In Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, historians gathered together in order to describe their personal interactions with archives and to outline the ways in which archives support and detract the cultures that they exist in. Many of the historians tell tales of the archive supporting national identity and as Burton says, having “dynamic relationships” to their environment as well as the past that constantly change.
After reading this collection, I must say I was surprised at the amount of power illustrated that the archive possesses. The archive is not just a repository for documents of historical importance, but in some instances, it can determine the path that history takes. I saw this in the essay about the archives and the German Nation. During WWII, much of what was kept was seen as a way to protect “Aryan” history and genealogy. Papers that were collected in the official archives were highly slanted towards what Germany felt was its national identity. Therefore documents representing groups such as Jews and Eastern Europeans were ignored. This leads to “the Racial Archive,” as Peter Fritzsche puts it in which whole racial groups are ignored. I had never thought about an archive having this ability before. For me, an archive is a place where historical documents are placed, no matter their subject. Of course having historical significance is a criterion, but that significance should be across the board rather than dealing with merely one racial group’s history.
Another story I found compelling was that of Durba Ghosh’s story of her time researching in Britain and India. She showed that what the archive possesses is not always what the researcher is going to receive. She shows the importance the archivists and staff working there can possess. Working in India, where there is a wealth of information about British colonial rule, Ghosh met with resistance due to the perceived inappropriateness of her topic. The “gatekeepers” of the archive deemed her topic crude and therefore did not allow her access to as many of the documents as she would like. They had much more at stake culturally than the British did who welcomed her thesis with open arms despite the fact they did not contain as much information. I had never before quite realized the impact archivists can have upon researchers. Rather than merely providing the information requested, archivists instead actively engage the researchers and inadvertently shape their topics of research.
While I found many of the essays enlightening and engaging, there were a few that I did not connect with very much. Some, such as Antoinette Burton’s own introduction were heavy handed with historical theory, so much so that I found myself skimming in order to get done with it. Almost all quoted Foucault or Derrida as away to bolster their arguments, but they often lost me in their theoretical approaches to the stories. The most engaging essays for me were those that told a personal connection with the archives or changed my perspective about them. One of the ideas that greatly upset me was during the essay about the condition archivists and researchers must live in, in Uzbekistan. It spoke to my belief that archives should be for the people since the documents within were once owned by the people. Jeff Sahadeo’s essay was told in such a way that I, as hopefully a future archivist, felt connected to those he encountered during his time spent there and felt professional empathy for their struggles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I too really enjoyed Ghosh's story. It may have been the fact that it was so early on and I didn't have reader's fatigue, haha, but in all seriousness I found the discussion of the archivists really interesting. They are the "gatekeepers," and I thought it was really craziness how the archivists' points of view manipulated the information given to researchers. And the case of the British and Indian colonial archives was a perfect example of that. Both with very different views, and both with very different offerings.
Although, I must say, it is kind of frustrating to read some of these stories. I thought archives, and especially research archivists should be objective. That the information stored within the archives should be accessible and available to the public. But I guess that isn't really the case. Unfortunate.
Peter Fritzsche's account on the "racial archive" created by the Nazis truly was an amazing story on how movements and even a certain mindset can influence an archive. While I knew that the Nazi regime had a powerful influence on German society, I did not know it went so far as to changing the archives. It also stunned me that in order to obtain a true history of German society that researchers often have to go to archives outside of Germany. That statement really made me realize how much the Nazis really altered the archives in Germany, and not for the better.
I also have to agree with you on Burton's introduction. Like most history students, I rely on the introduction as a road map to tell me where she is going with her book. I tried to skim her introduction, but I found myself lost when I got to the next paragraph. I felt that it could have been cut down drastically if she took out the wordy summaries of each essay. Unfortunately for Burton, I did not gain as much information or understanding from her introduction as I did from the other essays.
I got that negative vibe too when the writers talked about archivists! It would have been nice to read an account from a researcher who had a positive experience with an archivist. I think that is a sign, Shelby, that we as future archivists need to figure out a balance between the researcher's needs and the regulations placed on archives by higher powers. Future archivists unite!
I completely agree with your opinion that the most engaging stories were the ones that told those personal stories about their experience working in the archives. I too sympathized with the people encountered in Sahadeo's experience in Uzbekistan. I look at these personal experiences and see how they are "lessons learned" by the authors, and that help future researchers such as ourselves from having to possibly contend with those issues blindly. I was somewhat amused by Sahadeo's mention of researchers "need to couch their topics" whether for political reasons or personal ones (56). After reading about that it makes perfect sense, but I wouldn't have thought about that if it hadn't been for this story.
I found it interesting to see how the current ruling government affects the contents and accessible documents in the various archives in several of these stories. Archives being a completely foreign place for me, I always thought they were objective and free from political process so it was enlightening to learn that it isn't the case and needs to be considered when researching a topic.
I too found the WWII story intriguing. It shows the power not only of the archive but also of those in charge, those in the government. It's amazing to think how much history has been lost in that area of the world due to regimes and "racial archives".
Since that's the area of the world I study specifically, I can tell you that WWII and East Europe are difficult places to research, and it's amazing how much history has been lost and/or changed.
Post a Comment