A Very Short Introduction to Archives: Reaching Out to an Informed Public
Richard J. Cox
Invited Talk
Queens College
May 18, 2016
Note: This version does not include citations, but it represents the speaking version delived.
Introduction
American archivists have been concerned about their public image for at least the past half century and, in an intensive way, for the past thirty years. David Gracy, the President of the Society of American Archivists in the early 1980s, made this his focus, delivering one of the more memorable presidential addresses in that association’s history in his trademark evangelistic style. The Society also worked with an outside social science firm to determine how “resource allocators,” the people who hired and paid archivists, viewed them in their organizations. The Society also published basic manuals on topics like public programs and exhibitions and its conferences were full of sessions wherein archivists discussed how they were promoting their programs and themselves. It was a heady and stirring time for a young archivist such as myself (yes, I really was once young).
As we reflect on how archives are viewed today, we can mull over what progress, if any, has been made in understanding what we do. When we read newspaper articles mentioning archives or archivists, we still see a basic confusion in the roles of librarians and museum curators with that of archivists. We still struggle to explain to our friends and relatives what an archivist does. Even our most intrepid researchers, historians and other scholars, often possess stereotypical images of who an archivist is (the oldest) or what an archivist does (working in the bureau of yellowing paper, as humorist Dave Barry characterizes it). How many times do we see in acknowledgments pages references to the “dusty” archives, a more romanticized sensibility of these places than what we usually work in (of course, yes, there are truly dusty archives out there, but these are by and far not the norm).
What is available to the public and others to explain what an archives is or what an archivist does? There is a lot less than is available about libraries and museums, although what is out there for librarians and museum curators also leaves a lot to be desired. Most of what archivists have written about archives, beyond the technical requirements of practice, has been internally focused for their own use. Even SAA’s volume on Understanding Archives and Manuscripts, first written by James O’Toole and then issued in a later edition with me as a collaborator, hasn’t resonated outside of the archives community. But there are opportunities to be taken advantage of, I think, as we look about in various community and academic bookstores. There is a considerable amount of writing about cultural heritage, memory, tradition, preservation, and related topics that easily connect to archives themes. Moreover, a number of scholars are beginning to write about archives or the archive in interesting ways, deepening our contextual knowledge about the documentary record, even if there has been little synergy between the work of archivists and their own.
In this talk I am presenting a hypothetical opportunity to present archives to an informed public. It is exploratory, at best, and I hope in our conversations we can improve what I have developed. In the first section I describe the hypothetical opportunity, to publish in one publisher’s “very short introduction” series. In the second section I consider different ways of highlighting the significance of archives. I then consider various challenges, what I call disruptions, to the manner in which society views archives. Then I reflect a bit on some major contemporary challenges, before offering concluding thoughts. As usually happens when someone accepts an invitation that is open-ended for the topic, this has turned out to be more complex than is possible to comment on in the limited time available. Hopefully, I will make comments that stimulate your thoughts.
Very Short Introductions
Opportunities abound for archivists and their allies to explain archives. Oxford University Press has been publishing, for some years now, a series of volumes on disciplines, events, and trends under the overarching title of A Very Short Introduction. Reading these volumes, it is obvious that other disciplines also desire to communicate to a general public and to other disciplines the essence of their work and mission. Coming in about 100 pages each with a standard, colorful paperbound format, and usually displayed at university and good local bookstores in their own display rack, these volumes are intended to be just what they say, useful brief orientations to their topics. They are written by leading scholars, focusing on historical and conceptual aspects of the topic. They are not practice manuals, but are intended, rather, to provide critical information to someone seeking a general orientation to their subject.
The “Very Short Introductions” series has been well received (indeed, other publishers such as MIT and Stanford, are publishing similar series) . Started in 1995, and expanded to being offered online in 2014, this series includes now about 400 titles covering multiple disciplines. They are intended to offer “scholarly yet accessible overviews,” and the readership is intended to be “undergraduate students who use them for introductory or supplementary reading; general consumers who have an interest in the subject or want to learn more about a hot topic; and academics.” Each volume runs about 35,000 words, so they are indeed very short. The online versions have enhanced features.
