The ICT-industry and public sector partnership: to promote the preservation and accessibility of the European archival heritage
Barcelona,
8 May 2002
Abstract
Preserving and making
accessible the archival heritage means: offering people the possibility to
create memories and to experience “the” past, by using the archive as a time
machine to enable a time travel back and forth, archivists
and administrators in the public and the private sector, in co-operation with the
ICT-industry[2],
have to care about the future.
In our “age of access”
record keeping systems and archival institutions are moving from providing
physical documents to providing access to the collective memory. In most
organizations the boundaries between records and
non-record material, and those between personal and institutional memory are
blurring. This causes fragmentation and individualization of the
organizational memory. What the risks are of an organizational memory being
dependent on what individuals have stored on their laptops and PC’s, has been
dramatically shown by the September 11 tragedies. Therefore organizational
record keeping systems should ensure that individual and organizational
memories blend together.
Many of the artefacts
that in the public perception are considered to be archives, function in
societal processes of accountability and evidence, just like records and
archives-proper. Archives by birth and archives by baptism are not opposites, but should be seen in a perspective
view, where both, at the foreground and in the background, serve to understand
the past.
In the past two
days we have been introduced to best practices and solutions for access and
preservation of electronic information. In a remarkable way the three
rapporteurs have summarized what has been achieved in the parallel sessions.
The conclusions the chairman just read, are a concise summary of the DLM Forum
2002 achievements. The papers presented were a source of inspiration and will
continue to stimulate and enrich theory, methodology and practice. We likewise
benefitted from the demonstrations in the exhibition. We now depart to return
to our research, development, and implementation in different institutional,
national and international settings. But before we adjourn I ask your attention
for the broader cultural framework of the partnership between the public sector
at all levels and the ICT-industry. A public-private partnership reinforced at
this DLM-Forum 2002, with the common goal of the preservation
and accessibility of the European archival heritage.
***
When, more than
30 years ago, I started as a civil servant in the ministry of Culture of The
Netherlands, I was taught that, before setting to work on a case, one had to
ask for the file to be retrieved from the archives. The file contained the
minutes, memoranda, record copies and other records of the history of the
matter. It was a source of useful precedents. The archive, the memory of the
ministry, formed by generations of predecessors, had to be consulted before one
could undertake any new action. In those days, one phoned to the records office
downstairs and after a few minutes a messenger or a records official knocked on
the door, bringing the file.
But with the
passage of time, in the seventies, the interval between the phone call to the
records office and the moment the file arrived on the civil servant’s desk,
became longer and longer. When I began my career, the norm was three to five
minutes, later on this increased to ten, fifteen minutes, even more. It was
then (but also later) that I found a pattern which I will now present to you as
“Ketelaar's law”. We measure the interval between the request for the file from
the archives and the moment the file can be actually consulted. If that
interval averages 20 minutes, then - according to Ketelaar's law - civil
servants start creating their personal file. By that I mean what the Germans
call Handakten - literally ‘handy
records′, near at hand. In French they are called
“papiers personnels de fonction”, in English “working copies”, “semi-official
records” or “convenience files” - according to the Dictionary of Archival
Terminology of the International Council on Archives: “documents or copies
thereof, papers and/or publications kept by or for officials for their private
or personal use, relating directly or indirectly to their official duties.”
This definition
makes it clear that in a semi-official file are assembled all sorts of papers
which are not regarded as official records. A semi-official file does not
belong to the official organisational memory, but to a twilight zone: it is
neither strictly private, nor strictly official. But practice is more stubborn
than doctrine. Some official records do not even end up in the official file,
but in the convenience file kept near at hand for use by the civil servant. The
official file is thus less complete and less authentic. In the convenience file
official records can be found among documents which archival theory does not
consider official records, and with documents that archivists and records
managers regard as non-record material. Creators and users of the file do not
bother about the official definition of records. The convenience file with its
varied content is an extension of a person's memory, forming the link between
his or her memory and the organisational memory.
