In their strategic goals, an increasing number of Estonian museums are departing from the conventional formula of ’collecting, preserving, researching and mediating the heritage of the field’. The new objectives are to ’ignite people's interest in art and culture’, to be ’the creator of social cohesion’ or even ’to increase people's knowledge of Estonia as a maritime nation and to cultivate respect and love of the sea in our society’. It can be said that the Estonian museum landscape is undergoing a transition from entertainment education towards having a greater social impact, or if not that, then at least the new theme is increasingly more clearly formulated in the museums’ mission and vision statements along with the usual activities. There are several possible reasons for this, including: the need for a new conceptual basis, the experience of participatory and inclusive activities having yielded positive results, the influence of global changes of perspective, and so on. But how are the high ideals theoretically justified? What form and priority do social values assume in the daily activities of the museum? The aim of this article is to provide guidelines for identifying societal impacts and offer guidance concerning the appropriate strategic planning of museum activities.
In the first part of the article, I examine the relationship models between museums and society, drawing on the analyses of professional literature published in the past 15 years. My aim is to outline a framework which would make it possible to identify and compare conceptual approaches and which would serve as a guide for strategic planning. Based on a review of the literature, it is possible to discern three categories: “public value”, “societal impact” and “societal change”, which can be differentiated in terms of the theoretical basis, identification of target groups, and the description of activities and impact indicators. Although these categories are notional and traces of various approaches can be found in every institution, they can be mapped along two broad spectrums: one based on the intensity of societal impact (passive vs. active) and the other, based on the audience (public vs. individual).
In the second part, I analyse the past development plans of the Estonian Open Air Museum's Center of Rural Architecture in the light of the above framework. Despite the explicit formulation of the expected societal impact, the success of the department's work is assessed in terms of performance indicators that are not unequivocally linked to the general objectives. Although the main target group is the owners of old houses, their needs and expectations are not clearly defined. Notionally, the Centre's plans fall into the category of societal impact.
In the last part, I discuss the possibilities of attaining a greater degree of societal impact when drawing up the new development plan. The most important thing is to find a theoretical basis which would help to conceptualise ‘society’ and target impact indicators that are realistic and clearly demonstrable in terms of the effectiveness of the activities. There are several options available here (improvement of the condition of cultural heritage, environmental conservation, the viability of rural areas or the quality of the living environment, and etc.), all of which provide a basis for a rethinking of our current goals and activities.
The concept and the name of Isolating Gender Violence
