Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 21 Issue 12

scientific discipline" (Stránský 1980: 43). Moreover, museological science can only exist and develop if it can respond to the concrete needs of today's society. Therefore, the term museology or museum theory refers to a field of specific knowledge and investigation oriented towards the museum phenomenon ( Ibid . 44). However, this idea was not readily accepted by all because some considered that it was not easy to determine the object of a discipline that did not yet have a perfectly consolidated definition, nor would it be possible to succeed in defining a discipline whose object is not sufficiently known (Deloche 2001: 106). However, with time, we must acknowledge that many researchers have applied his philosophical principles to the field of museology and recognize Stránský's creative ability to elaborate a museological discourse based on scientific principles. In any case, we can observe the approach is given to museological thought by Stránský, as a representative of Eastern Europe, and his commitment to the defense of his line of research on the independence of museology from the museum, is of capital importance. Why? Because it opened the doors for his museological investigation to be known in the rest of Europe, having been translated, for the most part, into English and, to a lesser extent, into other languages. However, when talking about Stránský, we must also mention two other museologists from the East who, together with him, worked in the field of museology. All three of them belonged to a group of thinkers from communist bloc countries who showed us the characteristics of a historical moment in which Marxist ideology was still in force. They are Klaus Schreiner, Director of the Agrarhistorisches Museum (Museum of Agraricam History) in Alt Schwerin in the German Democratic Republic, and Anna Gregorová, Research Assistant at the Ústredná správa múzei a galérií (Central Office of Museums and Picture Galleries) in Bratislava (Czechoslovakia). These authors recount their experiences in the museological field, within a very singular spatial- temporal framework. How they tried to answer the question of whether museology was science or just practical museum work. This was the question posed in the first issue of Museological Working Papers to be debated with the other members of ICOFOM (Stránský 1980). When discussing the topic of interdisciplinarity in museology, each author attempted to analyse objectively what criteria could be used to define museology as a scientific discipline and what its object of study is as well as giving their views on the subject. These theoretical discussions in the field of museology led to philosophical reflections, which have given rise to metamuseology and have favored the theorization of museological concepts. If there is one thing we have Stránský to thank for; it is precisely for having offered us the possibility of considering museology as a genuine museological theory. There is no doubt that studying Stránský's museological thinking, analyzing his concepts, and the theory of knowledge applied to museology is an important task if one wishes to go deeper into the development of museological theory. We must bear in mind that he represents a line of thought that has served as a point of reference for other scholars from countries such as France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, and Latin America, who have continued to closely investigate his museological orientations and methodology. II. S tránský's C ontributions through his M ost S ignificant W orks Although his publications on museology are numerous, we will focus on two of his most important publications, which best summarise the whole scientific structure of his museological thinking: Introduction to the Study of Museology (1995) and Archeologie a muzeologie (Museology and Archaeology) (2005). If we analyze the course of museology throughout its history, we discover that there are different ways in which authors have conceived and approached it from an academic point of view. This fact does not impoverish any encounter with the discipline but rather offers us a vision of the vicissitudes it has undergone throughout its formative process. This is what Stránský tries to explain in his Introduction. According to the author (1995: 5), the current state of museology is none other than the result of how specialists have tried to approach the fundamental questions of gnoseology, methodology, terminology, and the system used. However, we must bear in mind that museology can only be understood in close relation to the evolution that other sciences, as well as culture and philosophy, have undergone regarding their vision of humankind and their raison d'être in the world. To forget this would prevent us from situating museological research in its context, where it is called upon to fulfill not only a scientific but also a humanizing mission. In other words, museology is not only there to manage a museum in one way or another but also to give reasons why it is decided that an object is museum-worthy, why we monitor natural changes and disappearances, and why certain components of reality are preserved and not others. The reason for the existence of museology, as a specific discipline, is therefore not to be found in the choice of an exhibit or a particular means of conservation, but in a "specific relationship between man and reality, which manifests itself in the cultural appropriation of the latter" (Ibid.: 6) . It is, therefore necessary to provide an overview of what characterizes museology, underlining the decisive lines that make museology a science. It is, essential to outline the Volume XXI Issue XII Version I 22 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 A © 2021 Global Journals Zbyněk Zbyslav Stránský’s Museological Impact on Spain