Valuable Archiving?
To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone – to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone.
1984 by George Orwell
A frenzied, howling wind is hurling leaves against the window of a room on the third floor of the Allen Memorial Library on Euclid Avenue. Inside the room, the discussion centers on something more systematic – archiving. The curator of the Dittrick Medical History Museum is explaining the process of organizing old documents in archives. As he explains how the museum acquired Percy Skuy’s contraceptive collection, the curator mentions that an archivist must decide what material is worthy of preservation. He attributes worth to certain things, such as Skuy’s collection of torn condoms and primitive abortion tools. While one may debate the value of the things archivists chose to preserve, I find it interesting that no one questions the basic importance of preserving history. The notion that our history is worthy of preservation is engrained in our society to such a degree we don’t even hesitate to ask why we devote so many resources to archiving. What if we asked a new question: does the value of archiving justify the amount of time and money we put into it?
I am not attempting to demean our history. On the contrary, I want to understand why archivists devote countless hours to the maintenance of historical material. According to the curators at the Dittrick Medical History Museum, the goal of an archive is to make information accessible to the public. Archivists create finding aids to help researchers maneuver their way through material. Finding aids give brief descriptions of the archived material available in museums. Rather than look through an entire folder of archived material, researchers can consult the container listings which give brief descriptions of what each container holds. After cataloging and documenting a collection, the Dittrick Medical Museum begins interpreting the material. In some cases, this requires bringing in guest curators who can offer unique perspectives on the material. The museum invited Jimmy Meyer, a specialist in contraceptive history, to interpret Skuy’s collection. The Dittrick Medical Museum puts certain archived material on display for the general public. Through the use of story-telling, the museum connects scientific material to individuals in society.
In addition to the challenges of organizing material, archivists also struggle to acquire the information they want to preserve. For the most part, the Dittrick Medical History Museum relies on donations from private organizations and individuals. Even though the museum does not have to pay for most of their archives, it still costs a considerable amount of money to keep the building open. On average, the operating costs of medium sized museums run between one and three million dollars a year. Does the value of archiving justify spending this amount of money? Let’s consider this from an economic prospective. Say, for example, the Dittrick Medical History Museum total costs for a year are one million dollars. To decide if the museum is spending this money effectively, we must consider the opportunity cost of running the museum, which is equal to the cost of the things we must forgo in order for the museum to operate. In simpler terms, we have to think about the value of all the other things we could buy with one million dollars. For example, according to the nonprofit organization Doctors Without Borders, one million dollars could provide ten thousand displaced people with emergency medical supplies for approximately five years. (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/what.cfm) So, do the Dittrick Medical History Museum’s contributions to the preservation of history sufficiently cover its opportunity costs?
We believe our history is important and deserves preservation. Therefore, archiving must be important. Still, I have a significant problem saying that someone should spend money so I can learn about the history of contraceptives when children in Mogadishu, Somalia are dying without access to medical care. I find myself suddenly believing that our notions regarding the value of history are completely off base; maybe archiving is just a waste of time and money. Maybe we are just preserving meaningless words. