The Evolution of the Archive
Origin and history
An archive’s structural and functional transformation overtime subtly represents both the positives and negatives of living in a digital era. Archives demonstrate the control revolution and the cyber debates associated with it, as well as the prevailing digital gap of accessibility to online resources. They have the power to influence an individual’s identity formation and impact self-presentation on social media platforms. However, archives risk information misprioritization in the society of informational overload. Along with technological innovations and social dynamics, the definition of archive continues to evolve.
According to Featherstone (2006), the archive began as a government site for information-keeping and national security reasons. As European nation-states grew, the beginning of archives furthered governmentality and population regulations, “as well as provided foreign policy information about the strategies and globalizing ambitions of rivals” (Featherstone, 2006, p. 591).
In the 18th century, archives began as individualized records of people as hospitals and asylums were introduced to society, known as the “actuality of individualization” (Featherstone, 2006, p. 592). As populations grew, so did archives of the diverse people who formulated them. As time went on, specifically in the 19th century, archives became a state’s storage of history and memory, including sites such as libraries, museums and monuments. Featherstone (2006) noted the accessibility gap of archives, where scholars had to travel to prestigious capitals to reach archives of their own country’s history. Storage and accessibility were historically problematic, but is currently problematic in a different way. The present-day conundrum is handling “potentially unstable electronic archives” (Featherstone, 2006, p. 592), and transitioning from physical to cyberspace conservation sites.
“The digital archive has revised the traditional institutional archive to represent both a democratizing endeavor and a scholarly enterprise” (p. 9).
The modernized archive
In her keyword article, Harris (2016) initially defines an archive as a traditional, physical institution containing historical collections of works. She cites Manoff (2004), who advocates for the evolving archive, “the digital archive has revised the traditional institutional archive to represent both a democratizing endeavor and a scholarly enterprise” (p. 9). Price (2009) argues how the digital era continues to transform the archive, advantageously allowing users to preserve documents and photographs to develop their own archives as memory devices, beyond the traditional artifact-keeping. Archives continue to evolve along with the digitizing society, portraying both potential issues and benefits, beginning with the control revolution.
The potential for contamination in a control revolution
Beniger (1986) argues that society is in a control revolution, a succession of technological innovations for the purposes of advancing the collection, storage and communication of information. He describes it as a crisis, where society is progressing too fast for information processing and communication technologies to keep up. The bittersweet concept of living in a control revolution connects to Harris’ argument. She is concerned about the current messiness associated with the physical and digital archiving process for cultural records, and specifically the important information missing or forgotten due to the constant influx of information in the information era. In the midst of the control revolution, it is possible that prestigious works of art, the literary canons, will be replaced by reckless archives of less meaningful literature. Harris (2016) views this as contamination caused by endless accumulation. Lindgren also cites McLuhan’s argument about how individuals are direct products of the mediums they use. In accordance with this theory, the impact the digital archive has as a medium reveals the information overload of the 21st century, the obsession with convenience, control and easy accessibility. However, the convenience of archives is not accessible to everyone, and the preserved, digital literature is notorious for lacking diversity and promoting contamination (Harris, 2016).
Is the archive widening the digital gap?
The digital gap prevails in the accessibility to archives of information. Similar to how Fuchs (2014) argues that the current digital public sphere is not accessible to everyone, archives are also inaccessible to those who lack the resources or technological means. Physical archives are less restrictive and are not controlled by media capitalists, but these traditional repositories now hold less prominence. Similar to Gillespie’s (2010) dissection of the word “platform,” suggesting that the online distribution of information is neutral and absent of discrimination, archives have similar connotations. Harris (2016) argues that the problems of the digital era focuses more on the archivist rather than the actual artifact.
“In digital humanities’ interactions with literary, library, and media studies, especially in the construction of databases, digital archives, and repositories, those marginalized voices exist, but they exist outside the scope of the traditional literary canon even still” (p. 49).
As archives transition online, misrepresentation and unheard historical voices continue to threaten the digital archives due to the archivist’s subjectivity. As part of her argument, Harris (2016) writes this new archive particularly has potential for contamination when the reader is tempted to pursue radial reading, leaving the text to acquire more knowledge on it. The modern-day archive databases lack purity, diversity and public accessibility, portraying a cyberpessimism view towards the digitization of literature in the cyber debate.
