This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-04-09T22:29:00-07:00 Archive 15 Mary McKeller plain 2019-04-30T15:30:14-07:00

  Author: Mary McKeller
  
  Archives have existed for centuries. Archaeologists have discovered archives of hundreds of clay tablets going back to the third and second millennia BC and were well developed by the ancient Chinese, the ancient Greeks, and ancient Romans (Murray, 2009). Since then archives have been used to keep track of events, people, cultural artifacts, and traditions. However, recent critiques from rhetorical, cultural and historical scholars have analyzed the deeply rhetorical nature of archiving. Archives are created for a purpose, and who gets to decide that purpose and ultimately what should be included is based on the perspective and authorization of those creating it. Rhetoric and Communications scholars have an increasing interest in archives as a means of constituting ideologies, social structures, and histories. Because of this understanding, archives have been acknowledged as social constructs, and with that, contain implications of power, memory, and knowledge (Schwartz and Cook, 2002).
  

  The linguistic origin of the word “archive” is explained in great lengths in philosopher Jacques Derrida’s Archive Fever (1995). He writes, “As is the case for the Latin archivum or archium (a word that is used in the singular, as was the French ‘archive,’ formerly employed as a masculine singular: ‘un archive’), the meaning of ‘archive,’ its only meaning, comes to it from the Greek arkheion: initially a house, a domicile, an address, the residence of the superior magistrates, the archons, those who commanded”(9). The origin of the word itself reveals the power dynamics at play in the existence of archives; as the residence of the “superior” and “commanders”, the term archive has been synonymous with authority and power. In general, archives consist of records that have been selected for permanent or long-term preservation on grounds of their enduring cultural, historical, or evidentiary value. Archival records are normally unpublished and almost always unique, unlike books or magazines for which many identical copies exist (Society of American Archivists). One of the most well-known examples of an archive is the National Archives in Washington, D.C., which houses a collection of documents that record important events in United States history. The United States National Archives website defines an archive as “a place where people can go to gather firsthand facts, data, and evidence from letters, reports, notes, memos, photographs, and other primary sources”("What's an Archives?", 2019). These definitions emphasize the physicality of an archive; there is an exact location that houses these artifacts which may be referred to as an archive.

  Archives have proven to be important for scholarship, especially within fields concerned with history and society, including Rhetoric and Communications. Professor and author Helen Freshwater, in her 2003 article “The Allure of the Archive”, discusses the relevance of archives as a basis for academia. She writes:

  Archival research has provided the foundation for research in the humanities since the innovations of the French sociologist August Compte and the German historian Leopold von Ranke in the 1830s. Compte’s prescriptions for a positivist methodology centered upon the painstaking accumulation of documentary evidence, followed by patient study and detailed comparative analysis. This slow process of collection, examination, and interrogation was inspired by the rigorous observation of phenomena privileged by the natural sciences. (730)

  Archives allow researchers in the social sciences and humanities to have access to primary sources and documents that can provide a basis for new research, new knowledge, and new avenues to knowledge production. As scholars, we must acknowledge that the very source of evidence in our field is often shaped by the implications of power, culture, and history within archives.

  The cultural implications of an archive cannot be ignored by academic scholars. Freshwater (2003) writes:

  Any interpretation of this archive necessitates a complex negotiation of the space between thing and theory. The contents of this archive may provide a uniquely tangible record of a period of British theater history, but we must bear in mind that these documents were preserved as part of a process of systematic censorship. The archive may include voices of dissent, yet these are framed and fragmented by the commentary --- and the cataloging-- of the authorities who silenced them. (731)

  The power dynamics present in the creation and implementation of archives is of utmost concern for rhetorical, cultural, and communications studies, due to its ability to shape the narratives of public memory. As Derrida (1995) states, “There is no political power without control of the archive, if not memory. Effective democratization can always be measured by this essential criterion: the participation in and access to the archive, its constitution, and its interpretation” (11–12, note 1). Because of the deeply rhetorical (and therefore political) nature of archives, they can also be employed as a rhetorical weapon for creating and maintaining state domination and control, as they are the symbols of power and knowledge that state actors may rest on to secure and bolster their right to rule ideology (Houdek 2016).

