出版社：Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense
摘要：This paper analyzes the accepted definitions for the scientific subject of museology conceived by ICOFOM theorists who first questioned the ‘museum’ as an accepted paradigm. It intends to point out some of the inconsistencies in the philosophical stranskyan museology in order to reformulate the notion of its subject of study. This debate will require a revision in such a philosophical perspective through the sociological viewpoint in the light of the actor-network theory proposed by Bruno Latour. Finally, the paper sustains that the man-reality relation forged in the West as a hegemonic museum performance should not define museology’s subject of study. On the contrary, it should consider all kinds of possible associations between the different roles that are performed, evolving from a corpus of reflections on the museum to a reflexive museological discipline.
其他摘要：This paper analyzes the accepted definitions for the scientific subject of museology conceived by ICOFOM theorists who first questioned the ‘museum’ as an accepted paradigm. It intends to point out some of the inconsistencies in the philosophical stranskyan museology in order to reformulate the notion of its subject of study. This debate will require a revision in such a philosophical perspective through the sociological viewpoint in the light of the actor-network theory proposed by Bruno Latour. Finally, the paper sustains that the man-reality relation forged in the West as a hegemonic museum performance should not define museology’s subject of study. On the contrary, it should consider all kinds of possible associations between the different roles that are performed, evolving from a corpus of reflections on the museum to a reflexive museological discipline.