Different Approaches to Introducing Archives
There are innumerable ways one could approach writing an introductory volume on archives, with each one possessing its own advantages and disadvantages. One matter can be solved right at the outset, however, in that these volumes are not manuals of practice. These are theoretical, historical, and explanatory orientations to their subjects. This, in its own right, makes it a lot easier to frame and carryout. Other than that, it is obvious that whatever direction one goes it is primarily a personal choice and one based on one’s experiences and orientation to the field. With my comments here I am trying to envision a volume that could be an important advocacy piece for the archival community; you may have some suggestions, beyond what I have to say, that could make this a better tool for such a purpose.
For today, I comment on these approaches: defining archives; describing archival functions; understanding documentary forms; viewing archives historically; valuing archives; the notion of a cloud of witnesses; and contemporary issues.
Defining Archives and the Archive
Probably the typical place to start is with defining what is meant by archives and the archive, the former term being how archivists refer to their field and work and the latter being what postmodernists and others have settled on in writing about the preservation and nature of records. We can discern these definitional efforts in the history, emergence of new digital recordkeeping systems, and the discovery by other scholars of the importance of archival materials. The complexity of all this can be seen in the re-emergence of the older archival science of diplomatics as a means to handle electronic records, best seen in the work of the International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems (InterPARES). This project produced elaborate methods to handle digitally-born records in government, archaeology, the arts, and other realms, providing interesting insights while also prompting many other questions about the utility of the old science for the new media.
Very different from those drawing on this older science of archives has been the postmodernists’ discovery of the archive. Ann Laura Stoler, in her study of nineteenth century colonial archives, reminds us that an archival document brings into play many issues of power, control, memory, forgery and fabrication, and other such aspects. She tries to persuade us to read against the grain of what the creators of these archives intended these records to serve, seeking to provide archivists and users of archives more insights into the nature and value of the evidence they give us. Her examination of colonial archives enables us to explore into a particularly valuable territory about the meaning of archives as documents, institutions, and memory repositories. Scholarship such as Stoler’s pushes us to re-examine our conceptions about the purpose and nature of archival work.
We also have the efforts by individuals within the archival community to provide basic definitions. One interesting essay by Terry Cook built around four themes: continuity and change in the archival paradigm; impact of technology; impact of community archives; and archival use and users. Such issues suggest that archivists must rethink their most basic assumptions about their work and mission.
However, we must also go beyond strict, technical definitions of the record and the archive to consider the tremendous symbolic value of archives (and libraries), seen in how often, throughout history, they have been targeted for destruction. Viewing deliberate efforts to destroy books and the places where they are housed is a perverse way of understanding their significance at various points in history. Indeed, the looting of cultural heritage has become one of the prevalent features of modern life and warfare, leading not only to the illicit acquisition of historical objects, art, and archives but to a growing activity in forgeries.
Some of the ways the public has understood archives or the archival impulse have been muddled by the popularization of other concepts, most notably “curation.” Within the archives field, the notion of digital curation has caught on, with new graduate programs, scholarship, and conferences growing in importance. But many questions remain, such as will digital curation be a new field, part of other fields such as archival studies, librarianship, information science, and museum studies? A notable problematic issue seems to be the appropriation of terminology from various fields without full understanding of the precise meaning of these terms. But the bigger problem has been the expansion of the use of the word “curate” everywhere.
We also have been expanding our direction of the very notion of record. Many different disciplines have developed working definitions of documents, such as ethnography and law and public policy. Thinking of buildings or landscape as documents is important, especially as such a process also will help archivists or scholars better understand the limitations of textual and visual records in documenting any aspect of society leaving behind such notable physical artifacts as buildings.
In a short introductory volume on archives, it is important to consider the various definitions of archives and records, in order to provide a baseline point for discussion. Yet, we have to resist the temptation to devote all of our attention to such matters. Mostly, we need to reveal that the basic assumptions are being challenged from many different quarters, and that some of these debates and disputes attest to the societal importance of archives.
