Griffith

The notion that the natural history museum was born out of the necessity to further anthropology as a discipline in academia is something I find fascinating. Throughout Griffith's article, we see how museums and department stores questioned what is constituted as public space, while also reconciling the two separate realms of art and science. Thew new spectator, the middle-class museum goer, established new ways of seeing. The natural history museum served the purpose of refinement, and sought to teach the citizenry social etiquette and behaviors that were considered acceptable by the bourgeoisie. In reality, however, the lower and working classes could never really afford the time to pensively wander the halls of museums.  And even if they could, that "refinement" could be taught through museum displays is a naive and ethnocentric statement. The museum itself exists as an ethnocentric and nationalistic institution, functioning to promote the ideologies of the nation in which it exists. The reflects upon anthropology as a discipline, and where its groundwork rests in 20th century America.