Did you know the Schwules Museum in Berlin? The Museum stands as the most important international center for researching, preserving, and presenting the culture and history of queer individuals, sexual and gender diversity, and is a sought-after collaborative partner for museums, universities, cultural support institutions, artists, and activists from around the world.
The Museum is an inspiring practices of GLAMs operating as commons and exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources.
Read more about this case #3:
The Schwules Museum in Berlin by Ares Kalandides, Bastian Lange and Georgios Thodos
The Schwules Museum is worldwide unique because it combines political expression, scientific archival work, exhibitions, and workshops within an association structure.
It focuses on LGBTQ+ history and culture and remains adaptable to changing demands while maintaining a strong volunteer presence.
The sponsor of the Museum is the non-profit Association of Friends of the Schwules Museum in Berlin, founded in 1985. In addition to institutional funding by the State of Berlin, entrees fees, membership fees and donations form an indispensable source of income.
The association is run by a board of executives that are volunteers and that are elected for 2 years by the members of the association. The board is in charge for the financial stability, employees, and the thematic principles of the association. Approximately 60 volunteers secure many daily activities.
The core values are a distinct search for a secure space to express needs of each sexual identity, protection from political oppression, anti-LGTBQ+-expression as well as fascism, racism, and practices of socio-spatial exclusion. The museum’s staff, its volunteers and members transfer and express these values not only within the institution (e.g. in meetings, exhibitions, gatherings) but also in public venues such as at parades, political, academic, and cultural venues.
The Schwules Museum hosts a range of collaborations in different thematic fields and on different scales.
Starting from worldwide academic and research-oriented collaboration to joint political activities in Berlin as well as educational offers for local to international students, guests, and tourists.
Do you have a similar community engagement?
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
We want to learn from your experiences. Feel free to leave your comment.
This week, we invite you to discover another inspiring practice of GLAMs operating as commons. This case exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources. It shares a commitment to creating and sustaining accessible spaces for knowledge-sharing and cultural enrichment, often adapting to evolving circumstances and community needs.
We want to learn from your experiences.
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
Case #2: The Contemporary Social History Archives (ASKI) in Athens by Mina Dragouni and Dimitris Pettas
The Contemporary Social History Archives (Αρχεία Σύγχρονης Κοινωνικής Ιστορίας – henceforth, ASKI) was established in 1992 as a civic non-profit organisation based in Athens, to preserve the history and memory of the Greek leftist political and social movements. It brings together a community of experts, who share an interest in the genealogy and biography of the Greek New Left.
The ASKI community (around 70 members) consists of historians and other scholars across the humanities and social sciences, a small team of paid staff (around 10) and an affiliated group of ‘friends’ (around 250).
ASKI holds a rich collection of archives (about 5 million files), which are open to the public. These include, among others, the records of political parties of the Greek Left, official reports documenting significant ‘chapters’ of recent national history (e.g. Resistance to Axis Occupation during WWII, Civil War 1946-49), personal archives and a collection that chronicles social movements, grassroots organisations and ethnic minorities in Greece in the post-WWII era (through oral testaments, photographs etc.). Around these archival collections, ASKI designs and delivers a rich programme of activities for the general public and audiences, including publications (books, periodicals), radio shows, historic walking tours, conferences and public talks.
ASKI provides free access to its archives and library. No attendance charges apply to its public engagement activities (e.g. walking tours) and other public events, with the exception of ASKI’s periodical sold at a small fee.
ASKI receives no direct state funding (e.g. through the Ministry of Culture) while a considerable amount of its operation costs (i.e. staff salaries and buildings’ maintenance) is covered through funds channelled by SYRIZA opposition political party.
ASKI cherishes openness and citizens’ access to history as a public good. Its work promotes historical awareness and the collective memories of marginalised social, political and ethnic groups (in a way, contributing to social justice and diversity). ASKI is also tied to the New Left and its values/beliefs.
We invite you to discover inspiring practices of GLAMs operating as commons. Each case exemplifies the significance of community engagement, volunteerism, and the preservation of cultural and historical resources. They share a commitment to creating and sustaining accessible spaces for knowledge-sharing and cultural enrichment, often adapting to evolving circumstances and community needs.
