Archival science is in a very encouraging moment of professional and academic expansion, marked mainly by dialogue with information and computer sciences and, therefore, in a scenario of greater standardization at an international level. However, it is essential to cultivate critical thinking and claim the opportunities that the social sciences can also offer in approaching and treating the object of study itself. Because what happens when the perceptions, needs and expectations that other societies have in relation to their archives do not fit with the way of understanding and doing things of “standardized” archival science? How can we as professionals consider helping other communities organize and manage their archives if we do not take into account what is socially and culturally important to them, and in what terms they want to relate to them?
Research and various work experiences in the social field, particularly in Australia, Canada, the United States and Latin America, have already been able to demonstrate that there is much more sociocultural diversity around archives than we might think, in the face of which a homogeneous or standard conception of the discipline and an indiscriminate application of its scientific principles is not only not viable, but is also highly problematic.
Although, due to the origin and academic background of most archival professionals, there is already an awareness of the social value of archives, of their importance for historical memory or for the defense of human rights, the truth is that there is more than all this; that archives can mean and can be constituted in many ways depending on the society or community to which we refer. Current professional models and standards are not prepared to embrace the fact that, for example, some communities can establish emotional, spiritual or more symbolic links with their archives, or that there are particular archival systems and traditions that are based on other ways of conceiving documents, cultural property or the preservation of memory.
International cooperation projects in the field of archives are particularly paradigmatic in this sense, because they allow us to see very clearly to what extent the application of archival theory and principles works in different social realities. For example, from the cooperation project of Archivists without Borders with the National Archives of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which I have had the opportunity to analyze, many lessons can be learned regarding the fit of one’s own knowledge and professional practices into local and territorial realities, both particular, as well as the need, noted by the cooperation workers themselves who have participated in it over the years, to know the population with which one works, beyond the specific situation of the archives and documentation, or the externally perceived needs for document management.
In this sense, anthropology and its research method, ethnography, are tools that could serve us for sociocultural awareness and for the presentation of some critical reflections on the profession, not only to understand people and diverse archival cultures, but also to think about how we do what we do and why we do it. Specifically, some ethnographic exercises could be incorporated into cooperation projects, that is, attention to and understanding of social realities, in order to design more appropriate, effective and integrated interventions in each context. For example, we could start by paying more attention to the sociocultural aspects of the population in the previous phase of prospecting the collections and in the design of the projects, or even create multidisciplinary teams that have the capacity to work on the same project from different perspectives and with greater depth.
Ultimately, archival science should be understood as a means for societies to archive themselves in the most coherent way, and not as a standard application practice. Understanding that there are different ways of doing things and giving them space is important, and in fact, this flexibility is not incompatible with maintaining rigor, quality and the application of good practices. Understanding the producers of documentation and the social worlds that surround archives is fundamental to proposing truly efficient and appropriate documentation management, and to ensure that the purposes of archival science are met in the terms in which each community experiences and conceives it.
Recent Comments