The text builds from Derrida, Foucault, and Trouillot as well as archival theorists. The text advances methodological approaches through metaphors.
Much like archives, the concept of security is thought to be overly applied. However, leaving the concept as something too broad to specify leaves researchers and policymakers unaccountable for decisions made on security. Additionally, on privacy, Solove has offered metaphors to better capture the relationship between individuals, society, and governance by challenging the view of “big brother” as an appropriate metaphor for today. Instead, Solove suggests that Kafka’s The Trial might better stand. The expected reading encourages me to think of other metaphors that might better capture the concept of privacy and the methods I might use.
The image of archives as liminal zones as a space between remembering and forgetting stuck out to me which also contributes to the future.
Examples include navigating copyright with orphanages/hospices data and performance record keeping encouraging archivist researchers to make all parts of the research processes as accessible data.
Referring archives as orphanages/hospices and performances, the main argument suggests that ethics codes of archives processes of consent and anonymization need to be reconsidered. The author highlights the role of archivists as mediators, operating liminal spaces (the archive) which gives way to the performance aspect and power of decisions made in the archival method. Recognizing this acknowledges that archival researchers need to pay attention to the weaknesses of standard anonymization, consent and access by mediating the issues that may arise. Promises made by anonymization are costly, all or nothing approaches hinder future research and limit the usefulness or matching the moral codes of the communities they are associated with. Since consent is difficult to obtain with the uncertainty of how archives might be used by others, the author points out the turn to participatory research which renegotiates the research process throughout the study. Lastly, the discussion on access covers issues on funding and ownership. Funding should hold researchers accountable to make all data collected publicly available, including field notes arguing that the destruction of data is an act of total ownership.
Annual Reviews is a nonprofit publisher since 1963. Annual Review of Anthropology began in 1972 and broadly publishes within the anthropological field.
David Zeitlyn is a Professor from the University of Oxford’s School of anthropology and museum ethnography as well as the institute of social and cultural anthropology. They have worked in Mambila in Cameroon since 1985. Topics of interest include religion, sociolinguistics, and political systems.
Zeitlyn, D. (2012). “Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41:1, 461-480. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145721 pdf
The text points out the oversaturation of the concept of Archives. They argue that “too many uses and meanings are being loaded onto the term” making conceptual and practical use disordered and siloed. Two examples are referring to archives as memory and as the internet. The author offers two new models to metaphorically view archives and the practice of archiving through which contributing to theory and practice.