Following on from my what is an archivist blog, I thought it might be useful to think about what an archive is, and also what it isn’t. Traditionally, archives have been intrinsically linked with tangibility and historical importance, but some events I have attended recently have discussed the archive in a wider context and played with the definition in a way which not only confused, but also irritated me. So, I decided to attempt to unpack these feelings a bit more and see if I’m justified in feeling this way or if I need to open up my own definitions.
For me, the traditional meaning of archives is (was?) twofold. One, the building or repository where the physical or digital collections are stored and can be retrieved for access. I haven’t seen this side of the definition changed or challenged (always happy to be corrected), and two, the actual items that are being collected, preserved and retrieved for access from this building or repository. For me, the two are forever linked and cannot be separated and this is what keeps order in my archive world. I don’t attribute any physical descriptions or formats to these items as collections can contain anything, (just see the twitter post about locks of hair and other such interesting items for confirmation), but I do believe that for something to be an archive it needs to be collected in some way and the main reason for this is that I believe a central component of archives is for them to be accessed. If you can’t create access to it in some way, I really strongly believe that it’s not an archive and stretching the term only adds confusion to an already confused sector that struggles to define itself at the best of times. I also think by its nature, an archive needs to be unchanging and will therefore have some evidentiary value, even just to confirm that something existed, or something was said. If we don’t have this stability and trust, we don’t have archives.
However, recent discussions I’ve heard, taken part in or read, state that the purpose of an archive is to replicate a memory or an experience and for this reason, ANYTHING can be an archive. Arguments that the body (or certain parts of it, like the brain, or sexual organs) are an archive due to the experiences they have and the memories they create. Individuals’ homes are archives, for the same reason and recently on the listserv, the term ‘artchive’ was used to refer to works of art as archives. At a talk I attended a few months ago, an activist turned archivist made the claim that anything that can create a memory can be an archive. This need to turn everything around us into an archive baffles me. Archivists have accepted that we cannot collect everything and to try would be a huge waste of time and resource. This is why appraisal exists – it is absolute necessity and statements like the above only serve to make our role more complex than it already is.
There is a huge amount of discourse and research around the idea of archives and memory and I’m not going to discuss any of that here or I’d be writing a book. But I will say that I think the notion that archives are there to replicate or create past events that archive users did not attend is fundamentally wrong. Archives can be used in a range of ways to encourage memories from people who were there or provide a small glimpse into what the past may have been like for those accessing the archive in some cases hundred of years later, but the idea that we should be aiming to recreate these experiences make very little sense to me. I want to use archives to learn about the past and see why things happened or why people involved felt the way we did. I want to know what other people experienced and why it’s different to what I experience now. This is why an archive needs to be something that can be collected. A person (or part of them) cannot be an archive because they cannot be collected, preserved and accessed in perpetuity by anyone who wants to – and neither should they be. The importance of archives in storytelling, accessing small parts of the past and learning from those who have gone before is what makes archives so unique. We don’t need to keep adding to the term to make it count- it’s already one of the most important terms there is and our role is to highlight that by continuing to collect, preserve and facilitate access.
I did a lot of soul searching for this blog as I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t just stuck in the past and determined not to learn and grow in this area. I also tried to compare it to other sectors and what would happen if this logic were to be applied there. The best I could come up with is a lawyer presenting evidence to a court. Evidence needs to be concrete to support the case being made. In fact, in many cases archives are used for this exact purpose because they are unchanging and held in such a way that they can’t be altered. Using the above logic, a defendant could claim that their body is evidence as they were there and experienced the situation. It wouldn’t be accepted because there is no evidence of the fact that body was there. The body, to me, cannot be an archive for similar reasons.
I don’t think it is the job of the archive to create memories around the content they hold and facilitate. Yes, memories can be made about interactions with records and experiences can be had in an archive when using the material, but that for me is where the facilitation start sand ends. I tried to open my mind for this blog and think theoretically but for this particular question, I found it really unhelpful and confusing, and my conclusion is I’m going to stick my previous definitions – if only so the sector that I love still continues to make sense to me.
I would be keen to hear from anyone who thinks the opposite as me. Either on here via the comments, or on social media via #UnAccessioned .
The Un-Accessioned Archivist 