OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE: ARCHIVES HISTORY AND PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY

Author(s): BARBARA L. CRAIG

Source: Archival Issues, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1992), pp. 113-124
Published by: Midwest Archives Conference
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41101829
Accessed: 09-01-2017 11:21 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41101829?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Midwest Archives Conference is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Archival Issues

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD
GLANCE: ARCHIVES HISTORY
AND PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY
BARBARA L CRAIG

ABSTRACT: Archivists, looking out beyond their stacks and strong rooms, have
unsettling visions of the revolution in communications and its future impact.
Even the word archives, quickly transformed into a verb, has been hijacked by
data professionals who are "archiving" data every day. How do we acquire new
skills yet still retain a distinct identity in this new records market with its abun-
dant variety of information specialists and data managers on offer? Knowledge
of new skills is important, but it must be honed by a sense of our wider purpose
in the ecology of records which is largely derived from a thorough understand-
ing of our past. From a sense of continuity with archives history come perspec-
tive and purpose. If we grasp the history of archives and of records-keeping, in
all their abundant variety, we will be well placed for a strong professional
response to both the means and the modes of modern discourse.

Outward visions, inward glance is a reversal of the catch phrase used by

Charles Rosenburg, eminent historian of the American hospital, to characterize
the field of vision of hospital boards in the nineteenth century. They focused
almost exclusively on the internal order of the institution - initially on its moral
economy and later on professional roles within a discourse of biological sci-
ence. Looking constantly inside, the lay governors and the physicians who guid-
ed hospitals failed to acknowledge the effect of a wider society on their institu-
tion and on the health of their patients. By ignoring relationships to the outside
world, these people of influence turned a blind eye to both the meaning of cur-
rent facts and to their implications for the future.1
The archival profession, by contrast, has a reverse field of vision. We have a
broad view outward, to our relationship with other professionals, with society,
and to the future: but we have directed only a brief glance inward, to our own
history and to our roots. Our preoccupation with what the future may hold for us
is conditioned by the speed of contemporary change in archives and the uncer-
tainty of its outcome. The insight of the poet W.B. Yeats embodied in the ironic
verdict, "Fast [fare] forward traveller, not escaping from the past into different
lives or into any future" seems to be emphatically not the case for archivists and
their records. Both are uneasy passengers on the express train of technology
which is speeding ever faster into a new ecology of information decidedly
unlike anything we have ever experienced.

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 1 4 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 2, 1 992

That archivists and their archives are moving "fast forward" into a different life
and a very changed future is the general consensus.2 Recent archival literature
abounds with concern for the effects of change on our work place and on our
records. At one end of the spectrum of speculation, the archival "gurus" ponder
the implications of "paradigm shifts," and the possible chaotic archival future
created by new the means of communication, while at the other end, an emi-
nently practical group of archivists tackles a host of issues related to the
appraisal and management of the materials created in the new information
world order.1 The verdict of the seers and of the practitioners, perhaps not sur-
prisingly, is divided. Some, bothered by change and bewildered by its variety,
predict a dire future for us while others fairly burst with excitement as they per-
ceive, not problems, but new opportunities in the same situation.
As the future fairly rushes up to meet us, there does not appear to be any time
to plan a response let alone to exert real control over the tidal wave of change.
Many ask hard questions about the prospects for the survival of archives in the
future and speculate on the possible decline in the market value of our skills as
traditional archival functions migrate to other places and professions. No one
questions the rapidity of the technological transformation of records and
records-keeping: it is the direction that change will take us and the eventual des-
tination that are so unclear. If communications technology seemingly affects so
effortlessly every aspect of records-making and easily undercuts the hard-won
ground on which modern archivists have erected their working premises, where
is the firm ground on which to take a stand?4 Just when our relationship with
records management and managers seemed to be stabilizing into a fruitful
alliance, new information technologies have leap-frogged this partnership that is
anchored in a strictly paper environment. One certainty in an uncertain future is
that ahead lies the task of adjusting our concepts, our partners, and our educa-
tion.5
If these anxieties about the future prospects of archives and a distinct archival
practice are real, and they seem to be not only real but also widely acknowl-
edged by archivists in many countries, we do not need to look very far afield to
find their source. Competition - and on many fronts - is the order of the day.
We are competing within our institutions for funding and for relevance: we are
competing with other "information" practitioners who claim resources and sup-
port for the essentially archival activities that they are undertaking; and we are
competing for customers and clients whose patronage confirms our social worth
and justifies our mission. Professional fitness for a competitive environment
conditioned by technology and its demands gives a new urgency to the discus-
sion of customary archival subjects.
Our traditional world view has largely been shattered by the impact of elec-
tronics. Few of our working conventions developed within a documentary cul-
ture that is now in eclipse appear to be sacred. Assumptions that once were con-
sidered natural, such as the physical preservation of documents and the perma-
nent value of some information, are no longer taken for granted.6 Many deeply
concerned archivists urge us to make wholesale changes in our practices and in
our traditional theories, both largely derived from a wide acceptance of custodi-
al principles. In place of the sequential trinity of acquisition, preservation, and
then availability, client-driven public services are urged as a proven device to
orient the postmodern archives. Values, it seems, are relative to needs, perma-

