{"title":"The �Nature� of Ethics while (Digitally) Archiving the Other","authors":"Bibhushana Poudyal","doi":"10.37514/atd-j.2021.18.1-2.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article begins with an introduction to my digital archival project, the deconstructive approach in it, and the questions that are guiding both the project and the article. Then, I present the ethical dilemmas I encountered after I decided to build a digital archive. I connect these dilemmas with the—witting or otherwise—orientalist pattern behind two of the West-based digital archival projects about Nepal and South Asia. I also introduce the metaphor of pharmakon and argue for the need to interrogate archival performances through the questions of ethics. Through the discussion of my project, I attempt to offer, not a manifesto on ethical digital archives, but a possibility of making digital archives hospitable to the Other by building a dialectical relationship with the communities. My project, Rethinking South Asia from the Borderlands via Critical Digital A(na)rchiving, is a Nepali researcher’s humble, stubborn, and sincere effort/experiment of building a digital archive by bringing together community-praxis and deconstructive approaches. I aim to see if a dialogic room in digital archives can be built for and with the Other. I use the discussion of my project to raise some of the hardest questions and to offer a glimpse at the “nature” of ethics that archivists must unconditionally pursue while (digitally) archiving the Other.1 [Impossible archival imaginaries] explain[] how archival imaginaries may work in situations where the archive and its hoped-for contents are absent or forever unattainable. —Anne Gilliland & Michelle Caswell, “Records and Their Imaginaries: Imagining the Impossible, Making Possible the Imagined” Yes, the archive is an instrument of power. It is a technology of rule. A set of apparatuses producing and reproducing dominant narratives. An omnipotence-other. But it is also a subversive space. It is about a feigning and a fomentation, a resisting. It is a domain hospitable to resistance. — Verne Harris, Archives and Justice: A South African Perspective Figure 1: Image of Commuters in a public vehicle in","PeriodicalId":201634,"journal":{"name":"Across the Disciplines","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Across the Disciplines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37514/atd-j.2021.18.1-2.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The article begins with an introduction to my digital archival project, the deconstructive approach in it, and the questions that are guiding both the project and the article. Then, I present the ethical dilemmas I encountered after I decided to build a digital archive. I connect these dilemmas with the—witting or otherwise—orientalist pattern behind two of the West-based digital archival projects about Nepal and South Asia. I also introduce the metaphor of pharmakon and argue for the need to interrogate archival performances through the questions of ethics. Through the discussion of my project, I attempt to offer, not a manifesto on ethical digital archives, but a possibility of making digital archives hospitable to the Other by building a dialectical relationship with the communities. My project, Rethinking South Asia from the Borderlands via Critical Digital A(na)rchiving, is a Nepali researcher’s humble, stubborn, and sincere effort/experiment of building a digital archive by bringing together community-praxis and deconstructive approaches. I aim to see if a dialogic room in digital archives can be built for and with the Other. I use the discussion of my project to raise some of the hardest questions and to offer a glimpse at the “nature” of ethics that archivists must unconditionally pursue while (digitally) archiving the Other.1 [Impossible archival imaginaries] explain[] how archival imaginaries may work in situations where the archive and its hoped-for contents are absent or forever unattainable. —Anne Gilliland & Michelle Caswell, “Records and Their Imaginaries: Imagining the Impossible, Making Possible the Imagined” Yes, the archive is an instrument of power. It is a technology of rule. A set of apparatuses producing and reproducing dominant narratives. An omnipotence-other. But it is also a subversive space. It is about a feigning and a fomentation, a resisting. It is a domain hospitable to resistance. — Verne Harris, Archives and Justice: A South African Perspective Figure 1: Image of Commuters in a public vehicle in