Cyberoptimists versus cyberpessimists
Postman (1992) holds a cyberpessimistic view and argues about the dangerous overtake of technopoly, casting “aside all traditional narratives and symbols that suggest stability and orderliness, and tells, instead, of a life of skills, technical expertise, and the ecstasy of consumption” (p. 66). As society further engrosses itself in this excessive consumption, archives will continue to destabilize. Carr (2013) goes so far as to warn that the essence of humanity is at stake, and how the digital frenziedness will have a negative impact on human nature. Both scholars would agree on the cyberpessimism associated with archives, and the risk of losing literary canons in the mayhem of information and the obsession with documenting every moment. Harris (2016) uses Wikipedia as an example of a crowd-sourced archive, representing the cyberpessimistic fears of the twenty-first century.
Wikipedia consists of many “archivists” contributing endless entries, “attempting to hold close all that happens at once in the world” (p. 46).
Whatever does not make it in digital archive will be forgotten, revealing the replacement of professional standards with digital representation. In line with Harris (2016), the essential argument is with the archivist, and the digital tools they use in sorting and prioritizing information. Beyond the worrisome attitudes about archives, digital archives play a prevalent role in self-presentation motives on social media.
Self-presentation in the digital quest for love
Winter’s (2011) study, “The Digital Quest for Love” involved social networking sites, such as Facebook and Instagram, and their impact on self-presentation motives, emphasizing a person’s relationship status as a critical factor. In this case, one’s social media account is the archive. Users can selectively pick photos, certain personal information and the type of content to upload in order to present themselves in an attractive way, known as impression management (Winter, 2011). The study found that people are drawn to online self-presentation due to the ability to embellish certain information. However, they must find a “compromise between impression management pressures and the desire to present an authentic image of themselves” (Winter, 2011). Ultimately, the group found that individuals searching for a significant other made better use of self-presentation tools by creating a detailed profile, this includes constantly archiving and un-archiving content that correlates with the person’s idealistic image. In addition to using archives to amplify a user’s romantic life, others rely on social media platforms for identity-formation, or “insta-identity”, with archiving as one of the main social and psychological motives (Seibel, 2019, p. 2,).
As an ”integral part of an individual’s holistic identity construction and representation of self” (p. 4), Instagram has, among many others, archive features to help build the user’s identity.
Instagram and its identity-forming abilities
Cyberworld and social media have become crucial components to the identity-formation process. Seibel (2019) supports this claim, specifically about the impact Instagram has on both self-construction and presentation. As an “integral part of an individual’s holistic identity construction and representation of self” (p. 4), Instagram has, among many others, archive features to help build the user’s identity. A user’s feed is essentially an archive of revealing pictures, where each picture and caption was crafted to portray a certain figment of their identity. This includes Instagram’s highlights feature, where a user can save their stories to appear on their profile, highlighting a particular quality of their personality, interests or life moments. Seibel (2019) argues about the importance of understanding this visual identity construction, which can have fluidity, though still remaining authentic. Instagram is an important player in identity formation due to its photography features. For example, “selfies” allow for a user’s self-expression, and to remember a specific moment in time, which connects to identity formation. Appearance is imperative in communicating one’s identity. She cites Van House (2009), who argues that memory construction through photographs allows the user to create a personal narrative, or archive, resulting in a form of self-awareness. Despite the beneficial fluidity of the identity-formation process offered by social media archives, Kang (2018) found a disparity in motivations concerning the usage of Instagram’s features depending on the audience.
How your “Finsta” reveals your true colors
An individual’s usage of Instagram’s features depended on whether they were using a fake Instagram account, known as “Finsta”, or a real account, a “Rinsta”. Kang (2018) found that Rinsta users show more flattering, perfected content of a desirable, appealing lifestyle, while their Finstas revealed more unflattering, vulnerable material, mostly intended for close friends. Kang (2018) discussed a phenomenon known as context collapse, where users refrain from posting content beyond what their homogenous audience allows. The analysis found that people tend to post transparent content on their Finstas, revealing their care-free, better self -expression and lack of impression management on the Finsta (Kang, 2018). On their Rinstas, some users self-censor themselves, confiding to a “vanilla” self. The five Instagram user motivations are social interaction, archiving, self-expression, escapism, and peeking (Kang, 2018). These motivations were found to be much higher when using a Rinsta. Instagram is popular for users’ capabilities to archive content on their profile page, resulting in this creative and ideal-self. Essentially, archive tools are used less on Finstas, since the need to present an ideal-self diminishes (Kang, 2018). Self-education and precautions on proper archiving remains an issue.