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE 115

nence a function of changing human requirements, and availability of informa-

tion the goal of all activities.7
Changes in the method of training archivists and in the curriculum they
should follow appear to be urgently needed. Even a cursory glance at recent
issues of any archives journal, or at the offerings of conferences, will confirm
our deep concern to provide an education that fits archivists to meet the realities
of competition in the marketplace from new occupational groups with legiti-
mate interests in recorded information.8 Overall, I think that we are concerned
for our survival as a distinct group because our relationship to other information
professions is unclear. The word archives itself, transformed from a noun into a
verb, has been hijacked by "data workers" who are archiving data every day.
Are we being outflanked by those who have not only usurped our language but
also are in the process of assuming our responsibilities?
In sum, we have an unsettling outward vision towards our future. A vastly
different environment of records, indeed a new ecology of information, seems
to beg the question of our very relevance. The rosy picture of an archival future
blessed with support, money, and recognition is so patently at odds with reality
that we are convinced, by default, that the opposite gloomy picture must be the
right one. Even if we shun, as we must, defeatist talk of predestination and crys-
tal ball predictions, very real questions remain to be asked. How do we fit our-
selves for the future? How do we reorient ourselves and retool? How do we
educate new archivists? In other words, what strategies will help the profession
meet the future with more confidence and less existential angst? Although we
can neither predict the shape of archives in the future nor confirm that archivists
will survive in a recognizable form, we can say with empirical certainty that
archivists face the future unsure of what we are pursuing. Are we managers of
informatio?. Are we one of the building trades of history? Or are we specialists
in records? That uncertainty is partly of our own making. It is, in my opinion,
largely derived from a gap in our professional personality; we are entering the
future burdened with a fragmented past that undermines our identity.
A key to developing a robust professional fitness lies, paradoxically, in study-
ing our past, whose importance hitherto has been over shadowed by a fascina-
tion with deciphering the possible shapes of things to come. Archivists need to
turn away from their vision out and to the future and face inward, to their own
history as a profession and to the history of the records that they care for.
Archivists serve up a sumptuous bill of fare but they have very little understand-
ing either of the current cuisine or of its history. Are we waiters or are we
chefs? I pose this question fully realizing that there is not a unanimous answer
to it and that over the years there have been and continue to be divergent views
about the archivist's role and social place.9 Why stir up the past at all if we can-
not predict what the result will be? Would it not be better to concentrate our
energies on solving current problems and in securing our future? Uncertainty of
the result of research into our past should not make us timid investigators. I
would argue that we are sufficiently mature, as a profession, to analyze our his-
tory fully justified in expecting a positive result. Today's competitive environ-
ment demands something more from us than a comforting "middle aged" look
back at the enthusiasms and achievements of our younger selves. Nostalgia cer-
tainly does play a healthy psychological role in our corporate identity; however,
we must overcome the immobility suggested by Susan Sontag's aphorism

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 1 6 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 2, 1 992

