Course:ARST573/Archives and Power

This article is still being drafted. This means that the article is still being worked on and information may be incomplete. This template will be removed when the article is finished. If you have any concerns, please start a discussion on the talk page.

The relationship between archives and power functions on many levels. For example, the very basic question of how much funding archives receive to operate is one kind of power relationship. This type of question asks about power that's external to the archive's function itself. It positions the archive as an institution that requires funding from an entity, and that entity's decision to give that funding or not. This external kind of power is not the kind of power with which we need to be most concerned. As archivists, we can do much to increase the external power of our institution in society, but that will not have much to do with the core functions of the archives themselves. Rather, we will here focus on the power structures that traverse archives—those structures that may be said to be internal to the archives. This does not mean that they do not have implications that extend out into broader society. In fact, because archives have a lot of power in text-based societies, the power structures internal to archives can have very wide-ranging effects indeed.

Commencement, Commandment, S/Citation: Phenomenological Approaches

As society has become more aware of the power contained within apparently neutral institutions, archives have certainly not been exempt. Of course, as repositories for the important records of a group, archives have always been a site of great power. But power is never held neutrally.

One of the major theoretical veins pointing out and challenging notions of power in archives comes out of the phenomenological tradition. A good example of this kind of thought is Jacques Derrida's provocative work Archive Fever. This is a very good critical structure to help us think about the politics of the archive, as a volatile site of power. Power circulates in ways that are obvious and ways that are not so obvious. That is why Archive Fever is so provocative and occupies a very prominent place in contemporary discourse about archives and power. It considers the less-obvious ways that power circulates.

Derrida ties the institution we today call ‘archive’ back to the Greek arkheion. He also notes that the words are connected etymologically. In Greek, the word Arkhē “names at once the commencement and the commandment." This is the most important thing to remember about the relationship between archives and power.

Commencement: “the originary, the first, the principial, the primitive”

Commandment: "The principle according to the law, there where men or gods command … in this place from which order is given"

The implication of this is that the archive, which purports to be a representative arrangement of artifacts in a natural order, presents itself as both the most logical place to begin—commence—and also as a place to find the original items out of which stories and histories flow. Equally, it leads by example: that which is deemed fit to be archived is a command to future generations about the type of material which should be preserved. This is the type of perspective that this vein of thought takes on archives.

Similarly, Michel Foucault uses the figure of the Archive to indicate a more general social force: the "general system of the formation and transformation of statements." While this use of the term "archive" is not intended to denote archives as a place, it does indeed seem possible to apply this sense to archives themselves. As the spaces in which we hold the raw material of our past, out of which we gain the authority to make statements about the history of our culture, archives hold the power to shape the types of statements we are able to make. This applies not only to statements about our past, but equally to statements about our present and, indeed, our future.

Critiques of this approach


Derrida and Foucault, the exemplary thinkers in this area, tend to operate on highly theoretical planes. A common complaint is that the portrait they paint of the 'Archive' doesn't much resemble the actual archives that users frequent. Michael J. O’Driscoll suggests that part of the problem with their theories surrounding the archive is precisely this: that they fail to give proper consideration to the materiality of archives themselves. Both thinkers use the archive as a site in order to support “pure citation without consideration for its emergence into the material practices of our everyday lives.” That is, “the archive is not only constructed by theoretical discourse, but constructs theoretical discourse,” and while these theories of the archive tend to be understood in "absolute, ahistorical, universal terms," they ought to be recontextualised.

Archives as Political Tool

As the places where the raw materials of historical narrative dwell, archives are a both a powerful tool for the construction of national narratives and also a clear target in revolution.

The archive has a legitimating function for historical research and the subsequent construction of national narratives from “genuine and direct documents” can be an important function of national identity. Establishing a strong national identity is important for the stability of a state trying to retain control—especially in a country that's post- or pre-revolutionary. Additionally, a state's archives contain much information about government activities. Repressive regimes use a variety of tactics to control the flow of information and to limit access to their archives.

Opening Description

Power in archives is not always top-down. In fact, in today's rapidly changing digital environment, it is increasingly possible to open important archival functions such as arrangement and description to a public who may not have archival training, but whose knowledge of the material may far surpass the archivist's own knowledge. The question of how to effectively balance archival authority with the vastly democratic engagement of authentic voices is more of an issue than ever. <reference>see Yakel chapter in A Different Kind of Web, ed. Kate Theimer</reference>

This constitutes a significant challenge to the traditional position of power that archivists have held in the archive. Traditionally, archivists have been entirely in control of the arrangement and description of archives. By opening these archival functions to communities that do not have a full archival training, it raises questions about the role of such education and the role of the archivist as a person with specialised knowledge.

Note that this is particularly significant with archival holdings that contain holdings from marginalised people. First Nations Archives, for example, are often involved with the crowdsourcing of description, particularly when the archivist does not come from the same culture.

Professional Responsibility: Objectivity vs. Neutrality

Given the specialised place of archives in society and the many power structures in which they participate, it gives archivists a position that itself has great power. Of course, such great power means it is necessary to be cautious.

In "Archives for All: Professional Responsibility and Social Justice," Randall C. Jimerson draws an important distinction between the ideas of objectivity and neutrality. This is a significant distinction for ethical action as an archivist. Given that archives and their contents are shaped by external social forces and, in turn, shape our socio-cultural perceptions of ourselves, structures of power permeate the entirety of what can appear on the surface to be a neutral and objective institution. However, Jimerson suggests that as social-justice-minded archivists, we must advocate through the medium of archives and using the resources available to us as archivists to work in pursuit of social justice, abandoning a foolish ideal of neutrality. No viewpoint is neutral, but it is possible to embrace this and the subjective power we have as archivists without totally abandoning the traditions that have placed us in this position of power in the first place.