The late Michael Ames in his influential book Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums (1992) proclaimed that the museum profession and the discipline of anthropology were in “jeopardy,” and needed to be reformed if they were to play any “useful roles in contemporary democratic society.” Anthropology, he said, “has to change if it is even to survive.”

Five years later, Richard Kurin, in Reflections of a Culture Broker: Views from the Smithsonian (1997) also faulted anthropologists and museums for not being socially relevant and having a stronger public presence. From his perspective, they needed to be doing more to contribute to public understandings of contemporary culture and social issues. Kurin denounced anthropology’s poor track record when it came to addressing issues of broad public concern, writing “indeed, the field as a whole seems to discourage public engagement” and this “portends poorly for the future.”  Kurin pointed out that museums had probably done more than academic anthropology departments in bringing anthropology’s specialized knowledge to the public, yet, he added, that this role had generally been seen as “low-priority service rather than a major responsibility.”

What changes have taken place in anthropology and museums since Ames and Kurin made their justifiable critiques? How have these changes encouraged public engagement and relevancy? What barriers still exist and how might they be overcome?

I envision this seminar as a forum for dialogue around these and related questions. I am especially interested in discussing how the divisions that have historically existed between academic and publically oriented museum anthropology in the United States are contracting around the common interests of engagement; and to what degree, if any, are these questions and historical processes relevant to anthropology and museums in Australia.