"when today becomes tomorrow we will remember how happy we were yester-
day." Our history is neither an exercise in nostalgia and piety nor a fringe activi-
ty that can be safely ignored as only marginally relevant to the future.
Empirically and practically, the history of archives and records, actively pur-
sued and discussed, will be perhaps the single most important factor positively
shaping our future as a profession.
There will be those who take immediate issue with my assertions. Some will
argue that history, as a subject, has not been neglected, pointing to both the
dominance of history in the pre-professional education of archivists and the
many archival education programs which embody a substantial component of
historical study.10 Others see the very strength of academic history in archival
education as a barrier, separating us from our records and our professional allies
and inhibiting our practical response to the changes in today's archival environ-
ment. Why privilege an education in history any more than one in geography, or
perhaps even more usefully in computer science or communications theory,
claim these critics.11 Indeed, if archival education's umbilical link to history was
based on the dominance of historians as the users of archives, and if other
researchers now outnumber historians, then the rationale for educating
archivists in academic history appears to be based more on inertia in employ-
ment traditions than on the importance of sharing a philosophy and methodolo-
gy with a primary user group. Without joining the lists on either side, it never-
theless seems to me that the protracted "historian" debate has been curiously off
the mark. The "history" long associated with archives and archival training is
deafeningly silent on the areas of the past that archivists need to study - the his-
tory of archives and of records-keeping. Our own history and, even more impor-
tant, that of our records, have been given very short shrift in just about all the
education and training any of us received. A quick review of the courses offered
in current archives programs reveals that some attention is paid to the subject,
but I think no would disagree that the history of archives, of records, and of the
archival profession is poorly represented, taught only superficially and general-
ly used as a "filler" subject to give the student some sense of the past and per-
haps the instructor some breathing time.12 Why has our past been divided up,
subordinated to other subjects, and generally neglected?
The lack of attention to our own history is not because its importance is dis-
counted among archivists. Archivists as diverse in temperament, training, and
taste as Richard Cox, Terry Eastwood, Tom Nesmith, and Michael Roper, each
in their way, have urged archivists to delve into their own history for the tangi-
ble benefits that study can bring.13 The lack of attention to a specifically
archival history is, I think, very much related to our intellectual orphanage.14
Educated in other disciplines, archivists find their own history, and the history
of the organizations and records with which they work, relegated to the limited
time available for "related" instruction or in add-on training. Moreover, as the
knowledge base continues to grow, there is even greater pressure to ration
instruction by concentrating exclusively on practical items that will not have
been covered in any previous education. The seasonal institute, the intensive
workshop devoted to one skill or subject, and the introductory course slotted
into a library or history curriculum, all once considered appropriate means of
preparing the archivist, rating but few comments, are now under serious scruti-
ny. Many consider that the scattershot format of these courses inhibits an inte-

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE 117

grated study of the variety of theoretical and technical matters germane to

archival practice. It is certainly true that history has been left out, only to be
caught up as a brief introduction to other topics.
This fracturing of archives history into introductory doses, taught as a front-
end filler to "real" subjects, such as arrangement practices, descriptive methods,
MARC formats, and documentation strategies, encourages students to conclude
that the past has value only as a place of curious practices that sets our enlight-
ened era off from less informed and poorer equipped predecessors. Archives
history, then, is not germane to the future course of our work. If the past has any
relevance to our present condition, it is as a barrier to progress, something to be
overcome rather than understood. The serious pursuit of archives and records
history may be virtually ignored by archivists, but the ground is not unoccupied.
A long-term lease has been taken out, eagerly, by others who find the history of
records and records-keeping intriguing and important. Those very topics which
one would think should be the subjects for archivists to study: filing practices,
communications systems in institutions, the history of technology as applied to
records-keeping, the development of modern documentary forms, and the soci-
ology of the office as it relates to record practices, are represented in the litera-
ture by historians such as Joanne Yates and Alfred Chandler.15 Archivists cannot
afford to leave their history in the hands of others, however capable: their
research agendas are not driven by archival concerns. Archivists need to repatri-
ate their own history because from ownership comes identity.
How can we accomplish the study of archival history, beset, as we all are, by
pressing operational problems that claim our energies and time? It is one thing
to agree that it is important and quite another to make opportunities that will
stimulate and facilitate historical investigation. A most important beginning will
take place in archives education. A fundamental restructuring of curriculum is
taking place internationally, in Canada, in the United States, and in Britain.16
This period of rethinking is likely to continue for some time, providing a unique
opportunity for us to redefine history as archival history and to incorporate its
systematic study into the education of future archivists. In any new guidelines
for curricula the archival past deserves more than just lip service. Courses in the
history of records and archives are neither frills nor fillers but necessary core
subjects. Because that history, actively researched and communicated, will
make practical contributions to our future success as a profession.17
Wallace Stevens suggested that all history is modern history, each generation
rethinking its past in the light of current knowledge and concerns. Studying the
history of records and of the archivist's role in relationship to them has a practi-
cal application to virtually every aspect of archival work. Many commentators
are convinced that archives history is a valuable undertaking. Richard Cox, a
most eloquent exponent, argues simply that archives history helps us work bet-
ter. His conviction is not an act of faith nor a flight of pure speculation. It is
based on concrete examples. These he draws from the experience of the library
profession and from the positive contributions of historical study to the solution
of real problems.18 From Cox's apt examples we can draw some general conclu-
sions about the utility of history.
First, the history of archives and of records-keeping gives archivists perspec-
tive, on their present situation, on the current problems they face, and on the
future. History helps us sort out relationships. Archives history has a geographic

