The emergence of critical heritage studies at the start of the 21st century challenged the long-standing perception of museums as neutral repositories.
Yet there is an irony here. As critical heritage studies became institutionalized, many museums began to incorporate its language—hiring “decolonization officers,” running “community engagement” programs, and hosting dialogues about restitution.
In Ahmad Mohammed’s view, perhaps the most transformative development in the literature has been the rise of Indigenous praxis in museum theory and practice.
Rather than adding community “voices” to existing frameworks, Indigenous scholars and practitioners call for a fundamental re-centering of authority.
Heritage, in this perspective, is not merely an object of stewardship but a living relationship between people, land, ancestors, and future generations.
Three principles stand out:
- Community control over cultural heritage, rejecting museums’ claims to neutrality.
- Recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems as valid epistemologies, not as supplements to Western frameworks.
- Relationality, where cultural objects are understood as active participants in networks of meaning and responsibility.
