Abstract
While the problem of intersubjectivity has motivated a great deal of sociological research, there has been little consideration of the relationship between intersubjectivity-sustaining practices and the physical environment in which these are enacted. The Museum of Jurassic Technology (MJT) is a strategic site for exploring this relationship. With its labyrinthine layout and bewildering exhibits, the MJT provides a natural “breaching experiment” in which concrete elements of the space disrupt normal competencies for sustaining presumptions of intersubjectivity. Using ethnographic data on visitor interaction, this article specifies two disruptive aspects of the physical environment and identifies four methods of repair on which visitors rely to reestablish presumptions of intersubjectivity. The analysis of spatially situated processes of intersubjective disruption and repair in an extreme case such as the MJT is a first step toward “emplacing” the intersubjectivity problem in more everyday settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On Husserl’s phenomenology, see Farber 1943. For Schutz’s discussion of Husserl and the “reciprocity of perspectives,” see Schutz 1967a, b. Foundational works in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis include Garfinkel [1967] 1984, Sacks 1992, Sacks et al. 1974, Schegloff 1968, and Schegloff and Sacks 1973. Heritage (1984) provides a comprehensive overview of this research, while Atkinson and Heritage (1984) assemble some exemplary studies.
Some recent ethnomethodological work does point in the right direction. For example, in his discussion of library search aids, Crabtree (2000) raises many important points about the social organization of space and the interactional accomplishment of spatially-situated activities. Likewise, Laurier et al.’s (2001) exploration of the practical organization of informality around tables at a café is quite interesting. (However, the former is light on data; and the latter is not framed explicitly in terms of the problem of intersubjectivity.)
Sociologists as diverse as Weber ([1922] 1978:1212–1372), Marx ([1848] 1977:227–228), Wirth (1938), Lefebvre (1991), and Foucault (1977:195–228)—as well as countless others—have been attentive to the spatial dimension of social relations. As Gieryn (2000:464) points out, there exists “an enduring tradition of robust sociological studies of place that remains invisible only because it is never framed that way.”
Late in my fieldwork, the MJT added a small door handle in response to visitor complaints. According to museum staffers who work the front door, however, most visitors still ring the buzzer, only afterwards noticing the handle.
The guest book for April 2004 identifies visitors from twenty-four states and six countries, some of whom indicated that they had been anticipating the visit for as long as six years. My field notes document the visit of an East Coast art history professor who had been aware of the museum for years; and I participated in an interpretive experiment conducted by a visitor who had traveled from the Indianapolis Museum of Art (see methodological appendix).
One visitor wondered whether the whole thing was a “dadaist prank.”
While museums have been the object of sociological analysis in the past, most previous studies have neglected visitor experiences. Research in the fields of sociology and cultural studies has tended to focus either on the history and operation of the museum as a social institution (Alexander 1996, Blau 1991, DiMaggio 1991, Zolberg 1981 and 1984) or on the politics of representation involved in museum exhibition (Bennett 1995, Jenkins 1994, Lisus and Ericson 1995, Luke 2002, Macdonald 1998, Winans 1994, Zolberg 1998). Both of these currents emphasize the institutional production of the cultural object, neglecting the micro-interactional processes by which visitors achieve a sense of meaningful, shared experience of that object (exceptions include Bruder and Ucok 2000 and vom Lehn et al. 2001). Visitor studies in the field of museology do emphasize reception; but they have traditionally focused on the individual visitor’s experience (Bicknell and Farmelo 1993, Bitgood and Patterson 1987, Falk and Dierking 2000, Robinson 1928, and Screven 1976) and have only begun to attend to interaction among visitors (Diamond 1986, McManus 1987).
For details on the ethnographic methodology, see the methodological appendix.
Only rarely do people visit alone. Most common are groups of two or three; less common are groups of four or five; and groups larger than five (e.g., school groups) typically subdivide during the visit.
The intention of this design is unclear. When questioned by a student as to whether the layout has anything to do with the museum’s motto of “Nature as Metaphor,” Wilson, in classic style, responded: “Well, you’re probably right. I’ve never thought of it that way before.” He went on to explain that the layout was the result of gradual museum expansion into newly acquired space and that, given a blank slate, he probably could not have made it as labyrinthine if he had tried.In my observations, I was attentive as to whether a dominant route through the museum emerged despite the many options provided by the floor plan. I found that it does not. Visitors improvise a wide variety of paths through the museum. In fact, members of the same group often proceed by different routes.
Such congested spaces may also foster the disintegration of groups simply by making visitors feel claustrophobic and encouraging them to abandon their groups for less dense spaces. On the relationship between objective space and subjective experiences of “crowding,” see Tuan 1977 (Chapter 5).
This is not to say that they do not try or are never successful. Indeed, such repairs are the subject of the following sub-section of this article. The point is not that the space completely determines levels of coordinated interaction, but simply that it disrupts normal coordination and so requires more effort than usual on the part of participants to maintain a sense of normalcy.