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 1 8 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 2, 1 992

utility, placing us and our records into context within a continuum. Knowing
what has passed, we are in a much better position to assess the novelty of the
situations that we encounter. As archivists navigate through the shoals of every-
day problems, they need both up-to-date charts and a point of reference. How
do we know where to go if we don't know where we came from? Tackling any
current problem without a knowledge of the past is like embarking on surgery
without knowing anatomy. History, then, provides a map of the temporal terrain
of records and records-keeping.
Second, it would seem to be a truism that we cannot decide what to keep nor
how to keep it unless we understand the history of documents, of records-keep-
ing practices, and of communications methods. Surprisingly, none of these sub-
jects has received much attention from archivists. Rather more time has been
spent analyzing either the informational content of records or, even more criti-
cally it seems, in weighing up the advantages of bulk management techniques
designed to reduce the physical volume of documents to a manageable size. Our
penchant for concentrating on very practical issues is not just an accident of
temperament but a pressing necessity of life. Space and resources are finite and
access to records never easy to provide. However, this pragmatic bent has
exposed archivists to criticism and from very different quarters. On the one
hand are those who lament our unapologetic practicality because it leads us to
neglect theoretical issues and our place in the bigger picture. On the other hand
(conversely and perversely), other critics ridicule our aspirations to "bigger"
theory, characterizing our practical work as intellectually mundane and not wor-
thy of theory.19 Pulled between the philosophers and the plumbers it is not sur-
prising that we have a sense of anomie. Perhaps one solution to this tension is to
change the ground of discussion: both the empirical and theoretical archivists
share a restricted definition of their field. Both would be brought together by
extending their definitions to include archives history. It gives a broader per-
spective to the empiricist and a practical direction for theorist. Archives history,
therefore, has a social utility. Familiarity with our own history even if different-
ly interpreted brings, almost as an automatic spin-off, a shared sense of our
uniqueness.
TTiere is also a third point, that archives history makes the records we deal
with more intriguing, and this stimulates a vigorous interest in daily work and
improves the quality of public services. Why should we hide a healthy fascina-
tion for records? If we take delight in records do we not make research in them
more intriguing and useful to others? Why should we deny that there are artistic
interests to be satisfied in archival work? Would it not be better, through the
historical study of records, to develop a genuine aesthetic which satisfies a
unique human need to connect with the past on a level that transcends informa-
tion? Archives history, therefore, contributes to our ethics and to our aesthetics.
Establishing strong connections with the knowable past has an associated
effect of demystifying the unknown future. Our anxieties about the shape of
things to come have possibly been over-stimulated by the general future hype
abounding in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Archivists are easily swept up by
futurology partly because we have no anchor in history to hold us in place dur-
ing the contemporary storms of change. The practical use of archives history
can be seen if we take, as just one of many examples, the subject of technology
as applied to records. Modern communications phenomena and associated

