Introduction

During the 19^th century, museums became an essential instrument in nation-state building discourse, representing the ideal place for displaying objects and collection that symbolically represented the common past, shared by the members of the Nation.  Nevertheless, in recent years, the role of national museums has undergone a critical review. In fact, together with the de-construction of nation-state discourse, we are assisting to an increasing debate on the representation of subgroups? identities in museums.[1]  Before proceeding to our analysis, it could be useful to spend some more words on concepts like ethnic groups, minorities and heritage in order to explain how this last concept it is often seen as symbolic, political and economical resource for and by groups.

During the 1980s and 1990s, studies in political and social sciences reserved a wide attention to the issue of ethnic identity and nationalism (Eriksen, 1993). In particular, scholars? attention focused on the nature of ethnic groups, differentiating them from similar concepts as ?minorities.? While some authors believed that identity is essentially based on ?primordial? emotions,[2] other scholars interpreted groups? identity as an ?instrumental factor,? which helps groups in gaining access at resources (Cohen, 1994: 144-145).  However, it is commonly agreed that ethnic groups can be generally defined, according to subjective criteria, such as cultural and linguistic traits.  Moreover, the identity of the ethnic group is generally founded on the belief of a common descent. This belief creates among the group members an exclusive link, tracing the borders between who is inside the group and who is outside it (Epstein, 1993; Melucci e Diani, 1992). Common traditions became a shared symbolic patrimony, which increase the solidarity and cohesion among groups? members. Moreover, the appeal to a common history, not always real but also ?re-created,? could foster a  sense of stability and continuity (D?Andrea, 2000).

Although similar they could appear, the concept of ethnic group doesn?t coincide with that of minority. Defining the status of minorities is a difficult task, which many social scientists, lawyers and politicians have devoted their attention to.  It could be helpful look to the definition of minority given by Luis Wirth (1945), the first scholar, in the field of social science, who provided such a definition.  Wirth recognized three elements that are still valid for claiming the status of minority: 1) limited access to political power and economic resources; 2) numeric inferiority ? which determines an unequal redistribution of power in society;[3] 3) recognized inequality between majority and minority(Wirth, 1945, in Diani, 1993: 709).  Thus, basically, what distinguishes minorities from ethnic group, is the position of disadvantage and discrimination that minority groups have in society.  The status of inequality is based both on the subjective perception of the group themselves and the ?external? view that other groups may have. The self-definition allows minority groups to legitimate their existence on the basis of common traits, which also shape the collective memory. As in the case of shared tradition, collective memory does not need to be real, but it could be based on a ?recreation of the past? (Eriksen, 1993; Diani, 1993; Fabietti, 1999).

At the same time, the perception of other groups could be determinant for the definition of a group?s identity.  In particular, there are two cases that negatively affect the production of minority groups? identities: the refusal and the misrepresentation given by a dominant group. While the refusal can provoke the social invisibility of the minority group, undermining its internal cohesion, the misrepresentation of a minority group?s identity can generate discrimination, stereotypes and prejudices.  Stigmatized groups can react in several ways, hiding their identity in official situation or, on the contrary, emphasizing their differences.  It is important to remember that, in any case, identity is not a static concept, but on the contrary, it is something fluid, modifiable with changed political, social and economical conditions.

[1]The critical review of museum?s nature, initially, touched those museums created in colonial countries, but it could be also adopted for museums dedicated to religious and ethnic minorities.

[2]Regarding the ?subjective? dimension of the ethnic groups? identity, see Barth (1994).

[3]Actually, the numeric inferior does not always imply the status of minority, as we could remember by just mentioning the example of numerically inferior, but politically powerful, white communities in Africa.