When asked by students in a question and answer session why the museum is kept so dark, Wilson touched his glasses and commented with a grin that it used to be even darker; as his eyesight has worsened, he guesses, the lighting has gradually been going up.
This might be the leader of a school group, or simply someone with unofficial authority by virtue of having visited previously.
In this example, the visitors’ way of conjoining experience is extremely intimate. In effect, it involves sharing a physical perspective by (almost) sharing a body. Conjoined experience can also be looser than this. Rather than merging bodies, some visitors go from display to display together, talking animatedly and constantly assisting each other in interpretation. Either way, the group members create a sense of shared experience by being meticulous about sharing every second of the museum, simultaneously and interactively.
On “interpretive activists,” see Stamatov 2002. It is worth noting that the slower visitors are not entirely at the mercy of the faster scouts. In some cases, a slower visitor will (verbally or nonverbally) call a scout back to share a moment with him or her. In this way, the slower visitors have a method for reigning in the scouts should they become too distant.
The upcoming exhibit uses sophisticated holograms and optical illusions to explain the life and work of an historical figure, Athanasius Kircher. While the scout is confident about his interpretation, the meaning of the Kircher exhibit is neither simple nor obvious. Some see it as about the history of science, others about magnetism and theosophy, and still others about physics and geometry.
This article does not presume to explain why different groups utilize different techniques at different times. The reasons appear to be related both to the internal dynamics of the group and to the particular space being navigated. That is, most groups seem to have a dominant modus operandi, but at the same time certain spaces also seem to encourage particular modes of coordination. This relationship would have to be dissected in order to predict navigational techniques for certain groups in certain spaces.
For a review of Schutz’s thought on the role of typification in the maintenance of presumptions of intersubjectivity, see Heritage 1984 (51–61).
History museums are assumed to depict true history; science museums are thought to represent actual scientific developments; even art museums, while the pieces themselves may not be representational, are assumed to display the work of actual artists and connect visitors to a real, external art world.
Biagioli (1995:401–402) walks through a detailed description of the poly-vocality of two interesting exhibits.
Perhaps the most striking evidence of this is the fact that “probably a dozen” visitors in the museum’s history have “utterly obliterated” their names from the guest book when leaving the museum—effectively removing all record of their visit (author’s interview with Wilson, 2005). On the morality of cognition in Garfinkel, see Heritage 1984 (Chapter 4). I thank Brandon Barry for re-sensitizing me to this crucial element of Garfinkel’s work.
It is interesting to compare the woman’s fearful response to what it might have been in a more typical museum, where an overly loud buzzer might be assumed to be a design flaw. Curatorial “mistakes” in other museums are seen as unintended annoyances; here—as with an extremely poorly-lit display in the “Tell the Bees” exhibit—they are treated with suspicion and taken to be “creepy.”
I am using the term “cultural models” to mean those socially shared cognitive schemas through whose application subjects orient, organize, and make sense of their own actions and experiences. Various literatures use a range of terms to describe roughly this same thing: “typifications” (Berger and Luckmann 1966, Schutz 1967a), “schemas” (Sewell 1992), “frames” (Snow et al. 1986), or “models” (Meyer et al. 1997).
Gieryn (2003) argues that the MJT constructs itself as a museum so well that audiences refuse to abandon the model, even when the MJT tries to undermine its own authority.
Just when visitors might conclude that missing displays are intentional, they may encounter the notice stating: “Due to the large number of exhibits and the ever expanding nature of the collection, the content of the museum is continually in flux. Your return patronage is greatly appreciated.”
If the project of the MJT were to explain strange objects, rather than simply to make them available to the visitor, the museum would be considerably less disruptive. (I thank Nazgol Ghandnoosh for this point.)
These interactions can be genuinely egalitarian or they can be asymmetrical. Often, one visitor will bear more of the interpretive weight while others will be more passive. Asymmetrical relationships may be constant within a given group or they may vary on an exhibit to exhibit basis. They may operate because of personality, gender, or other power dynamics specific to the group that exist prior to the museum visit, or they may develop because some visitors have past experience with the MJT or expertise on a particular topic. They may also develop if some group members (such as children) distinctly lack certain competencies necessary for viewing the museum “correctly” on their own. This article does not presume to determine the causes of variation in interpretive balance beyond these suggestions, but rather focuses on methods for providing interpretive assistance that are used in both egalitarian and asymmetrical interpretive relationships.
In this sense, the boundaries of the museum experience extend beyond the building walls to include awareness of outside commentary. This is one source of authority that is available to the MJT visitor. Wilson noted that there have been fewer “pronouncedly negative” visitor responses because “things have been written that make it seem…as if we are an acceptable place; and before it was absolutely not clear if we were acceptable or not” (author’s interview, 2005). However, it is worth noting that outside knowledge of the museum is no less suspect than endogenous knowledge. One visitor approached me, thinking me to be a museum employee: “Can you tell me where, I hear that you guys have a large, hairy Bigfoot?” (There is no such display.)