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE 119

issues related to records are not revolutionary. Nothing is further from clay
tablets than the computer disk and printout - or so it seems on the surface. Yet,
to a greater or lesser extent, technology was an integral part of ancient and pre-
modern record systems. The availability of materials for documents and their
participation in both communications systems and the law, to cite just two
facets, were just as important in the past as structural determinants of records
they are today. The dominance of technology during our time, the ubiquitous
impact of digital methods on our records and on our communication systems, in
part created by falling costs and rising availability, obscures the fundamental
fact that in the past, the present, and the future it is minds and not machines that
make records. By studying the history of documents we build models and
frameworks in which to examine today's records and their relationship to
human processes.20 Our own history provides us with concrete experience of
past systems of documents and of information. It develops the practical and
political skills we need to assess what is going on today and to prepare for the
future. History builds up an immunity to the destabilizing effects of future hype
and current happenstance.
Archives history does much more than prove the general axiom embodied in
the French aphorism plus a change plus c'est le mme chose - which roughly
translated means the more we change things the more obvious it becomes that
change always brings us back to the same point. By undertaking our own histo-
ry we are building a structured knowledge of records. This edifice has a tempo-
ral dimension developed through historical study and a spatial dimension
acquired practically through the appraisal process. Together both categories of
knowledge help focus our analysis by targeting the subjects for future research.
In other words, an active investigation of the history of records helps us build
concrete skills and feeds into the ongoing development of a research agenda.
History might not provide specific answers, but it suggests the questions that we
should be asking. My own investigations into the history of records in hospitals
indicates that the appraisal of case records, for example, cannot be successfully
undertaken by the strategic approach that counsels us first to concentrate on
what we want to document and then to select appropriate and representative
institutions and documents. The unprecedented volume of case records and their
seeming uniformity have obscured the inherent variety and fundamental differ-
ences that mark their history. The diplomatic of case records differs among
institutions, although the reason for these differences are as yet imperfectly
understood. Further investigations not only will hone our appraisal skills but
also will make the records that we select more meaningful and useful. The
knowledge base needed for a documentation strategy in hospitals must, among
the other desiderata of that theory, include the detailed investigation of the his-
tory of specific types of documents.
Archives history will, I think, stimulate the development of a more critical
approach to our work and to the influences that affect it. As we investigate the
history of institutions and of archival practices I predict that we will discover
areas that are poorly documented. Like the cobbler's children going poorly
shod, archival work is sometimes poorly documented. Why should we not turn
one of the precepts of "the documentation strategy" - that archivists should
stimulate the creation of documents in areas where they are lacking - towards
our own work? Let us look, for just a moment, at one of the basic archival jobs,

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 20 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 1 , 1 992

that of processing a collection. This activity embraces planning, arrangement,

and descriptive tasks that result in a finding aid of some type. We offer this
finding aid, which controls the collection physically and intellectually, to our
users and, more often than not, to the next generation of archivists who will be
responsible for managing the collection after we are gone. Yet this summa pro-
duction rarely provides much information about the process of processing. What
benefits would come if we were to keep a narrative processing journal? It would
provide explicit entre into the technical details of archival activities. It would
document, implicitly, the archival personality that inevitably is imprinted on
any collection that an archivist organizes. And as a group these processing jour-
nals would also provide first-hand case studies of the relationship of practical
work to theory and to method.
Historical investigation of archives will, I think, have an important effect on
the definition of principles and on our acceptance of them. The working theories
that we were taught in archives courses have been generally accepted as
immutable principles, not only functional means but also desirable ends in
themselves. But are principles unchanging or are they historically developed
axioms, useful as guides only, and in specific historical circumstances?21 The
answer to this question is fundamental to our ability to work effectively in dif-
fering documentary cultures and it will be only truly answered through histori-
cal study. Let us look at just one example. Original order, sanctified by the real-
ities of European registry practices, particularly in the nineteenth century, is still
taught today not only as a classic tenet of traditional archival theory but also as
a practical ethic and method. However, the actual value of this precept as a
working archival theory in today's records environment has never been either
thoroughly discussed or systematically tested in a variety of situations. In the
realm of theory we rely more on faith than on reason. However, faith in the uni-
versal application of working axioms that emerged from specific historical situ-
ations blinds the faithful both to deeper realities and to the practical implica-
tions of changes in records. Blind faith in values of original order, for example,
seems to deny the basic fact that a processed and described collection inevitably
bears the imprint of the processor. Before we invoke the theories of the past, we
have to ask ourselves fundamental questions about why we undertake certain
activities. In our case here, we should be asking what is the ultimate purpose of
implementing an arrangement? Only by answering this basic question can we
assess the applicability of original order to achieving this end.
Beyond these very practical uses of archival history which I have categorized
as geographic, social, practical, and theoretical, there is a more fundamental
philosophical reason why a historical sense of our own past is crucial to our
well-being as a profession. Those of you who have been following the current
discussions on the professionalization of archives work know that archivists in
Canada, in the United States, and in Britain share a common concern for the
future of their group though they have chosen quite different remedies to secure
that future. I suggest that archivists in all countries share a common need that
locks them into step. Regardless of national differences in the structure of the
profession, archivists must have a keen awareness of their own past if they are,
severally, to build a strong professional identity. Identity is the key to position-
ing ourselves in a future environment dominated by a discourse of information
rather than one of documents.

