And some of the responses were surprisingly vehement! One person described it as a "horrible trend" and insisted that museums should not "indulge superstition for profit." Another said that museums who do haunted programming "pander to the least common denominators in that search for the all mighty dollar." Yet another compared it to the History Channel's current (rather confusing) lineup, and said he "fails to see why museums should join the race to the bottom.” Many of them expressed concern that these ghost tours would damage a museums' integrity and their mission to be "beacons of fact."
Many of the people who responded, however, saw ghost tours as ways of reaching out to "non-traditional museum audiences." They also said that ghost tours definitely sell, and many people on the tours come back to visit the museum later. The stories they hear spark their interest in learning about the history behind the legend. Some also suggested that ghost tours are particularly useful for teaching about local history and folklore. One person said that these hauntings and urban legends can help us teach people that "stories are perpetuated and embellished for a reason.” By conducting ghost or cemetery tours, we can provide the visitor with an education about stories and their importance to communities. She also warned that these programs should be well-constructed according to the organization's mission because, “as with most programs, the value depends on the quality of the execution. (Pun intended).”
I tend to agree with these more amiable responses. While I do think you would have to be careful when planning this sort of program to make sure it doesn't trail too far into "baloney" territory (as one guy put it), this could be a great way of reaching a receptive audience. I love the idea of using this medium to teach people about the origins of local legends and stories, why we have them, and why they are important to us.
And it basically sounds like a hoot.
What do you think? Another example of "edutainment?" Maybe ghost stories are fun, but they should leave museums be? Or is it all a load of hokum?
 |
| Found here. Person in a ghost costume in 1905. I am officially creeped out now. |
Sarah, thanks for writing this. I do feel like seasonal themes could be fun but that they also get into dangerous territory.
ReplyDeleteI know from my internship that the Ohio Historical Society does frown on ghost tours; it is seen as sketchy territory. The view is that ghost tours take away from historical accuracy and encourage inaccurate views/depictions of a historic place—that is, the view that a house is haunted rather than historic. In a lot of places, it is seen as a cheap gimmick to attract [paying] visitors by exploiting their beliefs. In some cases, stories are made-up; prior to Haunted Ohio being released, there were no mentions/reports of the Patterson Homestead (for example) being haunted; it was used until the 1950s by the family with no reports. The one of the previous managers started making claims…. Did this boost visitors who wanted to see some spooks? Yes. Is this incident suspect? Absolutely.
Even when the intent is to just have some Halloween fun, some visitors somehow manage to connect made-up ghost stories with events at the site. It's a shame, but some people just let their imaginations run, which can hurt an institution in the long run reputation-wise... Even "off-season" (i.e. not around Halloween) I have dealt people asking about ghosts where I work. For future reference, the appropriate response is along the lines of "smile and nod." If they make claims about what they see or have questions, respond with the most historically accurate (and documented) information possible. Whether they are real or not is not really an issue, respecting people’s beliefs, but the stance generally is that if the concretely documented, claims cannot be legitimately made by a site regarding the supernatural.