My field notes from the time of this observation note that the receiver played only “a series of repeated electric beeps spaced about 2 or 3 seconds apart.” On a later visit, the device appeared to have been “fixed” and was playing a narrative track.
This is how things work, for example, at the door to the Renaissance Room of the newly remodeled Seattle Art Museum. The same dynamic is reproduced at other points of controlled entry: to amusement park rides, airport security checkpoints, or the tram leading up to Los Angeles’ Getty Center museum.
For example, Weschler (1995) concludes that the MJT is a modern day wunderkammer (or cabinet of curiosities, like those of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe [see Impey and MacGregor 1985]). This is an intriguing interpretation, but one that Wilson suggests has been somewhat overplayed. While acknowledging the parallels in terms of the MJT’s eclecticism, he counters that his influences come more out of the 1960s than the 1770s (author’s interview, 2005).
I thank Linda Duke, Director of Education at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, for soliciting my participation. On VTS, a method designed to facilitate discussion of artwork and improve interpretation, see www.vue.org.
Visitors almost never speak to members of other groups and only rarely exchange glances, expressions, or chuckles across group lines. Typically, groups pass over displays with which non-members are engaged and return only once they have been vacated. Unlike other situations, in which surprise or curiosity are a few of the acceptable justifications for interacting across group lines (“Do you see what I see?”), something about preserving the integrity of the “secret” seems to impede cross-group exchange at the MJT. Visitors do what they can to help other members of their own group to “get it;” but (either like benevolently preserving the plot twist in a mystery novel or like jealously guarding a hard earned secret) they distinctly avoid any exchanges that might modify the interpretive trajectories of other groups.
References
Alexander, V. D. (1996). Pictures at an exhibition: Conflicting pressures in museums and the display of art. American Journal of Sociology, 101(4), 797–839.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. New York: Routledge.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Biagioli, M. (1995). Confabulating Jurassic science. In G. E. Marcus (Ed.) Technoscientific imaginaries: Conversations, profiles, and memoirs (pp. 399–431). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bicknell, S., & Farmelo, G. (Eds.) (1993). Museum visitor studies in the 90s. London: Science Museum.
Bitgood, S., & Patterson, D. (1987). Principles of exhibit design. Visitor Behavior, 2(1), 4–6.
Blau, J. R. (1991). The disjunctive history of U.S. museums, 1869–1980. Social Forces, 70(1), 87–105.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bruder, K. A., & Ucok, O. (2000). Interactive art interpretation: How viewers make sense of paintings in conversation. Symbolic Interaction, 23(4), 337–358.
Caesar, T. (2000). In and out of elevators in Japan. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 1(1), 15–23.
Cahill, S. E. (1994). Following Goffman, following Durkheim into the public realm. In S. Cahill & L. H. Lofland (Eds.) The community of the streets (pp. 3–17). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Crabtree, A. (2000). Remarks on the social organisation of space and place. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 1(1), 25–44.
DeVault, M. (2000). Producing family time: Practices of leisure activity beyond the home. Qualitative Sociology, 23(4), 485–503.
Diamond, J. (1986). The behavior of family groups in science museums. Curator, 29(2), 139–154.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Eco, U. (1989). Foucault's pendulum. (Trans. W. Weaver). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Erickson, K., & Stull, D. (1998). Doing team ethnography: Warnings and advice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
Farber, M. (1943). The foundation of phenomenology: Edmund Husserl and the quest for a rigorous science of philosophy (3rd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fine, G. A. (1984). Humorous interaction and the social construction of meaning: Making sense in a jocular vein. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 5, 83–101.
Flaherty, M. G. (1984). A formal approach to the study of amusement in social interaction. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 5, 71–82.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (Translated by A. Sheridan). New York: Vintage Books.
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.) Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press Company.
Garfinkel, H. (1967/1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496.
Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31(1), 35–74.
Gieryn, T. F. (2003, August). Can museums lie? (Paper presented at the 98th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta).
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.
Harré, R. (2002). Material objects in social worlds. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 23–33.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hetherington, K. (2002). The unsightly: Touching the Parthenon Frieze. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 187–205.
Impey, O., & MacGregor, A. (Eds.) (1985). The origins of museums: The cabinet of curiosities in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jenkins, D. (1994). Object lessons and ethnographic displays: Museum exhibitions and the making of American anthropology. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 36(2), 242–270.
Katz, J. (1996). Families and funny mirrors: A study of the social construction and personal embodiment of humor. American Journal of Sociology, 101(5), 1194–1237.
Katz, J. (2001). From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part 1). Ethnography, 2(4), 443–473.
Katz, J. (2002). From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part 2). Ethnography, 3(1), 63–90.
Kaufman, M. T. (1998). Jurassic what? Exhibitor seeks grants (don’t ask). The New York Times, May 20, 1998.
Kendon, A. (1997). Gesture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 109–128.
Laurier, E. (2004). The spectacular showing: Houdini and the wonder of ethnomethodology. Human Studies, 27(4), 377–399.
Laurier, E., Whyte, A., & Buckner, K. (2001). An ethnography of a neighbourhood cafe: Informality, table arrangements, and background noise. Journal of Mundane Behavior, 2(2), 195–232.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. (Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lewis, G. H. (1989). Rats and bunnies: Core kids in an American mall. Adolescence, 24, 881–889.
Lisus, N. A., & Ericson, R. V. (1995). Misplacing memory: The effect of television format on Holocaust remembrance. The British Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 1–19.
Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city's quintessential social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Luke, T. W. (2002). Museum politics: Power plays at the exhibition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Macdonald, S. (1998). The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Marx, K. (1848/1977). The Communist manifesto. In D. McLellan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected writings (pp. 221–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McManus, P. (1987). It’s the company you keep…: The social determination of learning-related behavior in a science museum. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6(3), 263–270.
McMurtie, J. (1997). Museum of unnatural history. Salon.com, October 14, 1997. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1997/10/14museum.html.
McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92(3), 350–371.
Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.
Mulkay, M., & Gilbert, G. N. (1982). Joking apart: some recommendations concerning the analysis of scientific culture. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 585–613.
Nash, J. E. (1981). Relations in frozen places: Observations on winter public order. Qualitative Sociology, 4(3), 229–243.
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Getting a laugh: gender, status, and humor in task discussions. Social Forces, 80(1), 123–158.
Robinson, E. S. (1928). The behavior of the museum visitor. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.
Roth, M. W. (2002). The Museum of Jurassic Technology: Culver City, California. Technology and Culture, 43(1), 102–109.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. (2 vols.) (Ed. G. Jefferson). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest semantics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 266–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
Schutz, A. (1967a). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. (Vol. 1) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schutz, A. (1967b). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Screven, C. G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation – A goal-referenced approach. Curator, 19(4), 271–290.
Seckman, M. A., & Couch, C. J. (1989). Jocularity, sarcasm, and social relationships. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(3), 327–344.
Sennett, R. (1990). The conscience of the eye: The design and social life of cities. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Sewell Jr., W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Shapira, R., & Navon, D. (1991). Alone together: Public and private dimensions of a Tel-Aviv café. Qualitative Sociology, 14(2), 107–125.
Smith, R. W., & Bugni, V. (2006). Symbolic interaction theory and architecture. Symbolic Interaction, 29(2), 123–155.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.
Stamatov, P. (2002). Interpretive activism and the political uses of Verdi's operas in the 1840s. American Sociological Review, 67(3), 345–366.
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
vom Lehn, D., Heath, D., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189–216.
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. (2 Vols.) (Edited by G. Roth & C. Wittich). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weschler, L. (1995). Mr. Wilson's cabinet of wonder: Pronged ants, horned humans, mice on toast, and other marvels of Jurassic technology. New York: Vintage Books.
Weschler, L. (2001). Jurassic genius David Wilson: Offbeat museum curator wins prestigious ‘genius grant’ (audio tour). National Public Radio’s Weekend All Things Considered, October 21, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/programs/watc/features/2001/macarthur/011027.macarthur.html.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
Winans, E. V. (1994). The head of the king: Museums and the path to resistance. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 36(2), 221–241.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.
Zolberg, V. L. (1981). Conflicting visions in American art museums. Theory and Society, 10(1), 103–125.
Zolberg, V. L. (1984). American art museums: Sanctuary or free-for-all? Social Forces, 63(2), 377–392.
Zolberg, V. L. (1998). Contested remembrance: The Hiroshima exhibit controversy. Theory and Society, 27, 565–590.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks are due to the museum staff – especially David Wilson and Lori Matsumoto – for their enthusiasm and useful conversations. They have unflinchingly allowed me complete freedom in research design, data collection, and interpretation, insisting only that the MJT exercise no influence over the project. Jack Katz and Angela Jamison encouraged the project at every stage with their invaluable insights and critiques. Rogers Brubaker, Andrew Deener, and the Theory and Society Editors and reviewers all provided helpful comments on later drafts. Finally, I thank participants in two UCLA graduate seminars and at the 2005 annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, where earlier drafts were presented. The project has been partially supported by “LA at Play,” NSF REU Grant Number 0139665.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jansen, R.S. Jurassic technology? Sustaining presumptions of intersubjectivity in a disruptive environment. Theor Soc 37, 127–159 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9054-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9054-9