Fieldwork Practicum: Reports
The Instrumentality of Power:
Archivists as Gatekeepers
According to Zeitlyn archives do not function as neutral repositories of knowledge,
but as instruments of power and selection. 1 Archivists select what is archived and
what may be forgotten.2 Especially when an archive is part of the government, one
must be aware of the influence the government can use on what is (not) archived;
something Foucault calls a “hegemonic instrument of the state”.3
During my visit to the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, I kept this perspective in
mind. With the explanation of their digital archive, it was explained that virtually
everything is archived and published, except for certain archives such as the
government archive. Specific documents from the non-public archive could still be
accessed through dispensation. This reminded me of the concept of the hegemonic
state instrument, because dispensation sounded like a formal decision under
administrative law.
When I asked about this, it turned out to be the case: the archivist can make a
decision on dispensation, and if they reject it, one can legally file an objection and
subsequently appeal to the municipal executive of Amsterdam. In this sense, the
archive is a legal-political actor because in its decision, the archive must consider the
political policy, which determines who may access what knowledge. The fact that the
decision-making process is juridical might make the decision seem neutral, but the
rules the archivist must adhere to are inherently political.
Another point made by the archivist was that people can come to the archive if
they need help with research, as Zeitlyn also says. 4 This is very useful, because an
1
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 462-463.
2
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 463.
3
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 462.
4
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 466.
, archivist possesses knowledge that others do not and can therefore indicate whether
the researcher should use a different term. The archivist, in this sense, again holds a
position of power, as they can decide whether that knowledge is shared.
Suppose, for example, research is being conducted on the role of the Dutch
state concerning the Jews during the Second World War: if the State and its archives
hold important information that could lead to shocking discoveries, and accessing it
requires the knowledge that instead of the modern term x, one must use terms y and z,
then the archive, from its position of power, can decide to withhold this knowledge to
prevent those discoveries.
Zeitlyn further points out that anonymization is problematic because it is
difficult to fully realize and is expensive.5 During our visit this became apparent when
it turned out that religion and origin had been anonymized in a population register but
could still be traced via the father's data. This example shows that anonymization is
not only vulnerable but also politically determined: it applies to certain periods and its
people. It demonstrates how archives, even through seemingly neutral privacy rules,
actively shape what remains visible and what does not.
In conclusion, the archive functions as a gatekeeper of knowledge in three
ways. First, by making a political decision through a legal process. Second, through
anonymization policies where the state determines which information remains visible
or disappears. Finally, the archive also holds a position of power in sharing
knowledge when researchers request it.
The Facade of Inclusion:
Curating Islam in the Netherlands
My visit to the El-Hijra Mosque offered an opportunity to examine how
religious identities are materially produced. Approaching the site through the
material turn, which highlights how religious life becomes tangible in objects,
allows for a critical reassessment of the guide’s claim that the mosque is “a place
5
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 470.
The Instrumentality of Power:
Archivists as Gatekeepers
According to Zeitlyn archives do not function as neutral repositories of knowledge,
but as instruments of power and selection. 1 Archivists select what is archived and
what may be forgotten.2 Especially when an archive is part of the government, one
must be aware of the influence the government can use on what is (not) archived;
something Foucault calls a “hegemonic instrument of the state”.3
During my visit to the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, I kept this perspective in
mind. With the explanation of their digital archive, it was explained that virtually
everything is archived and published, except for certain archives such as the
government archive. Specific documents from the non-public archive could still be
accessed through dispensation. This reminded me of the concept of the hegemonic
state instrument, because dispensation sounded like a formal decision under
administrative law.
When I asked about this, it turned out to be the case: the archivist can make a
decision on dispensation, and if they reject it, one can legally file an objection and
subsequently appeal to the municipal executive of Amsterdam. In this sense, the
archive is a legal-political actor because in its decision, the archive must consider the
political policy, which determines who may access what knowledge. The fact that the
decision-making process is juridical might make the decision seem neutral, but the
rules the archivist must adhere to are inherently political.
Another point made by the archivist was that people can come to the archive if
they need help with research, as Zeitlyn also says. 4 This is very useful, because an
1
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 462-463.
2
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 463.
3
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 462.
4
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 466.
, archivist possesses knowledge that others do not and can therefore indicate whether
the researcher should use a different term. The archivist, in this sense, again holds a
position of power, as they can decide whether that knowledge is shared.
Suppose, for example, research is being conducted on the role of the Dutch
state concerning the Jews during the Second World War: if the State and its archives
hold important information that could lead to shocking discoveries, and accessing it
requires the knowledge that instead of the modern term x, one must use terms y and z,
then the archive, from its position of power, can decide to withhold this knowledge to
prevent those discoveries.
Zeitlyn further points out that anonymization is problematic because it is
difficult to fully realize and is expensive.5 During our visit this became apparent when
it turned out that religion and origin had been anonymized in a population register but
could still be traced via the father's data. This example shows that anonymization is
not only vulnerable but also politically determined: it applies to certain periods and its
people. It demonstrates how archives, even through seemingly neutral privacy rules,
actively shape what remains visible and what does not.
In conclusion, the archive functions as a gatekeeper of knowledge in three
ways. First, by making a political decision through a legal process. Second, through
anonymization policies where the state determines which information remains visible
or disappears. Finally, the archive also holds a position of power in sharing
knowledge when researchers request it.
The Facade of Inclusion:
Curating Islam in the Netherlands
My visit to the El-Hijra Mosque offered an opportunity to examine how
religious identities are materially produced. Approaching the site through the
material turn, which highlights how religious life becomes tangible in objects,
allows for a critical reassessment of the guide’s claim that the mosque is “a place
5
Zeitlyn, David. 2012. ‘Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent Pasts. Archives
as Anthropological Surrogates.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 470.
