This week’s reading of, Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by Antoinette Burton is a collection of essays about archives and archival research itself across the world. Many of these essays gave a sort of “behind the scenes” look at the research process that these historians undertook, but what was really illuminating was the overarching fact that the country’s national story as perceived, or should I say dictated by the current government is what the archives base their collection on. Durba Ghosh’s essay on her research in India and Great Britain’s archives was very interesting to read in regards to her treatment by not only those working for the archives, but also what she calls the “hangers-on,” who, in their respective countries, either were disdainful of her topic or enthusiastic to help. These essays force the reader to see that an archive is not merely a repository of historical documentation, and also that the documents are held and made available at their own discretion depending on their content and whether or not it agrees with the country’s view of their own history.
Jeff Sahadeo’s essay on his work in the archive at Uzbekistan gave a very real and human look at what the reality of research can include in such countries. Sahadeo’s essay covered everything from gaining access to the archive as a Westerner, to the helpfulness of the employees and the pitiful conditions of the locals. Overall, this collection of essays illustrates the politics of archives and adversely how archives are affected by politics. These essays are very enlightening and break the idea that an archive is just a repository of information at the researcher’s disposal. It would have been nice to have had a few essays from an archivist or another employee of an archive just to get another perspective, other than the researchers. It’s also noteworthy that practically (and maybe it was every single one but I’m not positive)every essay quoted Michel Foucault in some regard to their discussions about the history and theory of archives, which I found slightly amusing (that they all did it) but those sections of the essays were the most tedious to get through. The personal experiences of these historians were very interesting to read and see the similarities in their experiences although they were in different countries and researching different topics.
One final note, I have to mention how Craig Robertson’s article about the history of the passport almost felt like he was whining the whole time about not getting access to the documents still housed in the State Department by James Schwartz. While his experience is a lesson in the reality of not always being able to get access to what you really want/need to complete your research; some of Robertson’s essay felt childish, almost as if his rant (and some parts felt like a rant) about Schwartz’s archive and unpublished manuscript that he couldn’t access was his “payback” to Mr. Schwartz in the event he should read this essay. Maybe it’s me, but parts of his story felt petty and whiney, but overall a valuable lesson in authority and access to documents.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
3 comments:
I was surprised by the extent which the experiences at the archives seemed to influence research. One always want to see an institution as neutral and benevolent, unfortunately this is not true. But the power of the archive is such that if you don’t conform to their rules or standards there is little to be done. I have to agree Robertson was on the whiney side but it is a little understandable. The aggravation with beauacracy is that you are often not given a reason. Robertson was told no, but not why. He was unable to complete his research for no reason what so ever, except for the personal vindictiveness of Mr Schwartz, Schwartz’s laziness, the incredible secrets contained therein…? I feel it is understandable and unfortunate. But such is the nature of archives, they are not neutral, politically or even personally.
I too felt that the Uzbek archive story showed a human and real side to the archives. I think to see a country have to change so drastically that the archives are a great place to look to see the real cost and effect of the process. The archives are supposed to be a place that hold the documents and items relating to the story of the state, but what happens when the state doesn't know it's truth and it's so easily moldable by regimes?
What was different about me is that I was not surprised to the extent which the experiences at the archives influenced research. I do agree that people do want to see institutions as neutral and benevolent, but they know this is not the case which is why they look to other means. I believe that archives set their own rules and standards and that those rules and standards are different for every person. I have to agree with Brent that Robertson was a bit “whiney” but look what all had to be done to gain access to the archive so I can see why Roberson felt that way. While I see that people can become aggravated with archivists in not allowing them into archives and often times not given a reason for not being allowed in I do not feel they are entitled to be given a reason. Robertson was told no, but unlike others I do not feel Roberson so be given a reason for that no. Having access to an archive is privilege not a right. The nature of archives; they are not neutral, politically or even personally.
If people do not have the right credentials or experience in archiving or historical do we really what them to have access to the archives. What right do they have in archives? Robertson I do believe was treated unfairly but I also do not feel the archivist did anything wrong by not allowing him to have access. I have said it before archives are used by historians for research. The artifacts and other primary sources are often one of a kind and need our upmost protection. Primary Sources are used by historians to help legitimize their research. Finally Brent is right “archives are not neutral” nor should they be in my opinion. I do not believe everyone who walks through the door has a right to gain access to archives. The archives do have their own needs and motivations and those needs and motivations are to protect the artifacts and other primary sources to the best of their ability. It is in this protection that affects researchers experiences with achieves. I believe once a person becomes known with the historical for doing historical research or shows he/she is trust worthy is when the access opens up. It is my opinion that access to archives lies in trust.
Post a Comment