about present conditions. As it stands, the exhibit is skimpy on historical detail but heavy with apology for today's apparel industry and heavier yet with apology for touching on a shameful part of American history, and one that still persists. We ought not be afraid of our history and there can be no history of this industrialized nations without a detailed history of labor. My father was an immigrant worker in the garment industry--a member, in fact of Local 17 of the ILGWU, whose Banner you display. Without the union movement, he would not have had improved working conditions, better wages or health benefits in retirement. You need a sequel: The Rise & Fall of the American Labor Movement. It will help explain the persis- tence of the sweatshop. (H)

I appreciated reading the words of the 6 people quoted at the end of this exhibit. After learning about sweatshops here, the responses from Kathie Lee Gifford & Kmart came across as superficial and very consciously crafted by PR people. I think that the lack of comprehension comes across clearer here, after having visited the exhibit. I'm glad to have had this experience linking the exhibit to the outer world; I think it will help me remember next time I go shopping.



DO VISITORS GET IT? * 93

I often hear the argument that illegal immigrants to the US are treated better in the US and paid better than they are in their home countries. I'd like to see this argument addressed more directly in this exhibit. I love this museum & its willingness to directly address current issues and linking them to race, class, gender, ethnicity. Please continue in this vein. I'm glad this exhibit was mounted and the protests of the garment industry show that it has something to hide. One more request: I love how this museum forces visitors to think about their relationship to the exhibit. Unlike most museums where visitors can


IM * 4The curators of this exhibition asked the six spokespeople represented here to answer this question.

Now we'd like to know what you think.

If to wi1 (Co/iu obck

City and State

Your Job

/ rI.

If you wish: (Continue on back) Name

1,:<. ,"' City and State I,

a:' I YourJob

.. . . .

:

.,




passively view exotic exhibits like audiences in a movie, this museum forces visitors to think. Its [sic] this insistance [sic] on actively involving the viewer that brings me back here over and over again. (A)


* C I " The curators of this exhibition asked the six spokespeople represented here to answer this question.

A , Now we'd like to know what you think.

If you wish: (CContinue o back)

City and State k~ad/,s A t4 p oF

Your Job O

ei;. bw ve

,



Documents

Do Visitors Get It? A Sweatshop Exhibit and Visitors' Comments