[Personal_archives] Personal_archives listserv bounce notification

[Heather Home]

>Hello all,
>
>I, too, enter the discussion with a bit of trepidation, but was interested in
>Sylvia's comment that "there's a real danger... that archivists and 
>researchers
>may extrapolate too much, and make too many assumptions, from any 
>one surviving
>letter". I think this warning is one which we all take quite 
>seriously and need
>to take quite seriously, but to push this beyond "one letter" though 
>and extend
>it to the fonds is still a fair warning, I think. The fact that we 
>could likely
>all do a better job at documenting, and explaining, why and what we (as
>archivists) have done with a certain group of records is undeniable, but when
>it comes to reading too deeply or drawing conclusions, we are in the same boat
>as any researcher - it is an interpretation for the most part. The danger in
>this being that "historical knowledge is not objective, but has upon it the
>fingerprints of its interpreters" (Munslow) and it is a fine line between
>documenting what we, as archivists, know and what we think we know. When it to
>comes to academics and historians, the fingerprints are closely examined,
>people know to look for them, but the fingerprints of archivists (and their
>interpretations) are not so evident and generally not looked for, providing
>even more reason to proceed with trying to expose our behind-the-scenes
>machinations, but to proceed with caution. What I am interested in 
>is that fine
>line and where to draw it (or document it) as an archivist. What do I know and
>what do I presume... and how to clearly delineate between the two.
>
>I'm also really interested in Rodney's question about the role of 
>the archivist
>and the issues of privacy as this was something I picked up on in Maryanne's
>article. With privacy legislation becoming more and more restrictive in the
>realm of "public records" to the point where publicly expressed opinion within
>minuted meetings can now be considered within the realm of someone's personal
>information, I'm curious as to how this translates or spills over 
>into personal
>papers. I have had numerous occasions in the past few years in 
>processing fonds
>in which bundles of letters are marked "destroy", or certain factions of the
>family ask that we not allow other factions to remove material from 
>a fonds, or
>new legislation forces us to go back and look at private (personal) 
>fonds which
>are already in our possession and which have already been open and available
>for years (in particular I am thinking of the records of physicians or
>university administrators in this last scenario). The reasons for destruction
>vary from embarrassment and shame, to sensitivity for living individuals, to
>institutional worry about contravening legislation which may now 
>govern what we
>have. In terms of private papers I have always endorsed keeping the material,
>irrespective of what is sometimes a blatant (posthumous) instruction such as
>the aforementioned "Destroy", with the offer, or imposition, of access
>restrictions believing that the salaciousness, embarrassment, or 
>sensitivity of
>the content dissipates with time - though in the case of writers, or "known
>personalities" I am not entirely sure that it dissipates in the same manner. I
>think that the responsibilities are more obvious when one is dealing with a
>living donor or an estate where those individuals at least have a voice in the
>discussion, but in all of this the privacy rights of third party individuals
>are rarely considered. In trying to rationalize this, I reason that possession
>of the material is legally held by the recipient of any letter, copyright of
>its content by the writer, therefore the donor/physical owner has the right to
>deposit the material and do what they wish with it. On the 
>moral/ethical side I
>consider it my obligation to point out to donors the potential privacy
>considerations of third-parties, but am generally left with only that as it is
>the donor's legal decision to make. I know that there was a fairly big dust-up
>within the Writer's Union of Canada in the late 70's or early 80's concerning
>publishing houses selling their papers to archival institutions. I am unsure
>whether the main point of controversy was that the publishing houses were
>making money on the backs of their writers or whether privacy rights of the
>authors pertaining to what was sometimes fairly heated correspondence was at
>stake. Does anyone have any insight into this?
>
>My (fairly lengthy) two cents,
>Heather