histor and archive

8/11/2019 Histor and Archive

1/4

History and Memory: The Problem of the ArchiveAuthor(s): Francis X. Blouin, Jr.Source: PMLA, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Mar., 2004), pp. 296-298Published by: Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261384.

Accessed: 16/09/2014 02:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Language Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mlahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1261384?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1261384?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla


2/4

[PMLA

letters

from

librarians

HistoryndMemory:

TheProblem f

the

Archive

FRANCIS X.

BLOUIN,

JR.

FRANCIS

.

BLOUIN,

R.,

s

directorof the

Bentley

Historical

Library

t

the Univer-

sity

of

Michigan,

Ann

Arbor,

where

he

is also

professor

of

history

and

profes-

sor

in

the

School of

Information.

296

IT IS

OFTENSAID

THAT

A

CENTURY GO THE

AUTHORAND

THE

READER

CCUPIED HE

SAMESPACE.

AM TOLDTHATMUCH

OF

modern literature

s the result of

a

separation

n that sense

of

space.

It

could also

easily

be said that a

century ago

archives and

history

occu-

pied the sameconceptualandmethodologicalspace.This sense of part-

nership

n

the

study

of the

past

has

undergone

a

variety

of stresses

and

strainsover recent

decades,

to the

point

that whatconstitutes

he

archive

has become

a

question

fundamental o

how

our

knowledge

of the

past

is

acquired

and

shaped. History

and archives now

occupy

very

different

spaces,

a condition that has

conceptual,

technical,

and

practical

causes.

Among

the

many

consequences

of this

intellectual

divide

is

the

need

for

a new

understanding

f the archive

apart

romits

historical

roots.

The

space

shared

by

archives

and

history

a

centuryago

was

defined

collectively

by

those who studied

the

archive

as a

window

to the

past

and

by

those entitled

to influence

the archive in

its

formation and

con-

tent. This

unified

conceptual

space

represented

a shared

nterest in

the

importance

of

institutions,

a shared

sense

of

prominent

actors,

a

shared

view of

seminal

events,

and

a

shared

sense

of

national boundaries

and

definitions.Once

assembledand

developed,

he

contentof the

archive n

many ways

defined the

boundaries of a

historical

scholarship

that fo-

cused on

state

formation

and national

self-perception.

If

the

historian

was not

witness,

what

gave

authority

o

historical

per-

ception

in

this

process

of

definition and

understanding?

Since

ancient

times,

the

archive

hadbeen

the

location

of

the

record.Refined n

the

early

modern

period

with the

establishment

of

diplomatics,

archives

were

in-

creasinglyregarded

s thelocationof authentic

ecords.

The idea of

au-

thority

embedded in

the

notion

of an

authentic

record

privileged

the

archivesas an

authoritative

ource

n

understanding

he

past.

Archives

were

a critical

element n

Rankean

ositivism

and

Collingwood's

dea of

history.

Authority

n

coming

o

an

understanding

f

the

past

rested

on

an

acceptance

of the

archive

and

on

a

faith

n

the

authenticity

f

its

holdings.

On

occasion,

that aith

couldbe

shaken

by

a

false

document,

but he

fundamentalink

be-

tweenthe

purpose

of the

archive

and

he

purpose

f

history

toodfirm.

0

004

BY

THE

MODERN

LANGUAGE

ASSOCIATION

OF

AMERICA

]

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:35:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

119.2

]

This

conceptual

and

methodological

part-

nership

has

undergone

stresses and strains

on

both

sides.

History

and

those

disciplines

that

n-

creasingly

embracea historical

perspective

have

broadened

the

range

of what

questions

legiti-

mately

constitute a

systematic

examination

of

the

past.

The reach of these

questions

and

the

search for

validation

in

forming

a

response

has

pushed

historians to

new

constructs

of

what

constitutes

a

legitimate

historical source.

The

archive, too,

has evolved.

The archivist

is

no

longer

the twin

of the

historian. Other

partici-

pants

formerly

marginalized

have

emerged

in

the formation of

archival

holdings.

Moreover,

technicalconsiderationscoupledwith the

expo-

nentially

ncreasing

amountof

records

produced

have forced

new

approaches

o the

administra-

tion of

those

records

n

the

archive.

The result s

a divide

between two

activities

once

consonant.