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE 121

In the late 1 940s, the psychologist Erik Hornberger Erikson provided the
classic definition of shell-shock, a functional condition that renders a person
incapable of coping with even the most modest demands of every day life. In
Erikson's definition the trauma occasioned by a shock damages people by strip-
ping them of a sense of personal sameness and historical continuity. Just as per-
sonal identity is anchored in a strong historical sense so is our professional iden-
tity - both come from the ability to experience self as something that has conti-
nuity. Surely if you have nothing to look backward to, and with pride, you have
nothing to look forward to with hope. Trite though it may be, in our past lies our
future - without a doubt, the seeds of our future are germinated in the soil of the
past.
While we know that the crop has been sown, we cannot, alas, either know or
predict the harvest. The uncertainty created by this fundamental fact naturally
generates some anxiety, a condition that always provides a fertile ground for the
philosophers and pundits of all stripes. What we can be very sure of is that
archivists face a past-fragmented future. At the very least, the holes in our mem-
ory make the future less exciting and rich than one that is rooted in a strong
sense of historical continuity. But more important, our fragmented past restricts
our response to change by depriving us of useful knowledge and making us
uncomfortable with ourselves. That a strong sense of identity is important to
continuing professional health is, I believe, fundamental to us all.
I was intrigued by a recent article in the overseas edition of the Guardian
newspaper reporting on the newest London livery company to be formed, the
Worshipful Company of Information Technologists.22 Bearing robes of green
and gold, the IT fraternity joins other venerable companies, such as the gold-
smiths, the scriveners, and the cloth merchants, many tracing their foundations
to the thirteenth century. What's worshipful about the information technology
fraternity you might well ask! We have them to thank for the creation of new
jargon and indeed for the skewing of our own archives language. Aside from
the possible business and tax advantages that accrue from this act, I think that
the formal association of this new group, that of data workers, with a corpora-
tion that has a rich history helps to establish a rooted identity by providing the
group with a socially and psychologically necessary veneer of a past.
Unlike the fledgling Information Technologists, archivists and their archives
have a solid and long history unique to themselves as a group. This history, if it
were only actively pursued, would provide us with a genuine sense of common
identity that is similar in its effect on our corporate identity to the ersatz one
purchased by the Information Technologists. Our own history will helps us to
be competitive in the future information environment by giving us confidence,
in our role and in our skills. History will put archives principles into a context
and stimulate the development of resilient theories that are applicable to a
greater variety of circumstances. Most important, history will helps us to under-
stand the contextual place of records in the world of affairs, of thought, and of
information. In short we would benefit greatly from a historical sociology of the
record and a diplomatic of the document.
To answer the question I put at the beginning: are we managing information,
pursuing big history, or specializing in records? Archivists, past or future, deal
neither with disembodied bits of information nor with historical themes: they
work with documents. Documents bridge the temporal islands in the stream of

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 22 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 1 , 1 992

history connecting the past with the present and the future. Archivists are the
architects of these bridges: our job is to ensure that the links we create are not
only functional but also beautiful. Phrased another way, records should not be
thought of as prisons that lock away information. Records are not barriers to the
past but are the mirrors in which society sees itself. Through the history of doc-
uments archivists too will learn about themselves. This history will help us to
face up to our jobs and face out to our clients, to our users, and to the future.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Barbara L. Craig has been an archivist since 1970, first
at the Archives of Ontario in Toronto where she was responsible for social poli-
cy records, and then after 1989 at York University where she is the University
Archivist. Barbara has a Ph.D. in archives studies from the University of
London and she has taught archival science courses, most recently at the
University of Toronto. She has held numerous positions in archives associations
including chair of Publications Committee of the Association of Canadian
Archivists and vice president and president of that organization. Barbara has
written and spoken extensively on archives history, archives education, modern
records-keeping and the philosophy of archives. Barbara is a recipient of the W.
Kaye Lamb Prize for her contributions to archives theory. Her most recent pub-
lications are Medical Archives: What They Are and How to Keep Them and The
Archival Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor,