Understanding Archives Functionally
Probably one of the easiest ways to explain if not to understand what archives and archivists are about is to describe the various basic functions. It is also the way many archival educators construct the curriculum of their programs and teach their students. Most people associate archival work with preservation, but archivists also focus on appraisal, representation, and reference and access. Some functions, such as appraisal, have caused controversy; Carol Chosky, for example, in describing records management discounts anything from the archival perspective, focusing only on “business requirements.”
The challenge with taking this approach is that it may be easy to write about, but it can also be rather lifeless, uninspiring to tell the truth. It is valuable for the most basic description of the archival mission and the work supporting it, but it does not always capture the essential value of archives in society. In a short volume, I would devote a page or two to these functions, with perhaps some indication of how these are changing or being challenged.
Comprehending Documentary Forms
Individuals become archivists by acquiring knowledge not just about the principles and methods for managing documentary materials but by understanding the history and nature of those materials. It is in the documents that we can best see their value and importance. One of the most prized documentary forms for both archivists and researchers is that of the letter. In order to understand the letter, we have to appreciate the establishment of the postal service and the communications revolution it generates, the emergence of the post office as a local institution, the transformation of the idea of the personal letter, and the rise of the notion of junk mail. Historians and others who have used letters from earlier periods emphasize their significance as evidence and how this evidence is being lost or altered with latter communications technologies.
It is critical that archivists know about such shifts in the nature of documentary forms. The increasing scholarship on letters and letter-writing from many different fields both help the archivist and acknowledge the growing recognition of the importance of documentary forms. Others, such as linguist David Crystal, studying related digital forms, such as texting, also demonstrate why archivists need to be mindful of such shifts, provoking useful reflection about why archivists ought to be concerned about preserving evidence of this communication phenomenon (just as they have been interested in dealing with the documentary implications of the telephone and electronic mail).
We can see other critical shifts in records and recordkeeping being caused by both technology and societal norms. Diaries, long a mainstay of personal recordkeeping, has partly moved to online blogging, transforming the nature of what we used to assume about the nature of a diary. Likewise, we can see a transformation of analog personal papers to personal websites. Technology has changed the way many writers write, and this has had a profound impact on the nature of literary archives (even recognizing that such archives were always jumbled and a challenge). There are many other traditional archival sources being changed by technology in fundamental ways challenging how archivists and others work with and manage such documents – newspapers, maps, photographs and other images, moving images, scrapbooks, and telegraph and telephone records and implications for recordkeeping. All of these forms or media are being changed in substantial and profound ways.
Personally, I see the exploration of documentary forms as being the most useful way to orient individuals to the nature of archives and their importance and to navigate through the present transitional era from analog to digital. For one thing, archivists are experts on documentary forms. For another, everyone connects with such forms in their daily lives. And, finally, these forms often carry with them very evocative stories of events, personal lives, and substantial milestones in human history. Everyone identifies with such documents. It only takes a few examples of such records to begin to see why they are so important to us.
Understanding Archives Historically
A standard way to understand archives and archivists is to examine them historically. There has been an increasing array of research by archivists on historical matters (as well as historians on archives). However, there has been a steady stream of publication because historians and others scholars have found archives so interesting and so closely related to their own work. Ever since the emergence of professional historians, there has been discussion about how and why these scholars use archival sources; indeed, the historical community may be the most self-reflective about its research craft and methodology (close to, but certainly not surpassed by, the soul-searching by literary scholars). In the heyday of scientific history a century ago, archives were viewed as laboratories for the new “scientific” history. The rise of social, cultural, quantitative (or “cliometrics”) and other new trends in historical inquiry over succeeding decades all brought with them some discussion and debate about the importance of archives. Such debates have also flared up in the ranks of archivists as their own professional development has moved them to more of an independent status rather than as a part of the historical community (although some might debate this assessment of archival independence as well).
Historians and other scholars dependent on archival sources have maintained their faith in archival sources as the primary ingredients for their work.
Considering archives and archivists from a historical perspective is also a neat and orderly way to understand how archives have developed, recordkeeping and information technologies have evolved, and the points in which we have witnessed dramatic shifts in how society documents itself (orality to literacy, analog to digital). We must always have this background perspective as we ruminate about the nature and role of archives.