We want to learn from your experiences.
Overcoming financial constraints, addressing community engagement issues, or finding innovative ways to ensure sustainability, what are your success stories? How these obstacles can be surmounted? We invite you to share valuable insights and best practices, and to offer practical guidance for those looking to embark on similar initiatives.
Case #1: The Oral History Groups in Greece by Mina Dragouni and Dimitris Pettas
The Oral History Group (OHG) constitutes a unique case of bottom-up, self-organised initiatives’ network around the creation and dissemination of oral history archives.
The first Oral History Group was created in 2011, followed by five more in 2013 and 2014, in the midst of the multileveled crisis in Greece, aspiring to provide self-organised, grassroots groups of non-professional historians, yet highly educated, with essential methods, skills and tools in order to collect oral testimonies, mainly from everyday people, and create relevant archives. The Oral History Group network positions itself in the landscape of the large-scale mobilisations that emerged in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, as expressed nationally – through the “squares’ movement”, as well as internationally, through the “Occupy” and the “Arab spring” movements. While the first groups developed in central Athens, during the following years, relevant groups also operated in smaller cities and islands around Greece. The OHG network is now (2023) comprising approximately 19 distinct groups, three of which developed around specific themes (e.g., the feminist OHG), while the remaining 16 have a specific geographical focus, extending from neighbourhoods to cities and islands.
The OHGs unique attributes which are contributing to their commons-oriented character lie in :
-their overall horizontal governance and management concerning each distinct group, as well as the “umbrella”, coordinating body, which operate and take decisions through assemblies that take place every three months,
-the inclusive and horizontal content creation, as the groups collectively decide on the content of the archives and design/ implement the data-collection process,
-the ties and relations of mutual support between OHGs’ members with actors and networks, extending from social movements and residents’ associations to local authorities and academic institutions,
-the clearly stated claim on behalf of the OHGs to operate as progressive political actors and
-their cooperative and open organisational structure.
The total of the OHGs, as well as the coordinating body are informal, meaning that they do not have a legal status/ form and ownership. Alongside that, there is no official membership status for participants. Nevertheless, OHGs are created, operate and design/ implement their activities under specific rules which are collectively decided upon. Moreover, there is a common methodology employed concerning the collection of oral testimonies, as well as the creation and maintenance of historical archives. As for the structure, there is no fixed organisation chart that includes sub-groups or a specific allocation of roles and duties. On the contrary, all members participate in the total of necessary tasks, varying on the time each one can devote to the group.
OHGs have limited operational expenses, which mainly concern the necessary equipment for creating and maintaining the archives (recorders, hard drives etc.). Members burden with these expenses themselves, while the volunteer engagement and provision of labour on behalf of the members significantly contributes to the financial sustainability of the groups. Moreover, they also rely on external actors, mostly for the provision of spaces and venues for the organisation of events. This mode of financing plays a key role in providing the groups with independence and autonomy but, on the downside, the lack of legal status prevents OHGs from applying for external funding through the acquisition of grants, participation in research projects, public funding etc.
The OHGs are motivated by and have clearly stated political and societal values, including the development of alternative narratives about history which could be employed in attempts to confront ongoing social, political and economic challenges, the juxtaposing of collective memory to the “faceless markets and oblivion”, the promoting of alternative modes of bottom-up (self)organisation and collectivity, the co-production of archives building upon cooperative principles. As we find in their website: “oral testimonies have a particular weight in a society in which painful memories are “hidden from history”, such as the Greek civil war trauma. People’s suffering because of the crisis has incited demands for a truth that is more “truthful” than history, the truth of personal experience and individual memory. And, last but not least, there is a remarkable analogy with the “acceleration” and the “democratization” of history. That’s why, in this time of crisis, oral history has become a “people’s project””.
OHGs build upon extended networks towards both gaining support and disseminating their operational model and archives. These networks include educational institutions (from primary schools and high schools to university departments), libraries and archives, social movements, professional and residents’ associations, local authorities etc. Concerning the aforementioned actors, collaboration can undertake various forms, from the provision of spaces and venues to presentations, walk tours and seminars.