Sometimes the
semi-official files have become so important that the official files can no longer
give an authentic and reliable representation of what happened. During the
recent investigation (commissioned by the Dutch government) of the 1995 tragedy
in Srebenica (where Dutch soldiers under UN command had the “mission
impossible” to control a safe area), researchers came across the semi-official
convenience files on the whole case, kept by a high-ranking official in the
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This collection yielded essential
information not to be found elsewhere.
Daily practice in
public and private organisations shows a blurring of the demarcation between
records and non-record material. Secondly, it shows a blurring of the
boundaries between personal and institutional memory. Ketelaar‘s law is an
expression of a widely felt need to have one‘s paper memory close at hand. Each
of these factors influences the creation, management, and use of the archival
heritage of individuals, communities, societies - indeed, the
European archival heritage.
***
Everything
is archive is a chapter in Je
pense donc j’archive (I think, therefore I archive), a recent book by a
French archivist, Marie-Anne Chabin.[3]
What is an archive as perceived by society? The popular perception is that
archives are cold, musty, dusty places that hold old records. Old records or, as in Webster’s
dictionary, public records or historical
documents. But archives are not only history. As articles in the press
clearly demonstrate these days, society considers everything an archive –
books, papers, artifacts, sound, images, geological samples – that is serious
and reliable information, put in storage to be retrieved when you need it: a
backup that saves what may be of value in the future. Ask any search engine the
term ‘archives’ and it will yield millions of hits (Google on 16 August,
2001 24,3 million, on 21 April 2002 33,2 million - in eight months an increase
with 37%!), most of which are no archives or records in the archivists’
terminology, but which are an expression of the value society attaches to
keeping account of its present for its future.
Archiving, then, is not about history, but about the future. People want to get hold of the future. For many people, Anthony Smith argues the only guarantee of preservation of some form of identity is in the appeal to ‘posterity’, to the future generations. . . .only the appeal to a collective posterity offers hope of deliverance from oblivion.[4]
This explains why in our
archiving society we see the compulsive creation of private records and
archives, connecting the living history of individuals and families to national
history.[5]
Records and archives in a broad sense, just as in a convenience file. More
memory, than archive: the record as memory - “O! that record is lively in my
soul”, to quote Shakespeare (Twelfth Night, Vi,1, 256). Marie-Anne Chabin
proposes to distinguish archives by birth
from archives by baptism, the former
corresponding to records and archives in the archivists’ terminology, the
latter meaning those documents having no primary record status or value, which
have survived and are recognized as having a value to retain a memory (or:
memories).[6]
A remarkable program in
the United States, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities and
the White House Millennium Council, promotes the creation of public archives by
private people, connecting their history to that of America. Collective memory,
Susan Crane wrote, is ultimately located not in sites but in individuals. All
narratives, all sites, all texts remain objects until they are ‘read’ or
referred to by individuals thinking historically.[7]
This fits in with
the conception of the man who can be regarded as the father of the notion of
collective memory, Maurice Halbwachs. According to Halbwachs there is no
individual memory dissociated from collective memory. He was also the
first sociologist to stress that our conceptions of the past are affected by
the mental images we employ to solve present problems, so that collective
memory is essentially a reconstruction of the past in the light of the present.[8]
In collective
memory it is not the facts that count, but remembrance of the past: historical
facts are being transformed into myths.[9] Earlier memory metaphors, like “photographic memory”, assumed that
perceptions are stored in memory as immutable traces. More recently, people use
the computer as a metaphor for human memory. Both the computer and human memory
allow for replacing old data by new information and for altering stored
information. The human memory does not store an exact reproduction, but filters
incoming information which is coded into a representation of reality. Memory
not as passive storage, but as an active power. In this respect collective
memory acts just like an individual‘s memory.
Until now I
referred to “the” collective memory, but evidently there are as many collective
memories as there are collectives and social groups. Even within one community
there is interaction between various different memories.[10]
What we regard as collective memory is what the members of a group, an organisation
or a society want to remember. That is more than what the elite of that group
appropriates as collective memory or what it enforces the group, through
“politics of memory”, to view as collective memory.[11]
***
The past is
re-created and re-lived in commemorative practices, monuments, ceremonies and
other “theatres of memory”, like traditional sports and pastimes, costume
parades, “retrochic” and the heritage industry- so beautifully parodied in
Julien Barnes’ England, My England. [12] What they all have in common is that they allow the individual to
relate directly to what he or she regards as “the” past: a personal immediacy.
