Steven C. Dubin’s Displays of Power: Controversy in the American Museum from the Enola Gay to Sensation examines the “culture wars” of the 90’s played out in museums across the country. As the title suggests, Dubin sees the debates as power struggles. Politicians use symbolic battlegrounds and victories in museums to obscure societal ills they are not addressing. Political or cultural groups seem to initiate conflict when their relative power is in question and need to reiterate superiority surfaces. As the focus of the field of historical research broadens so does the vision of the institutions history is most often reflected in: museums. This expanded horizon has allowed new and exciting exhibits that question past ideas and events instead of solely presenting them. This had led to increasing outrage from many groups traditionally idolized in the museum world, unfortunately dialogue has not been viewed as an option.
On the other hand, knowledge of what has caused controversy in the past can help museum directors and curators of the future. This information can help avoidance of controversy. But controversy, as Dubin says, can be a moneymaker. Most of the museums discussed in Displays of Power experienced massive, even record-breaking, crowds during their showings. Throughout the Enola Gay hullabaloo the Air Force Association was determined the presentation be commemorative not introspective. Involvement or advanced preparation would not have been successful, any sort of exhibit along the original lines was unacceptable. So if avoiding controversy is not necessarily the lesson, some important lessons include playing your cards close to your chest, not sharing your exhibit script with large amounts of people, and a willingness to stand your ground. The outrage is almost always from special interest groups claiming to represent a larger majority or politicians “protecting” their constituents. As has been shown again and again those centers willing to hold fast have benefited from large turnout and surprisingly positive reviews of the exhibits themselves, as opposed to reviews of the idea of the exhibit.