Readers

of

this

journal

will

understand ead-

ily

the

breadthof

questions

now

consideredhis-

torical.

History

proper

as

a

discipline

has

over

recent

decades

embraced a

growing

variety

of

questions

increasingly

informed

by

theoretical

perspectiveson social behavior, nteraction,and

power.

Moreover,

as

Terrence

McDonald has

shown in

his

volume The

Historic Turn

n

the

Human

Sciences,

other

disciplines,

ncluding

it-

erature,

are

turning

more

often

to

historical

methodology

o

understandhe

place

of

texts

and

experience

in

time. The

work of

Lynn

Hunt

and

others in

cultural

theory

and in

the

role of

cul-

tures

n

informing dentity,

place,

and

experience

has

pushed

the

boundaries of

historical

under-

standing

to

include

the

relevance

of

memory

as

recollection,

opening

the

possibility

of

multiple

pasts.

Whatof

the role

of

memory

n

shaping

he

need for

historical

understanding?

What is

the

role of

identity

formation in

structuring

the

boundaries

of

inquiry?

In

the

context

of these

kinds

of

historical

questions,

the

archive

be-

comes

more

problematic

n

its

capacity

o

inform

inquiries

and

authenticate

discourse. If

society

and its

internal

nteractions

were

indeed

cultur-

ally

based,

then

was not

the

archive,

oo,

a

prod-

uct of the sameculturaldynamic?What s in the

Francis

X.

Blouin,

Jr.

297

archive?How

did it

get

there?

By

what

political

or

culturalconstructwere the

records

assembled

and

presented?

What,

hen,

s the

authority

f the

records n

validating

a

historical

understanding?

What is

not there?

What is

the

authority

of

the

absence n

affirming

broad

cultural ealities?

The

archive

thus moves

from

being

a

place

of

study

to

becoming

the

object

of

study.

As the

range

of historical

questions

was

ex-

panding,

the

production

of

archival

records in

post-Vietnam-era

bureaucratic

society

mush-

roomed,

ushering

n

what

F.

GeraldHam

called

the

post-custodial

era.

As never

before,

archi-

vists

were faced

with a need to

select. The

Na-

tionalArchivesof theUnitedStates, or

example,

now

retains ess

thantwo

percent

of the

records

producedby

government.

How

are such

choices

to be

made?

At an

earlier ime

when

history

and

the archive

ogether

were

concerned

with

institu-

tions and

principal

actors,

the work of

one

in-

formed the

other. In

recent

decades,

at the

very

time

selection

becamean

essential

practical

mat-

ter for the

archive,

the

range

of

historical

ques-

tions

widened.

Every

record was of

potential

historicalvalue.Eventhoughbureaucraticnsti-

tutions were

generating

mountains

of

records,

there

was

increasing

concernabout

he

adequacy

of

those records

as a

source for

documenting

a

diverse

society

andculture.

How

was the

archival

recordto be

formed?

The

fleeting

natureof

par-

ticular

historiographical

perspectives,

coupled

with difficulties

in

anticipating

future

historio-

graphical

rends,

marginalized

cademic

histori-

cal

analysis

as

authoritative n

the

evaluative

constructs t the

root

of

processes

hat

ormed

he

archive.

Rather,

n

archival

methodology,

there

was

a

technical urn

hat

increasingly

defines

the

archive

oday.

The

archive

now is

more

inclined

to

emphasize

he

essential

relations

embedded n

records-that

is,

the link

betweenthe

record

and

the

activity

that

created it. As

Helen

Samuels

notes in

her

archival

analysis

of

the

functional

processes

of

higher

education,

Little can

be

done

[by

the

archivist]

to

anticipate

future

re-

search

rends hat

alter

he

questions

asked

or

the

useof thedocumentation.... Rather hanrelying

r+

,*

I

In

0

3

1

S*

3

.

:j

(A



4/4

History

and

Memory:

The

Problem of the

Archive

on

subjective

guesses

about

potential

research,

appraisal

decisions

must

be

guided by

clearer

documentary bjectives

based

on a

thorough

un-

derstandingof thephenomenonor institution o

be documented

8).

The

emphasis

on the

intrin-

sic

functionality

of institutions

or activities

rests

on

sophisticated

analyses

of the

natureof

record

keeping

that are rooted

in

historical

notions

of

the archive as record

combined with ideas

of

modem bureaucratic

ystems

andwith

constructs

of

organizational

behavior

and structure.

