{"title":"Activist participatory communities in archival contexts: theoretical perspectives","authors":"A. Flinn, Anna Sexton","doi":"10.29085/9781783303588.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We start this chapter by acknowledging that the label ‘activist participatory communities’ is a construct that is rooted in what we will describe as the ‘institutional gaze’. Our use of this construct as a means to define and understand ‘different’ forms of archiving is therefore complex and can have positive and negative consequences. In our archival context, which is the place from which both authors speak, the label can be used constructively by archive professionals as a means of acknowledging, seeking to understand, embrace and support archival activities and spaces that occur outside traditional archive structures. However, all processes of defining that position something or someone against an implicitly accepted ‘norm’ can be problematic. The fixing of the institutionally rooted (and therefore mainstream) archival gaze on the ‘other’ carries the risk of reinforcing distance, a continual forcing and holding at the margins, as opposed to an embedding into the heart of archival theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":184242,"journal":{"name":"Participatory Archives","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Participatory Archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783303588.015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
We start this chapter by acknowledging that the label ‘activist participatory communities’ is a construct that is rooted in what we will describe as the ‘institutional gaze’. Our use of this construct as a means to define and understand ‘different’ forms of archiving is therefore complex and can have positive and negative consequences. In our archival context, which is the place from which both authors speak, the label can be used constructively by archive professionals as a means of acknowledging, seeking to understand, embrace and support archival activities and spaces that occur outside traditional archive structures. However, all processes of defining that position something or someone against an implicitly accepted ‘norm’ can be problematic. The fixing of the institutionally rooted (and therefore mainstream) archival gaze on the ‘other’ carries the risk of reinforcing distance, a continual forcing and holding at the margins, as opposed to an embedding into the heart of archival theory and practice.