Search

In the context of increasing attention on museum sustainability, this research adopts a dictionary‐based, content‐analysis approach to measure the degree of sustainability disclosed in European museum annual reports and similar documents. The analysis is carried out through the lens of institutional theory, assuming that the presence of formal and informal regulations positively affects the level of sustainability in annual reporting practices. Furthermore, the paper discusses the level of sustainability disclosed by different types of museums and the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the extent of sustainability‐oriented reporting. The article compares top public museums in the UK and France, the European countries where accountability practices are most deeply rooted for legal and cultural reasons, and where the most visited museums in the world are located. The findings show that the type of museum and the country significantly affect the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) score, whereas mentioning COVID‐19 or the year of publication does not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, several countries declared “states of exception,” that is, authorized legal devices that, in the face of circumstances deemed catastrophic, permit the implementation of extraordinary measures and the temporary suspension of some rights in order to restore the previous state of affairs as soon as possible. This paper offers a comparative textual analysis of the different states of exception declared in the USA, France, and Spain. I argue that these texts constitute a privileged site to explore how prevalent global political logics and mainstream discourses on illness are interwoven. Regarding the global political logics in play, I hold that these declarations constitute an instantiation of democracy’s autoimmune character; it attacks itself in order to protect itself. Regarding mainstream discourses on illness, I explore how illness is regarded as a threat to one’s self (by something seemingly other) and the notion that therapy must consist of securing the self’s triumph over anything seemingly other. This twofold analysis reveals that an aporetic dialectic between self and other—as regards politics and illness—operates in these declarations, most likely because it is, in fact, one and the same dialectic, upon which Western epistemology rests. Furthermore, I suggest that these texts reflect and promote these dominant logics, contributing to shape human relationships around the globe in a certain dangerous way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]