McKemmish / Piggott / Reed Archives

Recordkeeping in Society
1. Auflage 2005
ISBN: 978-1-78063-416-6
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 368 Seiten

Reihe: Topics in Australasian Library and Information Studies

Archives: Recordkeeping in Society introduces the significance of archives and the results of local and international research in archival science. It explores the role of recordkeeping in various cultural, organisational and historical contexts. Its themes include archives as a web of recorded information: new information technologies have presented dilemmas, but also potentialities for managing of the interconnectedness of archives. Another theme is the relationship between evidence and memory in archives and in archival discourse. It also explores recordkeeping and accountability, memory, societal power and juridical power, along with an examination of issues raised by globalisation and interntionalisation.The chapter authors are researchers, practitioners and educators from leading Australian and international recordkeeping organisations, each contributing previously unpublished research in and reflections on their field of expertise. They include Adrian Cunningham, Don Schauder, Hans Hofman, Chris Hurley, Livia Iacovino, Eric Ketelaar and Ann Pederson.The book reflects broad Australian and international perspectives making it relevant worldwide. It will be a particularly valuable resource for students of archives and records, researchers from realted knowledge disciplines, sociology and history, practitioners wanting to reflect further on their work, and all those with an interest in archives and their role in shaping human activity and community culture.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Mckemmish, Sue