But what is the
past? Halbwachs opposed the mémoire collective to the mémoire
historique. For Halbwachs history begins where living collective memory
ends. But in history the past also lives, because, as the Dutch historian Johan
Huizinga said, the past is not photographed, but re-imagined.[13] History is a social construction, it is, in fact, a special form of
collective remembrance. Instead of opposing memory and history, Aleida Assmann
distinguishes two modes of remembering: Funktionsgedächtnis and Speichergedächtnis
- functional memory and storage memory.[14] The storage memory forms the perspective background for the functional
memory: It holds additional knowledge which as memory of memories can ensure
that really existing functional memories can be evaluated critically
and, when necessary, be renewed or changed.[15]
The collective
storage memory, according to Aleida Assmann, does not constitute collective
identity as such, as functional memory does. The ever expanding storage memory
keeps more information and different information which may be taken out by
functional memory, and restructured and recomposed into stories, into meaning, constituting
collective identities. Storage memory can be regarded as a reservoir for future
functional memories, as a corrective for current functional memories.
Therefore, Assmann writes, it is necessary to keep the boundaries between the
two memories permeable, allowing the storage memory to act
as a context for
different functional memories, more or less as their outer horizon from where
the narrowed perspectives of the past may be analyzed, criticized, and, not the
least, changed. [16]
It is time to
draw a preliminary conclusion. Neither collective memory nor history are
petrified fossils, but active forces, driven by preoccupations with the
present. Italo Svevo used a beautiful metaphor when he wrote that the present
is the conductor of an orchestra which is the past.[17] This can easily be grasped by current post-modern society, sometimes
even more easily than by some historians and archivists. In our time people no
longer believe in all-embracing ideologies and grand narratives, but in a
kaleidoscope of pluralistic stories. Stories replacing histories.
***
But what about
the archival heritage, you may ask. Halbwachs is rather vague about the
question how collective memory is transmitted from one generation to another.
Paul Connerton, on the other hand, deals with this question in his book How Societies Remember. He says that
what Halbwachs calls social memory, is in fact communication between
individuals: “To study the social formation of memory is to study those acts
of transfer that make remembering in common possible.”[18]
Transfer is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about an
archive, with its immediate connotation of storage, a connotation reinforced by
Aleida Assmann’s concept of “storage memory”. Nevertheless archiving - all the
activities from creation and management to use of records and archives - has
always been directed towards transmitting human activity and experience through
time and, secondly, through space. A storage memory transmits information to
some later point in time. It is this quality of the archive as a time machine,
that I want to stress because it is so essential in promoting the
preservation and accessibility of the European archival heritage
For many people, keeping
records is identical to cleaning one’s desk, sorting and throwing away and
putting one’s papers in a folder or a box. People who work on a computer save
their files and make back-ups. But why do, and did, people keep their papers
and computer files? Letters, bills, insurance papers and contracts all reflect
an activity. In a business or organisation, paper documents and digital records
are used to support the management and control of the work process.
Instructions for man and machine, the enhancement of the organisation’s
products and services, reporting - they all form part of the “process-bound
information”, as it is called in archival science. It is the information
generated by work processes that are all connected. The information is
structured and recorded by these processes in such a way that it may be
accessed from the context of the work processes.[19]
Records are also used as
a basis to account for the results of a business. They document transactions
and relations - between supplier and client, editor and author or between the
committee of a society and its members. They are kept to serve as an account of
these transactions or relations, and as evidence. Evidence not only in the
legal sense, but also from a historical point of view, to demonstrate what has
been. These two qualities of records fit into Aleida Assmann’s scheme of the
two modes of memory. The functional memory contains process bound information,
while the storage memory serves the evidential function:
Archives can be
organised as functional or as storage memory. The former contains those
documents and records that safeguard the legitimizing basis of existing power
relations, the latter stores potential sources forming the basis of the
historical knowledge of a culture.[20]
Archives and records as
potential sources of historical knowledge, as a bridge to yesteryear or the
past. That bridge is built equally by records in the professional records
manager’s sense, as by other “memory-retaining objects”. Both are to be found
in the civil servant’s convenience file, or in any person’s memory box. Everything
is archive - not something old and forgotten, but something of value in the
present and in the future. Shouldn’t we try to connect to that public
perception, rather than to impose on society what archivists believe to be
true? I am not suggesting to neglect the specificity of records and archives as
intrinsic process information or to dispose of the evidential quality of
records and archives in favour of their cultural value. But we have to take
into consideration that many of the artefacts that in the public perception are
considered to be archives function in societal processes of accountability and
evidence, just like records and archives-proper. Archives by birth and
archives by baptism are not
opposites, but should be seen - like Assmann’s modes of memory - in a
perspective view, where both, at the foreground and in the background, serve to
understand the past.
