Zeitlyn authored an expansive article lifting the intersection between archives and anthropology. According to Zeitlyn, an archive (or archives or Archives) as a collection of materials is put together for a specific purpose by the researcher, historian, or individual. The author discusses the views of philosophers and researchers Derrida and Foucault who propose that archives attempt to maintain control of a hegemonic narrative and through it, control of people but reading “against the grain” of archives allows for alternative narratives to rise and absent voices to be heard. Zeitlyn notes that “archive” is a term that is used often and in many different contexts (at risk of “collapsing under the weight of metaphoric overextension”) but proposes two ways of thinking about archives - “orphanages/hospices” or “performance records.” In many ways, this article builds on last week’s readings and affirms that there are many “right” ways to archive as there are projects and that the researcher has the responsibility of making an informed decision that is appropriate for the project and the human/social subjects. When making decisions about the presentation and accessibility of the archive, one must stay within the boundaries of ethical and legal parameters. Zeitlyn implores researchers to be forward-thinking in their research journey and challenges feelings of ownership over research material, and be proactive in building an (appropriately) accessible archive for future re-readings and discovery.
There was much in this article to contribute to the theory and practice of archive ethnography - I hope to touch on the points that were most influential and helpful for me. First, I appreciated the discourse on reading “against the grain” with existing archives. For me, this is especially useful as much material on California prisons exists in state and federal archives but the voices of prisoners and the emphasis on rehabilitation is typically invisible. I love the idea of using an existing archive for insurrection and subversion. Additionally, there was a direct call for the ethnography of the archive as a way for the curator/researcher to be an active participant and historian, to tie together structures and ideas as they are presented in the collection. I appreciated the discussion about the internet as an archive because it is so far-reaching that it becomes difficult to carefully curate. Additionally, the caution about digital archives was so helpful because I hadn’t considered that technology changes rapidly and archivists should take care to create their archives in a way that is accessible and compatible with new technology or risk losing it.