NOTES
1. Charles Rosenburg, "Inward Vision and Outward Glance: the Shaping of the American
Hospital, 1880-1914," Bulletin of the History of Medicine 53 (1979): 346-91 .
2. For example, see Frank G. Burke, "Chaos Through Communications: Archivists, Records
Managers and the Communications Phenomenon," in Barbara Craig, ed., The Archival
Imagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh A. Taylor (Ottawa: Association of Canadian
Archivists, 1992), 154-177; M. Anne MacDermaid, "The Essence of Archival
Communication," in Archival Imagination, 227-43; Hugh A. Taylor, "Information Ecology and
the Archives of the 1980s," Archivara 18 (Summer 1984): 25-37; Terry Cook, "Viewing the
World Upside Down: Reflections on the Theoretical Underpinnings of Archival Public
Programming," Archivara 31 (Winter 1990/91): 123-34.
3. Hugh A. Taylor, "Transformation in the Archives: Technological Change or Paradigm Shift?
Archivara 25 (Winter 1987/88): 12-28; Frank G. Burke, "Chaos Through Communications";
Terry Abraham, "Collection Policy or Documentation Strategy: Theory and Practice,"
American Archivist 54:1 (1991): 44-53; James M. OToole, "On the Idea of Permanence,"
American Archivist 52:1 (1989): 10-25; American Archivist 53:1 (1990), special issue devoted
to descriptive standards in archives; Gordon Darroch and Sue Gavrel, "Preserving Historical
Databases and Facing Technical Change: Common Issues for the Social Historian and the
Archivist," Arc/t/Vria 34 (Summer 1992): 288-97.
4. Frank G. Burke, "Chaos through Communications"; Hugh A. Taylor, "Transformation in the
Archives"; Terry Cook, "Documentation Strategy," Archivara 34 (Summer 1992): 181-91.
5. M. Anne MacDermaid, "The Essence of Archival Communication"; Hugh A. Taylor, "Chip
Monks at the Gate: The Impact of Technology on Archives, Libraries and the User," Archivara
33 (Winter 1991/92): 173-9; Terry Cook, "Mind over Matter: Towards a New Theory of
Archival Appraisal," in Archival Imagination, 38-70; Tom Nesmith, "Hugh Taylor's
Contextual Idea for Archives and the Foundation of Graduate Education in Archival Studies,"
in Archival Imagination, 13-37; Terry Eastwood, "Towards a Social Theory of Appraisal," in
Archival Imagination, 71-85.

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 OUTWARD VISIONS, INWARD GLANCE 123