***
And what about
Ketelaar’s law? Is it still applicable in a digital environment? Civil servants
continue to create semi-official records which are not part of the
organization’s record keeping system. Personal computers, laptops and notebooks
throughout an organization store databases, email and other applications kept
by staff members for their personal use while carrying out functions for their
employer. Several of these systems are created and used by one individual only,
just as in the paper age the official kept his or her personal notes, drafts
and documentation in a convenience file. Many systems on these PC’s and laptops
are outside the purview of any organizational systems management and control.
Many are, however, not private, but official records. So, Ketelaar’s law may be
expanded with the proposition - yet to be tested - that if a civil servant (or
any administrator) sitting at his or her desktop, needs to click seven times
before getting access to a centrally maintained application, he or she will
start creating a personal record keeping system. In doing so, the
organizational memory will be further fragmented and individualized. What the
risks are of an organizational memory being dependent on what individuals have
stored on their laptops and PC’s, has been dramatically shown by the September
11 tragedies.
What are the solutions?
Here is some food for thought while you are preparing your journey back home:
six building blocks for possible strategies.
In the first place it is
essential that organizational record keeping systems take into account
semi-official recordkeeping by individual members of the organization:
recordkeeping in the broader sense as “everything is archive”.[21] Individual
and organizational memories blending together into one distributed memory.
Secondly, we have to
rethink what the use of records and archives, as functional and storage memories,
really is. In the past, staff kept the file close at hand, for immediate
access. Access to the file meant: having the file in your hands. But in the
digital age physical access is replaced by virtual access. In his book The
Age of Access Jeremy Rifkin points to the transformation from a
goods-producing to a services performing and experience-generating economy.[22]
No longer do we buy a product, we buy access to services. “Services are being
reinvented as long-term multifaceted relationships between servers and
clients.”[23]
Information technologies are used as relationship technologies. A cellular
phone is given away for free, as an inducement to use the telecom services. The
physical container becomes secondary to the unique services contained in it.
The Oxford English Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica have
dematerialized into an on-line service. Books and journals on library shelves
are giving precedence to access to services via the Internet.[24] Likewise,
in record keeping systems the files may conceptually be replaced by providing a
service, that is: access to a distributed archival memory. Thus making the
records manager into a records relations manager or a “memory relations
manager”.
Thirdly, archival
institutions are moving from providing physical documents to providing access[25],
from counting visits to the search room to counting hits on their website, from
issuing a reader’s card as a ticket to enter the search room to issuing a
customer’s card as the start of a multi-faceted relationship between client and
service-providing institution. At Amazon.com’s website I am welcomed with
recommendations for books and CD’s, based upon my browsing history and customer
profile. Why doesn’t the website of my library offer such a service? Why don’t
the archives use their users’ statistics and the Internet pro-actively to keep
researchers informed - individually and tailormade - of new acquisitions, new
finding aids, new publications, discounts and services which may interest them?
But consumers don’t ask
themselves as often “What do I want to have that I don’t have already”; they
are asking instead, “What do I want to experience that I have not experienced
yet?” [26]
In such an “experience economy”, as described by Joseph Pine and James Gilmore,[27]
companies produce memories, not goods.[28]
Memory has become one of the objects of the consumer society that sell well,
wrote Jacques le Goff twenty years ago.[29]
This leads to my fourth
proposition. Preserving and making accessible the archival heritage means:
offering the possibility to create memories.[30]
Archival institutions should present these memories as a historical experience,
evoking a historical sensation. A small museum in Terhorne, in Friesland, The
Netherlands, calls itself Ervarium, “experiencium”. There and elsewhere
- I am thinking of the Yarvik museum in York where the visitor even experiences
the smell of the past - a historical sensation is evoked: re-enacting,
re-living the past.[31] The
archive is - or should be - a place for such a re-enactment as well, a place
where the gout d’archive (the taste of archive)[32] functions
as a Proustian madeleine.
Archives
are - and this is my fifth point - time machines enabling man to carry his
thoughts, experiences and achievements through time. The archives of British Columbia
present a “BC Time Machine” on Internet, but it only allows a ride back into
the past. The archival time machine which I propose, rides into the
future and back from the future.
To enable a time travel
back and forth, archivists have to care about the future. Not only archivists: the DLM-Forum - from the first one in 1996 throughout this DLM-Forum
2002 - demonstrates clearly that the concern for digital
longevity is shared by archivists and administrators in
the public and the private sector. We can only achieve
this effectively and efficiently through industry-standard hardware and
software. That is why the contribution of the ICT-industry - called to arms by
the DLM-Forum in 1999 - is so essential to ensure travel into future’s “deep
time”.
Mankind requires such
time machines because they offer an escape from a world in which, as Rifkin
writes,
the marketing experts,
advertisers, and cultural intermediaries will be ready and waiting at the
gateways, offering up access to all sorts of meaningful new cultural
commodities and lived experiences for the price of admission. They will
prospect local cultures for fresh fragments of cultural experience that can be
mined and commodified. They will make their way back into history in search of
story lines for creating exciting and entertaining new experiences.[33]
To such commodification
and usurpation of private and public memories, a countervailing power must be
found. Access to information and knowledge will be that countervailing power.
And this is my sixth and final point. Access to the collective knowledge and
wisdom, as a prerequisite for civil education which is “an essential tool in
re-establishing a balanced ecology between culture and commerce.”[34]
This means: equal access to information, in the context of the cultural
diversity of our world, empowering citizens, enabling people to use the archive
as a time machine in the present, the past and the future.
***
This DLM Forum 2002 was
the third in a series, starting in 1996. I believe it is appropriate to
recognize the outstanding achievement of the man who inspired and organized the
three DLM Forums: Dr. Hans Hofmann.
At the opening of the
second DLM-Forum, 18 October 1999, the audience was challenged by the Secretary
General of the European Commission to continue seeking ways to preserve past,
present and future information, electronic and on multimedia, in a viable and
accessible form.[35] This is as true today, as it was three years
ago. It is as true, as the opening words of the first DLM-Forum, 18 December
1996, that I repeat now as my final conclusion: The digital era could well
depend for its development and innovation on the memory which you've brought
here today and intend to carry forward to the future.[36]
[1] Eric Ketellar is the widely published author,
Professor of
Archivistics at the University of Amsterdam, researcher and
former General State Archivist (National Archivist) of the Netherlands from
1989-1997.
[2] Information and communications technology industry.
[3] Marie-Anne Chabin, Je pense donc j’archive (L’Harmattan, Paris and Montréal 1999).
[4] Anthony D. Smith, “Towards a global culture?”,
in: Mike Featherstone (ed.), Global
Culture. Nationalism, globalization and modernity (Sage, London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi 1990) 182 = Anthony D. Smith, “Towards a Global Culture?”, Theory, Culture & Society 7 (1990)
182.
[5] Pierre Nora, “Entre mémoire et histoire.
La problématique des lieux,” in Pierre Nora (ed.), Les lieux de mémoire. I. La République (Gallimard,
Paris 1984), XXVII-XXVIII (English editions: Pierre Nora, “Between memory and
history. Les lieux de mémoire,” Representations
26 (Spring 1989) 13-14; Realms of
memory: rethinking the French past [on the jacket: The construction of the French past] I. Conflicts and divisions (Columbia
University Press, New York 1996) 8).
[6] Chabin, Je pense donc j’archive, 67-68.
[7] Susan A. Crane, “Writing the individual back
into collective memory”, American
Historical Review 102 (1997) 1381.
