In the last chapter on the contemporary challenges of the museum of civilisation, Noémie Drouguet recalls the political dimension – in the wider sense – that any museal project involves: each museum carries a certain “vision of the world” either consciously or unconsciously. Many museums of society show themselves to be committed actors, often dealing with subjects that are deemed to be sensitive, like the History Museum of Luxembourg and its exhibition on the Roma community in 2006. In this context, the museum of civilisation can position itself as a “public forum” wishing to encourage debate and citizenship – although the latter notion can have multiple meanings. An excellent example of this assumed subjectivity is the Cité Miroir in Liege, which gives pride of place to dissenting personalities who are known for their fight against injustice. However, this political role of the museal institution can also become a source of fragility: the application of its point of view can sometimes involve the imposition or rejection of some subjects. These lines of thought show the difficulty of positioning the museum of civilisation which is torn between a real commitment and the “politically correct”.  

Another contemporary challenge for the museum of civilisation is its application to current affairs and public life. This dynamic character takes a museal approach which has been borrowed from marketing, essentially considering the public as a clientele. Active on social media networks, present in Medias, the museum must take care not to descend into a race for visibility and profitability – and run the risk of forgetting its primary missions. Finally, a last problem raised by Noémie Drouguet concerns the future positioning of the museum of civilisation: the latter often oscillates between a permanent need for renewal in order not to become obsolete, and the temptation to resort to the terminology of “popular art”, which seems to offer greater stability by its less direct connection to current affairs.

The museum of civilisation, a perpetually changing concept

Since its development in the 1970s, in the wake of ecomuseums and the new museology, the museum of civilisation does not constitute an immutable museal category. Stripped of the monopoly of disciplines, this approach offers a plurality of viewpoints with regard to collection, whether this be composed of a tangible or intangible heritage. In it, humanity is seen in all its diversity, resolutely anchored in the contemporary. As summed up by Noémie Drouguet, “the museum of civilisation corresponds more to a new museal paradigm, both as a system of knowledge and a framework of thought, theorised or used by a community of researchers in the human sciences, museologists and museum personnel at a given moment. By definition, this paradigm and the values it expresses are evolving, perpetually changing and being redefined, just as are social demand and museal institutions”. This is a mutation that promises more important evolutions in the area of museology.