Museums As Progress v. RELEVANCE, NEEDS, & ENGAGEMENT LLC
A leaked transcript from recent proceedings in the Court of Ideas.
COURTROOM
JUDGE
(banging gavel)
Order. The court will come to order.
BAILIFF
The Circuit Court of Ideas, Cultural Division is now in session. The Honorable Judge Reader presiding. The case is Museums As Progress v. RELEVANCE, NEEDS, & ENGAGEMENT LLC.
JUDGE
Is the prosecution prepared to make its statement?
PROSECUTOR
We are, your honor. My client, Museums As Progress, charges that the defendant — RELEVANCE, NEEDS, AND ENGAGEMENT LLC — has led museums astray with false promises. Cultural organizations hired the defendants believing they would help them fulfill their missions. But now these same organizations face dwindling audiences and are often disconnected from the communities they wish to support. My client asserts that the defendants have defrauded museums for their own gain.
shuffling and whispers in the courtroom; judge bangs gavel; prosecutor continues:
RELEVANCE, NEEDS, & ENGAGEMENT LLC swooped in just when museums were most vulnerable, claiming that cultural institutions needed them to survive. Meanwhile, my client, Progress and Community Goals, were pushed aside. They were the concepts museums needed most!
Relevance whispers to defense attorney; attorney stands
DEFENSE
With all due respect, your honor, my client rejects these ludicrous allegations. My client did not defraud museums — Relevance, Needs, and Engagement have enhanced museums. Relevance connected museums to what people cared about. Engagement drew people in so they could experience all museums offer. Needs … Well, who's going to say museums shouldn’t meet people’s needs? It’s like arguing that kittens should be banned from the internet.
Jury murmurs; a Director of Audience Engagement in the audience lets out a cheer
JUDGE
(banging gavel)
I will have order! So help me, if I have to hold the entire museum field in contempt … Order! The prosecution will call its first witness.
PROSECUTOR
Thank you, your honor. The prosecution calls Progress to the witness stand.
Progress swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; Prosecutor continues:
Progress, can you tell us what you saw the night of … (checks notes) … I mean, can you tell us what you’ve seen over the past several decades?
PROGRESS
Yes. I've seen Relevance, Needs, and Engagement consolidate their power and influence over museums, while also confusing and deceiving them—
DEFENSE
(standing)
Objection, your honor!
JUDGE
Sustained.
PROSECUTOR
Can you be more specific?
PROGRESS
Of course. Let’s start with Relevance, which began its career as a well-intended, idealistic advocate for museums. As it gained more attention and power, though, Relevance became an end in itself. It confused museum professionals into thinking that it was the thing that museums should strive for when, in fact, it’s just a byproduct of work that supports people’s progress. Believing relevance to be an end in itself leads museums to look for ‘relevant’ topics or issues, which may or may not have anything to do with the progress that the museum was uniquely suited to support. So, rather than try to understand how people approach the goals that matter to them, Relevance encouraged museums to create in a bubble and broadcast assumptions.
DEFENSE
Objection, your honor! We’ll be hearing from Goals later in this proceeding. Are we really going to exhaust the jury with redundant arguments?
JUDGE
Sustained. The witness will confine their responses to topics related to Progress only.
PROSECUTOR
Let’s move on to Needs.
PROGRESS
If it’s alright with you, I’d just as soon let my colleague, Goals, speak to the offenses that Needs has committed. I’d like to address Engagement’s affronts to the sector next.
Director of Engagement is heard booing from the back of the courtroom.
JUDGE
(banging gavel)
Order in the court! Bailiff, find every museum professional in this courtroom with the word ‘engagement’ in their title and drag them out of here by their hair. The witness will proceed.
PROGRESS
Over the years, I’ve seen Engagement become a corrupt influence on museums. Much like its partner, Relevance, Engagement is happy to have museum professionals believe that it is not merely an (often incomplete) measure of success that should be weighed only in specific circumstances — Engagement portrays itself as the end result to which museums should aspire. As if Engagement were an achievement in its own right rather than one possible expression of a person who is making progress toward their goal!
murmurs in the courtroom; Engagement passes a note to its attorney
PROSECUTOR
(sitting down)
Nothing further, your honor.
DEFENSE
(standing)
Progress, you accuse my clients of being distractions, implying that you and your colleague, Ms. Goals, are the solution to all museums’ problems.
PROGRESS
That’s a bit reductive. What I’m saying is—
DEFENSE
Why should we believe you? It seems to me, you’re guilty of the thing you accuse my clients of — power grabs and manipulation. You come in here with your fancy ideas that you borrow from people like Indi Young, Alan Klement, Clayton Christensen, Kathy Sierra, and a bunch of other people who don’t even work in museums, isn’t that right, Mr. Progress?
gasps in the courtroom
PROGRESS
It’s true that I don’t come from a museum background, per se, but I hardly think that matters. After all, isn’t the admonition that we should all keep our heads down and ‘stay in our lane’ exactly the sort of argument that status quo ideas like Engagement and Relevance would like us to adhere to? I think the museum sector benefits from stealing ideas from other sectors—
DEFENSE
Stealing! Did you say stealing? And you think we should accept as truth statements from someone who tells us we should steal from other sectors? No further questions.
JUDGE
Progress may step down. The Prosecution may call its next witness.
PROSECUTOR
Your honor, we’d like to request a recess before we call our next witness, Community Goals, to the stand.
JUDGE
Very well. The court will allow a seven-day recess. However, if more than 10 jurors unsubscribe between now and then, I will declare a mistrial and this court will move on to other business. Is that clear?
PROSECUTOR
Yes, and thank you, your honor.
JUDGE
(strikes gavel)
Next week, the jury will hear from Community Goals and declare its verdict. Between now and then, the jury is not to forward the transcript of these proceedings to any colleagues or share it on social media. Court adjourned.