6. For example, see James M. OToole, "On the Idea of Permanence"; Timothy L. Ericson, "At
the "Rim of Creative Dissatisfaction": Archivists and Acquisition Development," Archivara
33:1 (1991/2): 66-77.
7. Ian Wilson, "Towards a Vision of Archival Services", Archivara, 31 (Winter 1990/91): 91-
100; Gabrielle Biais and David Enns, "From Paper Archives to People Archives: Public
Programming and the Management of Archives," Archivara 31 (Winter 1990/91): 101-13;
Timothy L. Ericson, "Pre-Occupied with Our Own Gardens: Outreach and Archives,"
Archivara 31 (Winter 1990/91): 1 14-22; Randall C. Jimerson, "Re-Defining Archival Identity:
Meeting User Needs in the Information Society," American Archivist 52:3 (1989): 332-40.
8. The M ARAC conference in 1992 was devoted to discussing archival education in the next cen-
tury. The best introduction to the issue of identity is provided by Richard Cox in
"Professionalism and Archivists in the United States" in Richard Cox, American Archival
Analysis: The Recent Development of the Archival Profession in the United States (Metuchen,
N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1990), 22-52. Also see T.M. Campbell, "Archivists and Information
Management," Archivara 28 (Summer 1989): 146-50, and Richard Kesner, "Automated
Information Management: Is There a Role for the Archivist in the Office of the Future?",
Archivara 19 (Winter 1984/5): 162-172.
9. From among the many examples that espouse either one or the other side of this long-standing
dichotomy in the archivist's world view, see Terry Cook, "From Information to Knowledge: An
Intellectual Paradigm for Archives," Archivara 19 (Winter 1984/5): 28-49; John Roberts,
"Archival Theory: Much Ado about Shelving," American Archivist 50:1 (1987): 66-74; Gregg
D. Kimball, "The Burke-Cappon Debate: Some Further Criticisms and Considerations for
Archival Theory," American Archivist ASA (1985): 364-76.
10. See Directory of Graduate Archival Education Programmes in Canada (Ottawa: Bureau of
Canadian Archivists, 1989) and Directory of Education 1993-1994 (Chicago: Society of
American Archivists, 1 992).
11. James M. OToole, "Curriculum Development in Archival Studies: A Proposal," American
Archivist 53:2 (1990): 460-6; Richard Cox, "Archival Education in the United States," in
Archival Analysis, 98- 1 1 2; Guidelines for the Development of a Two-Year Curriculum for a
Masters of Archival Studies Programme (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Archivists, 1990).
12. Richard Cox, Archival Education ; Timothy L. Ericson, "Professional Associations and
Archival Education: A Different Role or a Different Theater?", American Archivist 5 1:3 (1988):
298-311.
13. Richard Cox, "The Value of Archival History in the United States," in Archival Analysis, 182-
200; Terry Eastwood, "Social Theory"; Tom Nesmith, "Hugh Taylor's Contextual Idea";
Michael Roper, "The Development of the Principle of Provenance and Respect for Original
Order in the Public Record Office," in Archival Imagination, 134-53.
14. See Elio Lodoloni, "The War of Independence of Archives," Archivara 28 (Summer 1989):
36-47

15. For example see JoAnne Yates, Control Through Communications (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1990); Alfred Chandler, The Visible Hand: the Managerial Revolution in American
Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977); Kitty O. Locker, "The Earliest Correspondence of the
British East India Company (1600-1616)," in George H. Douglas and Herbert W. Hildebrandt,
eds., Studies in the History of Business Writing (Urbana, IL: Association of Business
Communications, 1985); Graham S. Lowe, Women in the Administrative Revolution (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1987); Alan Delgado, The Enormous File: A Social History of the
Office (London: J. Murrav. 1979).
1 6. See MAS Guidelines; Guidelines for the Development of Post-appointment and Continuing
Education and Training Programmes (Ottawa: ACA, 1991); Michael Cook, Guidelines for
Curriculum Development in Records Management and Modern Archives Administration: A
RAMP Study (Paris: Unesco, 1982).
17. In addition, practitioners must be encouraged to investigate archives history, particularly as it
relates to current practices and questions. How to encourage this activity and how it can be
done within well-established routines of work remains to be seen but I would think that once
the importance of the past is understood, its investigation will follow along quite naturally. As
in most things, attitude determines much of what is done.
18. Richard Cox, "Archival History", particularly 186-97 and 261-90. Also see Carman G. Carroll,
"Developing a Historical Laboratory: The Genesis of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia," in

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 24 ARCHIVAL ISSUES Vol. 1 7, No. 1 , 1 992

Archival Imagination, 178-21 1; Richard C. Berner, Archival Theory and Practice in the United
States (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983); John D. Cantwell, 77**? History of the
Public Record Office 1838-1953 (London: H.M.S.O., 1991).
1 9. From among the many excellent examples of the currents in this complex debate I recommend
John Roberts, "Much Ado"; Frederick J. Stielow, "Archival Theory Redux and Redeemed:
Definition and Context Toward a General Theory," American Archivist 54:1 (1991): 14-27;
Frank G. Burke, "The Future Course of Archival Theory in the United States," American
Archivist 44:1 (1981): 40-51.
20. See Brien Brothman, "Orders of Value: Probing the Theoretical Terms of Archival Practice,"
Archivara 32 (Summer 1991): 78-100; Richard Cox, "Archival History".
21. For example see Michael Roper, "Provenance"; Frank G. Burke, "Chaos Through
Communications"; Kent M. Haworth, "The Principles Speak for Themselves: Articulating a
Language of Purpose for Archives," in Archival Imagination^ 90- 1 04.
22. Dennis Johnson "What's Worshipful About Computer Buffs," Guardian Weekly, 19 January
1992, p. 21.

This content downloaded from 14.139.121.100 on Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:21:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms