Schwartz, J.M., Cook, T. Archives, records, and power: The making of modern memory. Archival Science 2, 1–19 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435628
In Archives, Records, and Power: The Making of Modern Memory, authors John M. Schwartz and Terry Cook examine the inherent role of the archivist in modern understandings of power, knowledge, history and memory, place and identity, and larger constructs of collective memory. Utilizing the historical significance of archives, whether they be utilized by Medieval kings, colonialist powers, or technological databases, the authors argue that archives have historically been used to construct social identities, to define and maintain knowledge, and to create the “scientific” basis of institutional power.
Schwartz and Terry argue for an interrogation of established archives, intending to discover the events, people, and histories excluded from our constructs of societal memory, and to reveal the preconceptions and prejudices that underlie what is preserved and maintained. The archivist, therefore, no longer becomes an objective scientist, but an active participant in systems of knowledge that can, and must, begin to subvert our traditional notions of memory.
These arguments are essential to the work of my senior project, as I begin to understand and investigate how the LREI archives maintain our collective history, and how their contents inform students’ understanding of their place in our community.
Kenneth Foote; To Remember and Forget: Archives, Memory, and Culture. The American Archivist 1 July 1990; 53 (3): 378–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.53.3.d87u013444j3g6r2
In To Remember and Forget: Archives, Memory, and Culture, author Kenneth Foote utilizes two historical examples to illustrate how archives select, preserve, and convey knowledge and myths. First, Foote examines the US Government’s initiative to categorize and preserve nuclear waste sites, as interference could lead to extreme disasters, and their utilization of visual and archival methods in order to pass down the locations and consequences of interference with these sites. Second, the author investigates the creation of memorials to historical tragedies, arguing that the delayed creation of these monuments signifies a society’s ability to learn, feel guilt, and mourn a tragedy, and that the tragedies not memorialized are usually considered accidental, guiltless, and suggest a society’s inability to reflect on this aspect of their history.
Foote argues that archives are inherently communicative, and are created with the intention of passing down knowledge and myths valued by a society, exemplified by the need to convey information of nuclear waste sites, and the myths created by memorials and monuments. The role of the archivist, therefore, is tied to their selection of historical artifacts, and the messages that those objects will convey to future generations.
I hope to employ this framework in my investigation of the archives; to learn how to select and convey information that accurately represents the history and significance of LREI. If the goal of archivism is communication, I want to discover how to communicate our history in a manner that is accessible and relevant to the student body.
Mario H. Ramirez; Being Assumed Not to Be: A Critique of Whiteness as an Archival Imperative. The American Archivist 1 September 2015; 78 (2): 339–356. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081.78.2.339
In Being Assumed Not to Be: A Critique of Whiteness as an Archival Imperative, author Mario H. Ramirez refutes the claims of A Critique of Social Justice as an Archival Imperative; What Is It ‘We’re Doing That’s All That Important? by Mark Greene, arguing that a subversion of white power structures is imperative in the work of archvisits. Ramirez examines the privileges and prejudices inherent in Greene’s argument for the neutrality of archivism, and instead considers the malevolent power of archives to sanctify whiteness.
Ramirez argues that the construction of whiteness can be duplicated in the construction of an archive, as both rely on the manufacturing of collective knowledge, identity, and power, and require the exclusion and othering of stories and histories. He believes that archivists can counter this influence not only through the inclusion of previously excluded voices, as that alone can easily lead to pacified and performative acts of diversity, but most importantly through the utilization of these voices in order to radically reshape our collective history and memory.
These principles must be fundamental to my work with the archives, as I work to not only preserve and maintain previously discarded and marginalized histories in LREI, but to utilize them to recreate a more inclusive and accurate representation of the history of LREI, even if that history is sometimes uncomfortable and in need of confrontation. An inclusive, and social justice oriented approach to archivism can aid the LREI community in its work to truly live up to our values and goals as a progressive institution.
Tom Nesmith; Seeing Archives: Postmodernism and the Changing Intellectual Place of Archives. The American Archivist 1 January 2002; 65 (1): 24–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.65.1.rr48450509r0712u
In Seeing Archives: Postmodernism and the Changing Intellectual Place of Archives, author Nesmith examines postmodernist theories of communication, or communication as a product of our environment, power structures, and identity, and applies them to the constructions of archives. Nesmith analyses the work of postmodernist theorists, specifically Jacques Derrida, eventually suggesting that archives function as both products and conveyors of structural knowledge and identity formations.
Nesmith argues that the role of the archivist is also inherently of an author, as the selection, categorization, and connections made between records constitute and imply fixed interpretations. Therefore, the role of the archivist is not of a passive collector, but as the source of the interpretations, legends, and myths, that will eventually be purveyed due to the ways in which the records are categorized in order to suggest relation or connection.
This framework is incredibly important to my work of reorganizing the archives, specifically by the categories and relationships I create between records. My personal interpretation of the connection between objects must be informed by research, and the goals of the LREI community, in order to ensure that the interpretations of the records are truly in line with the records themselves.
Elisabeth Kaplan; We Are What We Collect, We Collect What We Are: Archives and the Construction of Identity. The American Archivist 1 January 2000; 63 (1): 126–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.63.1.h554377531233l05
In We Are What We Collect, We Collect What We Are: Archives and the Construction of Identity, Elisabeth Kaplan examines the history of the American Jewish Historical Society in order to suggest that archives inherently form our sense of identity and community. Kaplan reviews the intentions of the archive; created in order to counter the growing antisemintism and xenophobia of the late 19th Century, and how the founders intended to define American-Jewish identity, emphasizing American patriotism and citizenship as essential to the history of Jewish Americans.
Kaplan argues that most historical institutions that maintain archives work towards a similar aim; using history and archives in order to form and strengthen an identity, which makes the work of archiving inherently politically and culturally biased. Viewing archives as objective, therefore, or refusing to write about the intentions or assumptions that underlie an archive, support systems of inequality that view identity as inherent, instead of a political, social, and economic construct.
As I begin to work with the LREI Archives, I want to consider Kaplan’s thesis as I begin to construct a history of the LREI community, as opposed to an individual construct of a singular LREI history, or identity associated with that history.