Awareness and education in the digital era of archives
With the emergence of technologies, people have an accumulation of online memories and personal records, where these personal archives are important to our daily functioning. Zhao (2019) did a study on the challenges associated with personal digital archiving. Zhao (2019) introduced a concept, benign neglect, or people archiving more information than needed, disregarding its values and focusing on preservation. In the study of post graduates, it was founded that most students held personal digital archives for their information, such as from evidence or memories, formed by their digital devices, such as computers or iPhones, but wearable devices are making prominent appearances. As a result of his group’s findings, Zhao (2019) recommends that archiving strategies should be more conscious and caring of their archiving activities to avoid data breaches as well as damage or loss to their valuable information, including maintenance and organization. He agrees with other scholars’ proposals about the concept of “citizen archivist”, arguing that professional librarians should share their expertise in digital resources to citizens utilizing these tools, believing physical libraries and archives have a major role in guiding personal digital archiving. The rising citizen archivist must take further precautions when creating digital archives, and third-party internet services should amplify user privacies. This is similar to a recent New York Times article, “Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE.”
Archives on Capitol Hill: From preservation to destruction
Matthew Connelly of The New York Times wrote about how the National Archives is destroying millions of important documents. For example, they allowed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terminate undocumented immigrants’ deaths or incidences of sexual abuse. Additionally, the ICE will begin to destroy paperwork concerning civil rights violations during President Trump’s first year in Office. The National Archives also plans to delete files on endangered species, offshore drilling inspections, and a historical case concerning mismanagement of Native American land that resulted in a multi-billion dollar settlement. Archivists are using their “expert judgement” on what information is relevant and of interest to future historians or the general public (Connelly, 2020). The archivist will soon be replaced by an algorithm to organize information as “historic” or “temporary”. The extensive amount of data has escalated costs that Congress has no interest in paying, and continues to cut the budget allocated towards the National Archives. The government’s destruction of vital, archived documents, as well as their growing disinterest in preserving history, is an example of a “great and growing threat to our nation’s capacity to protect and learn from history” (Connelly, 2020).
Reflection
Evident from Connelly’s article, the way archive is used currently differs from my initial understanding. Rather than a place for artifact preservation, it has become political, where government officials are using their power to destroy or directly influence what is stored, such as enforcing an algorithm in the near future to replace archivists with. As archives expand to social media platforms, their uses also expand beyond a state’s information, memory and artifact preservation. Archives are evolving in functionality, providing citizen archivists with the ability to develop an identity with features offered by platforms, such as Instagram. Digital archives offer more scholastic and democratic opportunities for self-knowledge.
However, despite the positive connotations and excitement over seemingly endless storage space, educational as well as personal usage opportunities, these potentially unstable spaces are obscured. The digital archives’ presumed, fast accessibility and enhanced knowledge acquisition of information downplays the increased surveillance of our information. Additionally, there are missing voices in the subjectively chosen works of literature in the digital archives. As the control revolution continues to rage on, the risk of contamination in archives grows in the influx of information.
References:
Christian Fuchs. (2014). Social Media and the Public Sphere. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 12(1), 57–101. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i1.552.
Connelly, M. (2020, Feb. 4). Why You May Never Learn the Truth About ICE. The New York Times.
Featherstone, M. (2006). Archive. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 591–596.https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276406023002106.
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms.” New Media and Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738
Harris, Katherine. “Archive.” The Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media. Eds. MarieLaure Ryan, Lori Emerson, and Benjamin J. Robertson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014.
Kang, J., & Wei, L. (2019). Let me be at my funniest: Instagram users’ motivations for using
Finsta (a.k.a., fake Instagram). Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.12.005
Lindgren, Simon (2017). Digital Media and Society. SAGE Publications.
Manoff, Marlene. “Theories of the Archive from across the Disciplines.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4:1 (2004): 9–5.
Price, Kenneth. “Edition, Project, Database, Archive, Thematic Research Collection: What’s in a Name?” Digital Humanities Quarterly 3:3 (Summer 2009) .
Seibel, Bailey, “Insta-Identity: The Construction of Identity Through Instagram” (2019). University Honors Theses. Paper 747.
Van House, N. A. (2009). Collocated photo sharing, story-telling, and the performance of self. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(12), 1073–1086.
Winter, S., Haferkamp, N., Stock, Y., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). The Digital Quest for Love — The Role of Relationship Status in Self-Presentation on Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 5(2), Article 3.
Zhao, Y., Duan, X., & Yang, H. (2019). Postgraduates’ personal digital archiving practices in China: Problems and strategies. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(5).