  Archives also constitute public memory, and because archives have been written by the “winners” of history, there are large gaps in our public memory that exclude historically oppressed groups. Freshwater (2003) writes, “The original decisions as to which materials are to be preserved and which are to be discarded, prior to public access, are often unavailable to the researcher. But the archive’s very existence indicates a priori value judgment concerning the worth of the documents or artifacts it contains”(740). This concept of ‘a priori’ is derived from philosopher Michel Foucault’s Archeology of Knowledge (1969), where he writes “a priori... has to take account of the fact that discourse has not only a meaning or a truth, but a history, and a specific history that does not refer it back to the laws of an alien development” (127).  A priori, before human intervention, is a concept that necessitates conversations of truth and morality; archivists have the power to designate a priori importance to certain artifacts and memories that shape society’s constitutive memory. Schwartz and Cook (2002) summarize these cultural and historical implications best:

  Archives - as records - wield power over the shape and direction of historical scholarship, collective memory, and national identity, over how we know ourselves as individuals, groups, and societies. And ultimately, in the pursuit of their professional responsibilities, archivists - as keepers of archives - wield power over those very records central to memory and identity formation through active management of records before they come to archives, their appraisal and selection as archives, and afterward their constantly evolving description, preservation, and use. (2)

  Essentially, archives are the basis of understanding, knowledge, and history; from them, we build our notions of truth and humanity, and this power should not be underestimated. For something to be included in an archive is to assign an object value and to assume it’s inherent and implicit importance as a piece of history, as something that should be remembered for posterity.

  As rhetoric and communications scholars, it is necessary to be aware not only of how archives shape our field but that our understanding of knowledge itself is transformed by the way it is communicated. Technological advancements, in particular, have transformed the modern understanding of the archive, and therefore our understanding of knowledge. With the creation of the internet and the increasing access to information, research, and primary resources, an archive’s establishment goes beyond a mere definitional distinction. Due to the increasing use of digital archive keeping, the definition of an archive as restricted to a certain location and accessibility is no longer necessary. This can best be seemed through the creation of the Internet Archive, where they write, “The Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, the print disabled, and the general public. Our mission is to provide Universal Access to All Knowledge”. This last sentence highlights the radical change in archives once the internet was invented. Until the creation of the internet, ‘Universal Access to All Knowledge’ was essentially impossible, nor was it seen as necessary or desired by those in authority of archive production and maintenance.  The Internet Archive seeks to eliminate the power imbalance that has historically been produced by the creation of archives. By giving equal access to the contents of an archive strips away the barrier between the public and the source of knowledge. Another groundbreaking aspect of the Internet Archive is that anyone who creates an account can upload media to be saved in the archive. The disappearance of authority to become an ‘archivist’ allows for this archive to be expansive, thorough, and completely public. Online archives have been becoming increasingly popular on university campuses, including the University of Richmond, where a group of students has been archiving the history of Race and Racism on Richmond’s campus. Similar projects are happening across the United States, for example, Columbia University has established an online archive documenting Columbia’s influence in the New York borough of Harlem. Archive projects like these are attempting to change our understanding of history and power in our increasingly modern society. 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Archives have the power to shape history and culture. Because of this, archives are not neutral. What gets included, who gets included, and why, are important questions that scholars in Rhetoric and Communications need to ask of an archive. With technological advancements like the internet allowing for greater access to existing archives, as well as the creation of new archives, our understanding of what is true, what is historical, and what should be kept documented for posterity is shifting. The inherently rhetorical nature of archives must be acknowledged when researching and developing ideas concerned with history, culture, society, and identity. To pursue future research in our field, it is imperative that scholars fully understand the power dynamics archives present and the cultural influence archives have in creating public memory.

  Works Cited

  Derrida, J., & Prenowitz, E. (1995). Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Diacritics, 25(2), 9. doi: 10.2307/465144

  Foucault, Michel. 1969. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0-415-28753-7.

  Freshwater, H. (2003). The Allure of the Archive. Poetics Today 24(4), 729-758. Duke University Press. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from Project MUSE database.

  Houdek, M. (2016). The rhetorical force of “global archival memory”: (Re)Situating archives along the global memoryscape. Journal Of International And Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 204-221. doi: 10.1080/17513057.2016.1195006

  Murray, Stuart (2009). The Library: An Illustrated History. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-61608-453-0.

  Schwartz, J., & Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records, and power: The making of modern memory. Archival Science, 2(1-2), 1-19. doi: 10.1007/bf02435628

  Society of American Archivists, What Are Archives?. (2019). Retrieved from https://www2.archivists.org/about-archives

  What's an Archives?. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/about/info/whats-an-archives.html