Current colonial scholars read archives as places and cultural spaces
Evidence
Most students of the colonial, who now work with archives in a reflec- tive mode, treat “the archive” as something in between a set of docu- ments, their institutions, and a repository of memory—both a place and a cultural space that encompass official documents but are not confined to them. Some of the most creative work branches out to the range of scripted and performed practices that bear the psychic and material stamp of colonial relations. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 316
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- XREF: Surveys the field the reader is working in — connects to Ann Laura Stoler’s ‘Along the Archival Grain’ and Dirks on colonial knowledge.
Related
- Archives are cultural spaces, not just document collections, shaped by colonial relations (similarity 0.93)
- Colonial archives should be treated as ethnographic sites not extraction sources (similarity 0.88)
- Colonial archives actively shape what counts as legitimate knowledge (similarity 0.87)
- Historians and theorists treat the archive as distinct analytic objects that are nonetheless blurring (similarity 0.87)
- Archival productions should be read as ethnography, not just normative taxonomies. (similarity 0.87)
- Colonial archives require chronological and names-based rather than thematic navigation (similarity 0.86)
- The archive’s ethnographic content lives in gaps between state rules and practice. (similarity 0.86)
- Colonial archives extend beyond official collections into a wider force field of document production (similarity 0.86)
- Dutch colonial archives functioned as both repositories and sites of the imaginary shaping history (similarity 0.86)
- Colonial archives were sites of expectation and conjured futures, not mere records. (similarity 0.85)
- Colonial archives actively produce categories rather than merely record them (similarity 0.85)
- Archival form itself constitutes a technology of colonial governance (similarity 0.85)
- Early archival microhistories worked in archives but did not treat them as ethnographic subjects (similarity 0.84)
- Colonial archives hold affective hopes, fears, and trained attentions, not just records. (similarity 0.84)
- Colonial archives primarily record epistemic uncertainty, not settled accounts of events. (similarity 0.84)
Broader Connections
- Colonial archives should be treated as ethnographic sites not extraction sources
#expands(0.75) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 305