The anthology Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by Antoinette Burton, attempts to contextualize the archive not only as a space for primary sources but also as a historical player as well; an actor in the discipline of history that participates in the making of history as much as scholars and those studied. The work is ambitious but overwhelmingly effective. Archive Stories uses Foucault’s analysis of the panopticon to argue that the archive is a place that constructs (and now deconstructs) power. The essays “attempt to denaturalize the presumptive boundaries of official archive space, historicize the production… of archives, and point to contemporary political consequences” of the archive (6).
One of the more interesting chapters on the ephemeral qualities of some archives is Renee Sentilles’ chapter on the use of the World Wide Web as archive. Her analysis is that almost every website is, in its own way, an archive. Simple searches through Google resulted in an ever-changing number of “hits” depending on the day she searched. The author struggled with the lack of accountability on the Internet; she repeatedly found mistruths and myths reported as certainties, without any attempt at noting the sources. This section had a particular effect on the reader. Each week the students in this class blog about their reactions to books; when the class is over, will there continue to be a record of discussions? All one has to do is delete the blog and it is as if the entire thing never happened. While at the beginning of the semester the blog idea seemed to provide a level of permanence, it now resembles a mist in the air- over in mere moments and easily replaced the next day.
As a graduate student in the 21st century, what Sentilles said about the usefulness of the Internet is interesting. She argues that the Web leads to research but cannot be an effective replacement for research in the traditional archive. An analogy of this would be the library online card catalogue: it can be searched but most materials are missed until someone looks in the stacks. In an age where things can be digitized and scanned, does the Internet offer more or less permanence to historical record? It certainly adds to the ever increasing scope of the record but as anyone who has ever experienced spontaneous computer failure knows, everything can be gone in a moment without the slightest chance of being returned. This is all rather cynical. Afterall, the Internet and digital archives in temporary existence are better than never having been, but while an improvement they are not a replacement. Digital archives do not yield the same tangible results or emotions in a person that the material histories do. Sentilles said it best: “virtual archives will never serve as more than a place to begin and end the research journey; never as a place to dwell,” (155).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading your post, I can see the internet being used as a flexible resource for archivists and researchers. While yes it will not replace hard copies of documents, your pointing out of the usefulness of digital archives creates the kind of flexibility.
ReplyDeleteI must agree fully, the actual experience of being at an archive is much different from simply looking in a database. The experience of actually moving about, carefully working with each item, and finding just what you are looking for creates a powerful experience and one that isn't available online. Your final quote sum it up very well, showing it's usefulness, but lack of power compared to the physical location.
It takes me a while to conclude that I agree with your points, Elizabeth. I've researched topics both online and in the National Archives, and found some of what I was after in both cases. For me, the victory of finding hard-copy NARA photographs relevant to my topic was definitely a mixed blessing, because I also knew that no matter how much time I devote to the search, I can only begin to scratch the surface of the information housed there. I simply will never be able to find it to avail myself of it. On the other hand, I've found online sources that inform and support my theses more fully than I could have hoped, but they also come rife with doubts as to their authenticity and accuracy in a way that a physical volume of original, hand-written records doesn't. I also tend to think of the internet as a trail of clues more than an archive, for the very reasons you mention. (I've used the internet to locate 80% of my high school classmates at reunion time, for example, without the benefit of Facebook... but that's a whole other story). Then again, as the readings indicate, physical collections are subject to human theft, reorganization, and tampering in addition to fire and water hazards. Internet servers storing archive collections are subject to all the same dangers, plus external threats from anywhere in the world - viruses, hacking, etc. For this reason I hope physical collections are never deliberately destroyed in favor of online resources.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has really interesting things to say about the nature of scholarship in an online age. I've changed my opinion on this matter after a couple days of reflection. I truly believe that the digitization of sources and their dissemination via the internet will profoundly change the historical profession. But I also think it gives rise to a million other questions: Is a scan equal to the original? How accessible should certain information be, and how is its authenticity regulated? Is it okay to destroy paper journals since they are available in digital format? I originally answered this last question with a yes, but those paper journals are also technically primary documents from a certain time and place. Therefore, while I favor digitizing everything in sight, I also think that the original should be preserved in perpetuity. The interesting thing will be when we quit producing paper sources altogether. It will no doubt allow one to more readily tinker with history. The risks are legitimate. I'm thinking of the scene in Animal Farm when the animals discovered their constitution had been changed to read "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That amendment was written in sloppy red paint, but amending historical documents in a digital age will be much more elegant.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of keeping all of the paper documents and digitizing them as well so that people can look at both if they want to. The more I think about trying to actually describe the difference between a scan and the real McCoy the more elusive the topic seems. I think the only way I can describe it with the David in Florence. I had seen it dozens of times: in commercials, movie scenes, calendars, art history courses, postcards, coffee table books. You name it, one of Michelangelo's greatest works could be gracing its cover. However, when actually going to see the David is a very different experience. Seeing the sculpture in scans- I could study it, examine it, understand its history and current value but seeing it (and not being able to get close or touch it) in its realness is profoundly different. I suppose that's the only experience I've had that helps me to articulate how important and different I feel the real documents are.
ReplyDelete