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.
Zeitlin (2012) draws on historical and contemporary literature to describe different ways of understanding archives: their historical and contemporary roles in the society and their use in anthropological research.
In the beginning of this article, Zeitlin quotes works of Foucault who described “the archive” as “an expression of governmental control of its subjects” (p. 462) in which governments act as “gatekeepers” who select “which items are archived and which are condemned to oblivion” (p. 463). Thus, governments have the power to suppress and control voices of certain groups.
The author refers to other works by Foucault and works of Derrida to explain that the archive can also be used to “challenge the hegemony“ of governments and “to understand people from archives in ways never imagined or envisaged by those creating or maintaining the archives“ (p. 464). For example, scholars can “excavate” (p. 464) voices of silenced groups from an archive, through studying the positionality and biases of the archival materials, or by uncovering historical processes of record creation, thus “writing history (and ethnography) from below” (p. 465).
The author proceeds to discuss the role of archives as “liminal zones in rites of passage between memory and forgetting,” and as zones “where objects, files, and memories can be lost or retrieved” (p. 466). The work of Meehan (2009) cited in the paper conceptualizes archives as “evidence,” which is a “relation between record and event” (p. 466) that can be revealed through the interaction “among readers, documents, and archives” (p. 466).
The author also brings up two examples of the archive as “metaphorical overextension;” one is “archive as memory” and the other is “Internet as ... archive” (p. 467).
The metaphor of “archive as memory” refers to the role of archives as “repositories” of personal, collective, and historical memories (p. 467). The author brings up two works that argue that the metaphor of “memory” does not suit the concept of archive.
1) Steedman (2002) argues that archives are “human creations.” The process of active “discarding” of items (such as destruction of archives during the Second World War) is different from the process of “forgetting” (p. 468).
2) Rose (2009) argues that in our memories the past is not merely recorded but reconstructed: there will always be a difference between the first and second accounts of a memory. What is more, historical memories are reconstructed just as personal memories: different generations may “construct new narratives on the same bodies of evidence” (p. 468).
Regarding the use of the Internet as a metaphor for archive, Zeitlin points out that – while archivists “shape archives” and decide how they are cataloged – a large part of metadata in the web is “lost and [becomes] inaccessible” (p. 468).
Zeitlin also describes two models of archives. One model is ”orphanages or hospices.” In “orphanages,” caretakers manage documents with the hope of using them in the future (as the case is in film archives). And in “hospices,” one seek to ensure a “managed path to oblivion” (p. 469). The second model is that of “ performance records,” as in records of performance arts: scripts or musical scores. These records are different from performances themselves. The same can be applied to ethnographer materials and to field notes since such materials need to be interpreted and recreated.
In the second part of the paper, Zeitlin reviews several issues related to archiving in anthropological work.
The author describes three issues that concern “Ethical Codes.” First are problems of anonymization, such as the concern that anonymization of participants can prevent future development of research or conflict with “individual’s moral right to be recognized” (p.470). The second set of issues concern consent, such as the concern that materials can be used in the future for purposes other than participants had consented to. Third, there is the problem of researcher’s possession of data, including their control of access to data.
The author also brings up the issue of preservation of digital data. As technology evolves, some data can be “ trapped” in old technological devices.
Finally, Zeitlin discusses possibilities of the future of “radical archives” (p. 464), which is the technology that allows individually tailored archival data.