Monday, October 20, 2008

The collection of stories found in Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by Antoinette Burton, attempts to peel back some of the fallacies associated with archives and the knowledge contained therein, for both the public and academicians themselves. This sweeping book covers an amazing variety of assumptions and situations involved with record keeping institutions and how their records are used. A commonly understated fact in the historians work is that “…our work is often shaped by archival conditions outside of our control.” (Ghosh p 27) Those that are employed in archives shape history by how much they approve of a project and therefore are willing to invest themselves into assisting the researcher. Durba Ghosh and Craig Robertson both faced archivist disapproval making their research difficult if not impossible, because archives are sanctuaries where only the anointed are allowed to enter. Despite how much we might think to the contrary, archives divulge their knowledge grudgingly, the right credentials, ethnicity, economic background, or even just project can make the difference between success and failure. We must always remember an archive is created for a specific purpose and agenda, just as the documents housed there do. As Ann Curthoys found for colonial advisors’ records in Australia, due to the fact that “…no governor actively sought information in those areas they would rather not know about…” (Curthoys p 364) As difficult as it is to admit, archives influence history by what is deemed worthy of keeping, who is allowed to view the records, and whether or not they are considered “legitimate.”
This anthology really opened my eyes to the influence archives have over history. I feel like I have faced disdain from archivists when attempting to do research as an undergrad. Because of my inexperience and hesitancy to enter this “vault,” having to face two different “gatekeepers” at the Florida State Archives, it seemed the archivist were determined I find my information in the State Library, despite my assurances of having search there initially. Research assistants therefore seem to have an inordinate amount of control over who has access to their records. I was also intrigued by the thought of, what is an archive? Keith Windschuttle’s disregard for oral tradition is amazing, revealing the Western bias for the “power of the written word.” Despite the fact the earliest historians, the founders of our craft, used the medium of orally transmitted information almost exclusively.
While at times seeming a little dense and academician Archive Stories is a breakthrough collection about the cornerstone of the history discipline. Not only are historical texts interpreted from primary sources but primary sources are but an interpretation of the past themselves. The fact some records remain and others don’t is selective process consigning some information to the dustbin of history. Not only that, but the keepers of those records and how the records are kept reveal intrinsic biases in the institutions. I feel this is an important read for the young historian to always question - interpretations, sources, and institutions - and the elastic nature of what we call history.

4 comments:

John Dawson said...

What do you mean by "Keith Windschuttle’s disregard for oral tradition"? Can you give an example?

Kristen said...

I have to agree with you, this is definitely an important read for young historians. I think it will bring to their attention a lot of fallacious information regarding the sanctity of archives and their repository of primary source materials. I'm still partially in shock myself over some of the stories. I mean, seriously, denying people access, destroying documents, agendas determining the course of history. Oh my. Okay, maybe that last one was a bit extreme. But we have to accept the fact that archivists are determining what is worth remembering. And that can be kind of scary when the archive has its own agenda.

I have to laugh at your comment on your own archive experience, having had a very similar one myself. Only two weeks ago I was doing research in Tulane's Special Collections and the archivist kept saying that people of New Orleans did not keep diaries during the Civil War because they could not write. And as he was saying this I was literally staring at a finding aid of a collection that had a diary. So I guess you have to take everything an archivist says with a grain of salt, just like any source.

Brent said...

John -
This was a commentary on Antoinette Burton, Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History (2005)

Not having read any other of Windschuttle's work I was commenting on the comments of the author in relation to Aboriginal activities. The author said Windschuttle disregarded oral tradition when convenient and used it when it suited his argument.

John Dawson said...

What Antoinette Burton said about Windschuttle's work is totally wrong. He took what Aborigines said about what happened to them or their relations at face value unless such oral testimoney was contradicted by proven facts. It is revealing that Burton doesn't give examples. If she did they could be investigated and verified or disproved. But her accusation devoid of references or examples is no more than a slur and fairminded readers should dismis it. http://www.macleaypress.com/Washout.htm?id=SKU004