Editorial: archives and public history
Editorial: archives and public history
复制标题
社论：档案和公共历史
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
V. Hoyle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Hoyle
自拉斐尔·塞缪尔斯 (Raphael Samuels) 提出历史是“知识的社会形式； ”1他指出，二十世纪后期，过去的表现形式在文化机构和日常活动中都很明显，他将其追溯到“国家生活中的历史主义转向”。2随着历史的出现，构建和分享过去的工作越来越分散到各个领域，从大众电视到社区活动，从家族历史到遗产旅游。专业历史学家所实践的历史的“深奥形式”，包括档案研究的“拜物教”，正在被公共历史创作浪潮所侵蚀。3他突出了过去的草根和社区表现，将历史学家的过程驱动产出与更“民主”、个人和本地化的知识形式进行对比。4塞缪尔斯的论点暗示了“民主化”历史工作与“拜物教”的使用之间的对立。档案，将档案研究与专家受众的观点和专业知识联系起来。他的图式中的公共历史发生在其他地方，博物馆和媒体，社区团体和私人住宅。在避开社会上对历史最狭隘的定义时，他强化了档案的定义，这一定义淡化了与档案馆和学院之外的档案工作的长期接触历史。在整个二十世纪，家族和地方历史学家一直在打破历史信息的等级制度，认识到以前被忽视的材料的价值，这些材料通常来自当地和家族。家庭照片、记忆和当地民间传说都被纳入档案办公室创造历史的资源池中。与此同时，从 20 世纪 60 年代起，维权人士和社区团体开始收集和保存他们的活动和地点的记录，包括蜉蝣、物品和口述历史，这些记录都在他们自己不断增长的档案中。这些藏品在当下是生动且有意义的，是做出改变和重建过去的工具。档案也是构建民族主义和整个社会叙事的核心，政府、媒体和企业动员档案来发展其公共身份。自塞缪尔斯以来，这些活动不断发展，并因数字技术的出现而扩大和促进，数字技术允许档案材料在多种背景下被许多人快速流通、重复使用和解释。通过诸如《你以为你是谁？》等热门电视节目，这些档案变得更加可见。不仅用作有关过去的信息，而且用作过去本身的表现。在英国，1994 年遗产彩票基金的成立以及 1997 年新工党的选举提供了一个财务和意识形态框架，将档案的新思维方式融入到专业实践中。强调社区和人民的成果鼓励组织和机构与利益相关者和基层团体合作开展公共历史活动和项目。拉斐尔·塞缪尔斯想象的那种“迷恋”档案遭遇的类型与当代的接触模式格格不入。展览、表演、艺术干预、数字混音以及与社区的共同制作使档案比以往任何时候都更加公开。本期《档案与记录》特刊被认为是一个探索档案馆现在在公共历史活动中扮演的不同角色的机会，不仅收集了档案工作者的观点，还收集了历史学家、艺术家和社会学家的观点。近十年来，档案
It is over 25 years since Raphael Samuels wrote that history was ‘a social form of knowledge; the work, in any given instance of a thousand different hands.’1 He identified a growth in manifestations of the past in the late twentieth century, evident in both cultural institutions and in everyday activities, which he traced back to ‘a historicist turn in national life.’2 The work of constructing and sharing the past as history was increasingly dispersed through all spheres, from popular television to community activism, from family history to heritage tourism. The ‘esoteric form’ of history practised by professional historians, including the ‘fetishization’ of archival research, was being eroded by a tide of public history making.3 He foregrounded grassroots and community manifestations of the past, contrasting the process-driven outputs of historians with more ‘democratic,’ personal, and localized forms of knowledge.4 Samuels’ argument implied an opposition between ‘democratised’ history work and the use of ‘fetishized’ archives, associating archival research with the perspectives and expertise of a specialist audience. Public history in his schema happened elsewhere, in museums and the media, in community groups and private homes. In eschewing the narrowest definition of history in society, he reinforced a definition of archives which underplayed a long history of engagement with archives and archival work outside of the academy. Throughout the twentieth century, family and local historians had been breaking down hierarchies of historical information, recognizing the value of previously neglected material, often local and familial in origin. Family photographs, memories, and local folklore were integrated into the pool of resources available for history making in record offices. At the same time, from the 1960s onwards rights activists and community groups had begun collecting and preserving the records of their movements and places, including ephemera, objects, and oral histories in their own growing archives. These collections were live and meaningful in the present, tools for making change as well as for reconstructing the past. Archives were also central to the construction of nationalist and societal narratives at large, mobilized by governments, the media, and businesses to develop their public identities. These activities have continued to develop since Samuels, broadened and facilitated by the emergence of digital technologies that allow archival materials to be circulated, reused and interpreted rapidly by many people in multiple contexts. The archive has become more visible through popular television programmes such as Who Do You Think You Are? used not just as information about the past but as a manifestation of the past itself. In the UK, the establishment of the Heritage Lottery Fund in 1994, along with the election of New Labour in 1997, provided a financial and ideological framework to embed new ways of thinking about archives into professional practice. An emphasis on outcomes for communities and for people encouraged organizations and institutions to work with stakeholder and grassroots groups to produce public history activity and projects. The type of ‘fetishized’ archival encounter imagined by Raphael Samuels is alien to contemporary models of engagement; exhibitions, performances, artistic interventions, digital remixes, and co-production with communities are making archives more public than ever. This special issue of Archives and Records was conceived as an opportunity to explore the diverse roles that archives now play in public history activity, gathering the perspectives of not only archivists but also historians, artists, and sociologists. Over the last decade, the archival