Zeitlyn identifies Derrida and Foucault as key starting points for understanding archives—as hegemonic devices that shape modes of colonization and control citizens’ ways of thinking but can also be read subversively. Power is exercised through the determination of what is included in the archival record and validation of certain representations through appraisal, selection, organization, and cataloging. However, subaltern voices can be drawn out of archives through counter-readings along and across the archival grain.
“To destroy field material is an extreme assertion of ownership. … Destruction is an extraordinary act of power (an act of hubris) and prevents colleagues from the communities studied from reconsidering our work” (473)
What is the main argument, narrative, or e/affect?
Zeitlyn (2012) reviews literature that defines the archive and examines its different roles in maintaining systems of power. The author analyzes works that view the archive as instruments of hegemonic power, as instruments of subversion, as a liminal phase between memory and forgetting, as a form of repression, and as a memory. In particular, it seems that the author critiques some of these works for using exaggerated metaphors to understand archives, and, instead, advocates for alternative considerations such as the archive as orphanages or performance records. The first view sees the archive as being without ownership or a creator; whereas, the second view sees the research process as performative and the archive as “surrogates of the events that created them” (p. 469). In the conclusion, the author suggests scholars move towards creating a “radical archive” that is “rethought and managed in ways unlike anything assumed in previous discussions concerning legal structures, privacy dates, or the models of openness” (p. 474).
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.