In “She’s Just Trying to Destroy Our Swedish Heritage”: Facing Hate in Swedish Museums, recently published in the Journal of Museum Education, Charlotte Engman explores the emotional and political pressures facing museum educators in Sweden as they attempt to navigate increasingly polarized public spaces.
Through interviews with 32 educators across state, regional, and municipal museums, Charlotte Engman looks at how public hostility, in the form of actual, concrete incidents, affects said educators (and the museums).
It goes without saying that the circumstances discussed throughout Engman’s piece are not exclusive to Sweden. These problems impact museum educators here in the U.S., too. I recommend reading the full article for a comprehensive look at the effects of such pressures on your team.
Here are the a few of the big takeaways:
The educators interviewed described incidents ranging from verbal abuse and social media attacks to vandalism and targeted hate, particularly online. Many reported that these experiences followed their involvement in exhibitions or educational programs addressing gender identity, LGBTQ+ perspectives, ethnic diversity, and Swedish colonial history.
And the emotional impact on educators was significant. Educators spoke of a constant vigilance in their daily work. Some educators confessed to self-censoring: skipping references to LGBTQ+ history with audiences likely to respond negatively, or downplaying controversial themes altogether to maintain a group’s “good mood.” Several folks reflected on the visibility of educators compared to curators or management, and how that visibility leaves them exposed when the content they’re interpreting becomes a point of contention.
Perhaps not surprising, but identity shaped risk in unequal ways. Women and LGBTQ educators had a rougher go, and spoke of their identity becoming the focus of the criticism as much as the museum content itself.
Engman really delves into the resulting censorship pressures, including from within institutions themselves:
One museum opted not to raise the Pride flag — breaking with tradition — after far-right extremists left their insignia on staff vehicles. Point being, even when aligned with their core values, institutions sometimes capitulate, prioritizing safety over symbolic acts of solidarity.
Whereas censorship often aims at doing the right thing — whether in terms of preserving a good mood, preventing hate speech, canceling racially insensitive programs, or protecting the staff — it also means that various audiences are repeatedly denied the opportunity to engage with complex and often uncomfortable historical issues. Instead, museums frequently succumb to “cancel culture,” silencing important conversations before they can unfold.
The article isn’t meant to critique any one choice, but to provide a snapshot of how institutions handle hostility, particularly in the absence of a shared response playbook.
In some of the cases, educators were left feeling unsupported, like they had to carry the weight of politically charged work without clear protocols, training, or institutional strategies for managing conflict. And when it comes to managing conflict, it’s easy to see how safety concerns and political caution intersect to inform what happens next (or what doesn’t).
- No museum in the study had specific policies to address hate.
- Only one-third of educators reported receiving training to handle harassment.
Nevertheless, educators shared a variety of strategies they use to manage these tensions and keep doing the work: setting boundaries with difficult audiences, debriefing with peers, revising scripts in real time, and continuing to lead challenging conversations with care. Still, Engman argues that more needs to be done at an organizational and national level to support this frontline labor.
Explore the full, nuanced article, including a section on building resilient museums, here.