These

essentialistconstructs hat ormthe

archive

avoid

the

problem

of

historiographical

elativity.

The

archive,then,

is

formed of records

hat

may

be but arenot

necessarily

received as his-

torical sources. The

archive in this

essentialist

construct s

presented

as

independent

f

any

his-

toriographical

onstruct.Yet it

could be

argued

that the archive still

operates

within

certain

cul-

turaland

political

norms,

of which

the

archivist

may

or

may

not

be

aware. These norms

may

be

implicit

in

the

formation of

the

archive,

most

notably

in

the formation

of a

national

archive.

The

mediating

function

of

culture and

politics

embedded in these norms,often in the nameof

tradition,

s not

always

apparent

n the

represen-

tation

of the

content

of

the

archive.

Hence,

while

removed

from

explicit

his-

toriographical

frameworks,

the

archive in

its

selection,

organization,

and

presentation

may

implicitly

reinforce

certain

culturaland

political

constructs,

which,

in

shaping

the

content of

the

record,

also

shape

how we

come

to

know

the

past.

So

Carolyn

Steedman

can

ask,

what is in

the

archive?

And

Nicholas

Dirks can

query

what

it means

that

the

history

of

postcolonial

societies

is

often

reliant

on

archives

constructed n

a

co-

lonial

frame

of

mind. These

questions

go

be-

yond

the

traditional

issues of

the

veracity

of

documentation-reading

the

documents

with

a

critical

eye-that

have

been

at

the

root

of

archive-based

historiography.

ather,

hey

query

the

archive

tself,

its

formation,

ts

purpose,

and

its

links

to

sponsoring

nstitutions.The

archive,

then,

itself is

an

intellectual

problem

and a cul-

turalartifactworthyof study.

[PMLA

For the

study

of

issues from a

historical

per-

spective,

he

archivaldivide s

real.The

essential-

ist

methodologies

of the

archive

coupled

with

newlinguisticrequirementsor thedeliveryof in-

formation n

powerful

but

highly

structured

ech-

nological systems

create

critical

questions

that

need to be addressed as the archive is

encoun-

tered. To

visit the

archive is

to

engage

a well-

developed

set of

intellectual,

cultural,

political,

andtechnical

constructsoftenremoved

romthe

constructs nd

anguage

of

academic

discourse.

Embedded in

this

tension are a

host of is-

sues

regarding

he

importance

f

documentation

for

an

understanding

f

the

past,

the

problem

of

absences in

archives,

the natureof

access

sys-

tems,

the

relative

position

of

academic users

among

the

constituentsof the

archive,

and,

most

important,

he

extent to

which the

archive

con-

stitutesan

authoritative

oute or routes

by

which

we

come to

know the

past.

Faced

with the

force

of

memory,

the

problems

nherent n

constructs

of

culture,

and the

diversity

in

forming

ques-

tions of the

past,

is the

archive

still a

privileged

authenticatorf the

past?

NOTE

This letter s

derived

rom a

larger

work

under

way

in

collab-

orationwith

my

colleague

William

Rosenberg

n the

Depart-

ment of

History

at

the

University

of

Michigan,

Ann

Arbor.

WORKSITED

Dirks,

Nicholas.

Castes

of

Mind:

Colonialism

and the

Mak-

ing

of

Modern ndia.

Princeton:

Princeton

UP,

2001.

Ham,

F. Gerald.

Archival

Strategies

for

the

Post-custodial

Era.

American

Archivist44

(1981):

207-16.

Hunt,

Lynn,

and

Victoria

Bonnell,

eds.

Beyond

the

Cultural

Turn:

New

Directions

in

Society

and

Culture.

Berkeley:

U of California

P,

1999.

McDonald,

Terrence.

The

Historic Turn

n

the

Human

Sci-

ences. Ann

Arbor:

U

of

Michigan

P,

1996.

Samuels,

Helen.

Varsity

Letters:

Documenting

Modern

Col-

leges

and

Universities.

Metuchen:

Scarecrow,

1992.

Steedman,

Carolyn.

Dust: The

Archiveand

Cultural

History.

New Brunswick:RutgersUP,2002.

298

(.

L

m2

E

L

4-

4

w


histor and archive

Documents