In its examination of critical archival practices developed by a variety of actors – artists, documentarians, researchers, genealogists, geneticists, activist-archivists, drag kings, and even ghostly historians – this dissertation considers how archives function, and what they mean, beyond their role as repositories for historic records. The critical archival practices I explore emerge in response to specific political, social, and cultural situations. They take a variety of forms, including exhibits, documentary films, online archives, genetic test results, oral history collections, and zines. These projects have distinct affective dimensions – they are motivated by a range of feelings, desires, and needs, and in some cases, make their appeals to and through affect. They demonstrate how archives matter at the level of the public and the private, in the making of collective histories and to the articulation of personal identities. They also show us how archives are relevant to (or can even be instruments in) struggles for social transformation, social justice, and self-determination.
Whether they engage the archives as researchers or critics, or as creators and custodians of their own collections, critical archival practitioners make archives, themselves, objects of investigation. Most of the critical archival practitioners I write about explicitly challenge the myth of archival neutrality and objectivity, and denaturalize archival practices by drawing attention to logics that underpin them. While some practitioners destabilize these logics as they introduce alternative forms of evidence, others – particularly those invested in genetic genealogical research – call upon them in order to make claims about origin and identity. In addition to investigating archival logics, critical practitioners explore power relations in archives by attending to specific issues researchers encounter while doing archival work – navigating the archives’ organizational systems, gaining access to archives and records, negotiating security protocols, recruiting participants for oral history and other documentation projects, or (for prospective participants) deciding whether or not to participate in those projects. Their critiques suggest that projects to document and collect the records of historically underrepresented communities and constituencies can – and should – be participatory and collaborative endeavors.