​​From Inspirational Women to Victimised Women

When Tower Hamlets Council, London, authorised plans in October 2014 to convert a shop into a private local history museum, it probably didn't envisage the controversy it would ultimately cause. Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe, (ironically) the former head of diversity and inclusion for Google, submitted plans to the Council to open a museum that would, "recognise and celebrate the wom​​en of the East End who have shaped history, telling the story of how they have been instrumental in changing society. It will analyse the social, political and domestic experience from the Victorian to the present day." [1] Referred to as the 'Museum of Women's History', approved plans for the museum conversion were illustrated with images of local female campaigners and achievers over time. [2]

The above image refers to the Match Girls' Strike in 1888 about working conditions and health issues at the Bryant and May match factory, which is situated in the Tower Ha​​​mlets Borough. This would have been an ideal local campaign to represent at the East End women's history museum. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, the first Englishwoman to qualify as a physician and surgeon in Britain, would have been appropriate to represent in the  women's history museum as she was born in Whitechapel, just North of where the museum is situated on Cable Street.

As would Hannah Billig, a doctor, who had a clinic on Cable Street, awarded the George Medal for bravery due to her efforts to help injured Londoners during WWII bomb attacks, despite her own injuries, and later a recipient of an MBE for her work with injured soldiers in India.) But as the museum's opening date grew closer and its façade was unveiled in July 2015, it was no longer a museum dedicated to celebrating the achievements of E​ast End women but one dedicated to the Victorian killer of East End women, Jack the Ripper. [3] 

The press and social media went wild. Some locals were upset about the museum's macabre focus and content. Some critics were uneasy about the discrepancy between the initial plans and materialised museum. [4] The architects who designed it felt deceived as they were under the illusion that it was a women's history museum. [5] How did a museum about inspirational local women through time become something exploiting, commercialising and sensationalising the horrific murder of local Victorian women?  How does the focus of a museum, its core message and manifesto, change so dramatically?  
​
In an interview with the Evening Standard, museum founder Palmer-Edgecumbe explained why:  

"We did plan to do a museum about social history of women but as the project developed we decided a more interesting angle was from the perspective of the victims of Jack the Ripper. . . It is absolutely not celebrating the crime of Jack the Ripper but looking at why and how the women got in that situation in the first place." [6] 

A message by Palmer-Edgecumbe on the Museum website (since removed) said that "The Jack the Ripper Museum in no way glorifies or glamorises Jack the Ripper, quite the opposite, it presents the women of the East End's story for the first time. Its aim is to educate people about 'the social history of the East End of London in the 1880s", referencing the poverty, disease and crime of the Victorian East End and the immigrant groups who moved there. [7] In a recent interview, a museum spokesperson said that while other attractions "exploit[ed] these women's stories, often unregulated and with an uncomfortable focus on the horror story rather than women's stories', the Jack the Ripper Museum will examine and focus on 'the impact on women in this period." [8] 

However, despite this suggestion that the museum uses the Ripper murders as a lens to explore wider Victorian social and gender issues, the museum floor plans suggest otherwise. The museum's rooms are reconstructions of key locations to the Ripper murders and investigations, such as a mortuary, murder scene and police station, with Ripper-related artefacts displayed. The room descriptions refer entirely to the Ripper murders, omitting any wider social history or Victorian social issues. [9] 

When the museum was due open to the public (on 7 August), crowds of protestors gathered outside, preventing it from opening. Some were dressed in suffragette colours, some holding signs condemning the glorification of violence against women and some demanding the women's history museum they were promised. [10] A small group of individuals later smashed its windows. [11] The museum has been opened but with a security presence. [12] While Tower Hamlets Council claim that they cannot alter the museum's focus and content, they are investigating whether Council were "misled" and are looking into claims that the museum is not operating within the agreed conditions (regarding opening times and signage) and has carried out 'unauthorised works.' [13] 

I asked a fellow PhD student, Joanna Kemplay Adhikari, who is researching domestic violence, for her opinion about the Museum. She said: 

"Violence towards women and girls is still prevalent in our society and is an issue being dealt with continuously; as an example, in terms of domestic abuse, right now there are at least 100,000 victims at high risk of murder or serious injury, with 94% of them being women (Safelives, 2015). A common feature of domestic abuse is for the victim and other family members to minimise and normalise what is happening, this allows the abuse to continue unreported; societal values of normalising violence against women also play a large role in this. It is my opinion that the 'Jack the Ripper' museum serves only to glamourise the brutal crimes that were committed against the five victims. This threatens to perpetuate society's acceptance of violence against women; hindering the progress being made by women's groups, and contributing to the high rates of under-reporting."

My Doctoral Research: Representations of Victorian Women in Museums