Piggott, Michael

Reed, Barbara

Upward, Frank

Leseproben

Chapter 2 Archival institutions
Adrian Cunningham Nothing is less reliable, nothing is less clear today than the word ‘archive’.1 There is no political power without control of the archive, if not of memory. Effective democratization can always be measured by this essential criterion: the participation in and the access to the archive, its constitution and its interpretation2 Far from standing as enduring monuments to the past, archives instead appear somewhat fragile, eternally subject to the judgement of the society in which they exist. Neither atemporal nor absolute, the meaning they convey may be manipulated, misinterpreted or suppressed. … the archives of the past are also the mutable creations of the present.3 One of the features that has characterized all human societies since time immemorial has been an instinct for collective cultural self-preservation. While culture is contestable and ever-evolving, human beings nevertheless like their cultures and cultural achievements and experiences to endure across generations. This cultural persistence is made possible through the preservation of stories, both orally and in writing and through dance, rituals, art, music and performance. The keeping of many of these valuable cultural 'records' is fostered and institutionalized in an ‘archive(s)’ The forms, functions and mandates of archival programs and institutions have varied and continue to vary enormously depending on the nature of the society in which they exist and the objectives of those who own or have control of the archives. This chapter provides an overview and comparative analysis of the varied manifestations and roles of archival institutions throughout the ages, across the world and, in particular, within Australia. One of the aims of the chapter is to illustrate by example just what mutable creations archival institutions really are and to argue for the recognition of this seemingly obvious fact in the face of any tendency that other authors may have to argue in favour of universal laws and immutable truths about the nature of the archival institution. While common themes, objectives and issues can be identified through such a comparativeanalysis, the main argument of this chapter is that there is no universal law governing the form and mission of archival institutions. All archival institutions fulfil their mission by, as a minimum, controlling and preserving the records that constitute the archive, but the nature of the mission served can and does vary from case to case. The ever-shifting, always-contested form and mission of the archive reflects the dynamic nature of human experience, aspiration and activity in all its infinitely rich variety. The secondary aim of this chapter is to illustrate not only that all archival programs and institutions are the contingent products of their time and place, but also that they are active shapers of their time and place. In the words of Verne Harris, archives ‘at once express and are instruments of prevailing relations of power’.4 Indeed, as we shall see, it is the nature of the prevailing power relations and the particular roles archives play as contested sites of power struggle that determine the forms and functions of archival programs - forms and functions that can and do change as the dynamics of societal power relations evolve and/or transform around them. Archives and human impulses: The institutionalization and pluralization of the record
Records are made as a means of conducting and/or remembering activity. They are created for pragmatic or symbolic purposes - as enablers and evidence of experience and activity, as aids to memory and/or as artefacts. Some of these records are consciously retained for future reference as archives in order to transmit the activity and experience through time. As authors such as James O’Toole and Sue McKemmish have argued, human beings throughout the ages have demonstrated impulses to save and to bear witness.5 Human beings are the sum of their memories. The nature of their interaction with other humans, indeed their very identity, is determined by their memories, While all memory is cognitive, literate individuals learn to rely at least to some extent on the written word to document, express and supplement cognitive processes. In turn, these cognitive processes give meaning to the archives for, as Jacques Derrida says, the archive does not speak for itself -users inscribe their own interpretations into it.6 When these impulses move beyond the purely personal and take on a broader collective or societal purpose the archives so retained take on a more formal character. One manifestation of this phenomenon is that the records can become part of an archival program or institution. This institutionalization of the record, which Derrida callsdomiciliation or ‘house arrest’, marks the passage of information from the private to a collective domain,7 There are a wide variety of reasons why records may be institutionalized in this way: • Organizations need to retain their archives in order to meet their legal obligations, to protect and advance their rights and entitlements, and to retain corporate memory of the decisions and activities of the collective over time to support future decision-making and organizational continuity; • Communities, including entire nations, retain archives as a means of remembering and connecting with their pasts, their origins. There are many complex and subtle variations driving this kind of institutionalization of memory. Derrida labels the desire to possess the past as ‘archive fever’. Somewhat less cynically, Eric ICetelaar describes archives in this sense as ‘time machines’ – ‘a bridge to yesteryear’.8 Others describe the need to capture and retain ancestral voices or to listen to the whispers of the souls of long ago.9 In serving this role archival institutions have much in common with other cultural and memory institutions such as museums; • Similarly, communities and nations often establish archives to inform, enlighten, educate and sometimes to entertain. Related to this is the collective need to support and control storytelling about the pasts and origins of the community. Often archives are retained as a means of expressing, asserting and preserving a unifying group consensus on the nature of its identity, as forged through a shared history - or alternatively to support competing articulations of group identity and plurality; • Organizations and communities retain archives for their symbolic significance. Objects stored in the archives can themselves be invested with and convey enormous symbolic significance.10 The creation of a national archives can be symbolically significant as a form of solidification and memorialization in the context of nation building.11 The heavy symbolism of the archives and its contents can in turn cause the archives to be a site of mythmaking and myth perpetuation.12 Powerful rulers or administrators often establish archives as symbolic monuments to their own power and as a means of controlling and directing mythmaking activities concerning their achievements;13 • Powerful rulers create archives not only as symbolic monuments to their greatness, but also to legitimize, reinforce and perpetuate their power. The deeds, treaties and founding documents in such an archive can legitimize power in a legalistic and evidential sense, while the information on individual subjects and their relationships and activities in such an archive can provide the information such rulers need to control their dominions and perpetuate their power. Moreover, because archives exercise control over selective memory, they are a source of power that is of enormous utility to autocratic rulers. When endeavouring to control the past, deciding what should be forgotten is just as important as deciding what should be remembered. As Antoinette Burton says, ‘the history of the archive is a history of loss’;14 and • Conversely, in democratic societies archives are meant to provide a means of democratic accountability as a means of empowering citizens against potential maladministration, corruption and autocracy. In addition to, or perhaps instead of, protecting the rights and entitlements of rulers and governments, such archives are meant to protect the rights and entitlements of the governed. In the words of John Fleckner, such archives are bastions of a just society where ‘individual rights are not time bound and past injustices are reversible’, where ‘the archival record serves all citizens as a check against a tyrannical government’.15 As will be seen, these reasons for the existence of archival institutions are not mutually exclusive. Most such institutions exist for a combination of these reasons. Indeed, many archival institutions struggle either consciously or subconsciously with the ambiguities, complementarities and contradictions associated with serving these multiple purposes, whether the purposes are served explicitly or implicitly. The ongoing crisis of identity of government archives in democratic countries is...