Due to the informal character of the OHGs and the lack of a legal status that would enable their ‘official’ involvement in institutional actors’ processes, collaboration is also informal, often building upon the extent of the interpersonal and professional networks of the members.
In the ever-evolving cultural landscape, the way we perceive and engage with memory institutions is undergoing a profound transformation. Our recently published scholarly work, titled “Rethinking GLAMs as commons: a conceptual framework”, introduces a fresh perceptive on Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAMs), framing them as potential commons – shared spaces produced and managed by their communities[1].
GLAMs and their professionals have traditionally been viewed as the main custodians of knowledge and our common heritage. However, demands for greater democratization and participation in the sector today challenge this conventional understanding. Professionals need to examine further their roles as facilitators of community-driven narratives, encouraging inclusivity, and fostering a sense of shared ownership among the public. At the same time, more and more local commons-oriented initiatives are popping up in urban as well as in rural and peripheral areas in the EU, like neighbourhood libraries, oral history groups and archives, local community museums, etc.
Drawing inspiration from the “new commons”, we argue that GLAMs can be reconceptualized as commons-like institutions; spaces that can be collectively owned, managed, and sustained by their communities. This shift in perspective emphasises the participatory role of the public and its importance in shaping the purpose of memory institutions and safeguarding their sustainability in the current socio-economic landscape.
Figure 1: The different layers of GLAMs as commons, as conceptualised in Avdikos et al.
How do we conceptualise GLAMs as commons? Or where do we find commoning practices in GLAMs?
Figure 1 outlines three levels where commoning practices are performed. Commons-oriented GLAMs usually have a horizontal decision-making process that entails assemblies of the community, while the community owns the archive, library or the museum. The legal forms usually implemented in such organisations are associations, cooperatives, charities, etc. The next level is the one where most of the challenges in GLAMs’ operations are found. And this is the level of securing the autonomy of the organisation against dependencies from market forces (private donors/patrons) or the state. Commons-oriented GLAMs need to find the right balance to secure the resources that are needed for the organisation to keep performing, while maintaining relations with the market and the state. Many commons-oriented GLAMs attempt to secure their autonomy by relying on volunteering labour from their community, while others attempt to secure resources also through networks with other commons initiatives (e.g. urban commons, digital commons). The third level is the level of openness and accessibility of the organisation, where we find co-creation processes and an augmented possibility for the audiences to actively participate in shaping the outputs, through co-exhibitions, etc., that is, for the audiences to transform from audiences to participants.
Are all the above levels to be found in most of GLAMs? Probably not; there are not that many organisations that operate as commons-GLAMs per se, but there are a lot of GLAMs which have internalized and currently use commoning practices from all these three levels. A key difference is the ‘location’ of these commoning practices and whether these give an advanced role to the community to decide upon the matters that are most crucial for the organisation. Usually, smaller and community-oriented GLAMs may have greater flexibility in adopting commons-like governance, whereas bigger organisations (e.g. public sector institutions, or private entities) usually engage with co-creation commoning practices through digitalisation processes and citizen/community participation. One implication of mapping commons practices and their ‘entry points’ is providing GLAMs’ professionals with resources which could aid in promoting the proliferation and expansion of commoning practices within cultural organisations.
Overall, our conceptual framework challenges us to reimagine GLAMs as dynamic, participatory commons which thrive on community engagement and enable this engagement to become more meaningful participation. This fresh perspective invites heritage and culture professionals to further help unlocking the past in a way that truly belongs to the present and its people.
At the same time, the application of such practices shows us that we need to rethink the ways in which the state and public sector can assist such commons arrangements. The public sector should assist such initiatives through the provision of a supportive institutional and legal framework, which could further enable commoning practices (for instance, through social and solidarity economy legal forms), and funding schemes (or the provision of some basic infrastructure, like cloud storage) that can be effectively used in commons arrangements and can assist these organisations in responding to their main challenges.
[1] Avdikos, Vasilis, Mina Dragouni, Martha Michailidou, and Dimitris Pettas. “Rethinking GLAMs as commons: a conceptual framework.” Open Research Europe 3, no. 157 (2023): 157, https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16473.1
