Aleida's Archivology: Between the Kenyon Canon and the Kenyon Catalogue
The archival work this Friday consisted of learning the protocols for retrieval of materials from boxes, as well as how to navigate the library's organization system to schedule and appointment in the archives, and to this end select some boxes of materials we wished to see removed. Sometimes it turns out memory lane already bears a lot of traffic, and in this process we took a few speculative detours. In a short session going through the catalogue of ar we discovered a great number of student organizations we'd never even imagined existed. Even within the limited section we were assigned to look through, namely Series IV, Sub-series 2, the one covering student organizations there was a staggering number of different organizations and documents attached to them. Everything from the self-evidently named Banjo and Aerobics Clubs, to organizations of vague purpose like "Birkenstocks" and the "Newman Club," to regrettable or repugnant parts of Kenyon's History like the "Kenyon Klan" (it seems "Kenyon 'K'" alliteration is an old tradition). A lot of this arrived to us if a message in a bottle, decontextualized and from an unclear sender. It was in some senses a vaguely magical experience.
Aleida Assman's assertion that archives are the "paradigmatic institution" of passive or inert cultural memory, "situated halfway between the canon and forgetting" is in many ways a compelling lens through which to view this experience (1978: 335). Within the database were folders full of documents, and even assuming the smaller or less relevant ones were less well stocked, it brings to mind a vast ocean of inert information that is only converted into canon by their retrieval from collective memory. And yet, the nature of this is equally about collective forgetting, a process shaped in part by cultural selection criteria that in the end dictate what can and cannot be remembered collectively (Assman 1978: 335-336).
While I can't vouch for the others, I noticed quite clearly we had already collectively decided or inherited a set of criteria based on our topic. Something like "Inclusion" is so broad it can cover a wide variety of groups, so we decided to sample from that wide variety of materials from different groups. And yet, this itself shows a certain kind of prioritization of some things over others, some groups, documents, etc. After all, the "Kenyon Klan" is probably an artifact best relegated to the past, even if it is a "structural mechanism of exclusion" that is responsible, though it may be useful as a tool for retrospection (Assman 1978: 337). The selection process is definitely different in this light. I guess the main question that lingers in my mind is about agency in relation to memory, collective and otherwise. Do we ever know exactly what the criteria that determine what we want society to remember? Can we ever know for certain where these judgements come from?
References
Assman, Aldeida. 1978. "Canon and Archive." Pp. 334-337 in The Collective Memory Reader. Edited by J. Olick, V. Vinitzky-Seroussi, and D. Levy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Comments
Post a Comment