Archives, archivists and nation-building

Just a quick thought to put an end to over a month-long silence.

I’ve been wondering if there are some extensive studies made on the role of archives and archivists in nation-building and even as gate keepers of history and thus altering the human thought and ideas, which – according to Collingwood – history is all about. Question is, that shouldn’t archives be construed as a construction or an interpretation itself? It is always a conscious decision which documents are to be kept safe and which destroyed. Destruction of national heritage is also a widely used mean of warfare, recently used in e.g. the savagery of Bosnia in 1990′s.

Deliberate disposal of information on behalf of political goals is widely recognised phenomenon, but the formation of archives should be put under closer scrutiny, as well. An example: I was in the archives of Finnish foreign ministry looking for information on the Finnish-Hungarian relations and how Finnish diplomats used to emphasise the idea of a special kinship between Finns and Hungarians. An interesting notice was, that there is a specific dossier for the documents concerning the “kindred nations” (mainly Hungary and Estonia) although the whole idea of kinship between separate nations is nowadays rather disputable.

In addition to state archives there is the daily, grass root level archive forming where the archivist doesn’t serve any political or national goals. Even so, it is up to her/him how the future historian will construe the thoughts and ideas of her/his time. It would be interesting to compare archives from different decades and see if there are some patterns which could be derived from the zeitgeist of the respective time, assuming that deriving something from the “zeitgeist” is even possible.

The issue is fairly topical on a state-level scale, as some form of state-building is constantly taking place somewhere. Frederik Rosén has come up with an interesting article (Off the record: outsourcing security and state building to private firms and the question of record keeping, archives, and collective memory. Archival Science, vol. 8, 1/2008 p. 1-14), on which he raises a question on how privatisation of post-war recovery and security governance causes a lack of proper record keeping and archiving. He argues that this might severely affect future dynamics of societal memory and cause black holes in the history of a nation.

In my point of view, it isn’t enough to treat a single document as a subjective source of information, but the whole archives as well. Questions like who formed the archives, how it was formed, how the dossiers were named and what kind of documents were put in certain dossiers are not to be neglected. Archives itself can reveal suprisingly lot about thought and ideas of the time of its formation. It would be intriguing to read more on that particular subject.

The Missing Link

Good news from the field of civic society and open governance. A group working on i.a. the enhancement of the feasibility of web 2.0 in civic participation has published its final report, on which the Ministry of Finance is currently requesting for comments.

It is no secret that Finnish public sector still lacks certain dynamics when it comes to information policy and its usage on behalf of  deliberative e-Democracy and e-Participation. Right information for the right people at the right time is an old cliché used by data management professionals, by which we try to justify our existence. It is time this cliché was put more effectively in use.

A cliché it may be, but a justifiable one. In fact, the role of data management could be even bigger in public agencies. I tend to speak about extended data management (fin. laaja tiedonhallinta), which connects the traditional parts of data management – registry (kirjaamo), record management (asiakirjahallinto) and archiving (arkistointi) - with public relations/communication (viestintä/tiedotus), knowledge management (tietämyksenhallinta) and even data administration (tietohallinto).

I believe that in order to reach the aim of above-mentioned cliché and thus effeticely promote electronic civic participation certain measures need to be taken. The preceding clarification of the roles of different branches of information policy is one of them. Nowadays it can be quite unclear who is in charge of issues concerning the promotion of civic participation and freedom of information.

Someone should have a clear vision on the big picture and have a control of every dimension of information. For example, public relations and communication are capable of transmitting the information here and now, but in order to control the time-dimension of information archives are needed. They handle different dimensions of the same information but may never be in any contact with each other. Also, in order to fully utilize the benefits of an active civic society the whole idea of distributing only selected pieces of information is way behind the times. Limitations caused by the law on freedom of information (621/1999 24§) must naturally be taken into account.

A mere enhancement of the feasibility of civic participation is a good start but not enough. From the historian’s point of view equally important issue is the preservation of the context and provenance of the on-line discussions and other forms of deliberative policymaking. It is relatively easy to draw rules for the document management of authorities, but constantly developing and open-to-all wiki-environment is a whole new ballgame, so to say.

In order to achieve a sufficient level of preservation we need historically, societally and technologically savvy information professionals who are aware of the amount, type and provenance of the information as well as legislative issues. In addition to all that, they should be able to innovatively promote civic activity and civic society by means of freely and easily accessible information. Nowadays the gap between a technologically illiterate archivist and a wiki-conscious, microblogging pr-officer can be huge although their jobs should be inter-related in many ways.

Briefly on SMS-messages and Historians

American Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted quite recently a request, in which they ask for disclosure of information concerning White House policies governing the creation, retention and preservation of records generated through the use of electronic communications systems by the President, Vice President and White House staff. The concern is mostly over the President’s use of his BlackBerry.

Similar request could be sent to Finnish administration, as well. Preservation of e-mail records is well under consideration but issue of wireless communication systems is far more difficult. Historians love to get their hands on unofficial records – that is information, which was created in the preparation phase of the final protocols. So far it has been possible and relatively easy, as the correspondence usually took place in paper form. SMS-messages and other forms of wireless communication tend to be deleted.

Fortunately in the ministry of Foreign Affairs the preservation of SMS-messages is taken seriously, according to head of information services, Mr. Jyrki Paloposki, a historian himself. Mr. Paloposki has expressed his concern over the loss of SMS-messages with historical importance, and the results are hopefully to be seen in the future.

To be honest, the issue is more of a historians’ concern than other information specialists’. Wireless electronic devices are mostly used in quick exchange of thoughts and SMS-messages don’t usually contain any official information, which should be preserved or handled by National Archive’s regulations.

Still, a lot of unequally important information on the history of the state is found in the unofficial correspondence of presidents and other main political figures. This correspondence doesn’t take place in paper form anymore, but in SMS-messages and in other forms of wireless electronic communication. This could turn into a significant problem, although one might argue, that messages with genuine importance are bound to be preserved, which our current Prime minister and former Minister for foreign affairs must – or at least should – realise by now.