[8] Lewis A. Coser (ed.), Maurice Halbwachs, On collective memory (University of
Chicago Press, Chicago 1992) 34.
[9] Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle
Gedächtnis. Schrift,
Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (C.H. Beck, München 2000, 3. Aufl.).
[10] Alon Confino, “Collective memory and cultural
history: problems of method”, American Historical Review 102 (5)
(December 1977) 1386-1403, esp. 1399-1403.
[11] Confino, “Collective memory”, 1393-1399.
Unlike Confino, I do not restrict 'politics of memory' to Politics: any power
in any community uses politics of memory.
[12] Raphael Samuel, Theatres of memory. Volume
I: Past and present in contemporary culture (Verso, London/New York 1994);
David Lowenthal, The heritage crusade and
the spoils of history (Free
Press, New York 1996).
[13] Johan Huizinga, Verzamelde werken VII (H.D. Tjeenk Willink & zoon, Haarlem 1950) 12.
[14] Aleida Assmann, Erinnerungsräume.
Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses (C.H. Beck, München
1999) 130-142.
[15] Assmann, Erinnerungsräume, 136: “Es hält ein Zusatzwissen bereit, welches
als Gedächtnis der Gedächtnisse dafür sorgen kann, daß real existierende Funktionsgedächtnisse kritisch
relativiert und gegebenenfalls erneuert oder verändert werden können.”
[16] Assmann, Erinnerungsräume, 141: “als Kontext der verschiedenen
Funktionsgedächtnisse gewissermaßen
deren Außenhorizont, von dem aus die verengten
Perspektiven auf die Vergangenheit relativiert, kritisiert, und nicht zuletzt:
verändert werden können.”
[17] Assmann, Erinnerungsräume, 17.
[18] Connerton, 39.
[19] Theo Thomassen, “A first introduction to
archival science”, to be published in Archival science 2 (2002);
Frederick C.J. Ketelaar, “The benefit of archives”, Annual report 2001
Koninklijke Brill NV (Brill, Leiden 2001) 59-60.
[20] Assmann, Erinnerungsräume, 409: “Archive können sowohl als Funktions- wie als
Speichergedächtnis organisiert sein; im einen Falle enthalten sie jene
Dokumente und Beweisstücke, die die Legitimationsgrundlage bestehender
Machtverhältnisse absichern, im anderen Falle bergen sie potentielle Quellen,
die die Grundlage des historischen Wissens einer Kultur ausmachen.”
[21] Thomas A Finholt, “The electronic office”, in:
Cary L. Cooper - Denise M. Rousseau (eds.), Trends in organizational
behavior 4 (Wiley, Chichester 1997) 29-41.
[22] Jeremy Rifkin, The age of access. The new
culture of hypercapitalism where all of life is a paid-for experience
(Tarcher/Putnam, New York 2000).
[23] Rifkin, The age of access, 85.
[24] Rifkin, The age of access, 76-93, 100.
[25] Angelika Menne-Haritz, “Access - the reformulation
of an archival paradigm”, Archival science 1 (2001) 57-82.
[26] Rifkin, The age of access, 145.
[27] Joseph B. Pine - James Gilmore, The
experience economy. Work is theatre and every business a stage
(Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge MA 1999).
[28] Rifkin, The age of access, 145.
[29] Jacques Le Goff, Histoire et mémoire
(Gallimard, Paris 1988) 170: “la mémoire étant devenue un des objets de la
société de consommation qui se vendent bien.”
[30] Menne-Haritz, “Access”, 59.
[31] Simulating the past can have negative effects
as well: Kevin Walsh, The representation of the past. Museums and heritage
in the post-modern world (Routledge, London and New York 1992).
[32] Arlette Farge, Le goût de l'archive
(Editions du Seuil, Paris 1989).
[33] Rifkin, The age of access, 217.
[34] Rifkin, The age of access, 254-255.
[35] Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on electronic records. European citizens
and electronic information: the memory of the Information Society. Brussels, 18-19 October 1999, INSAR
Supplement IV (2000) 15.
[36] Proceedings of the DLM-Forum on electronic records. Brussels, 18-20
December 1996, INSAR Supplement
II (1997) 16.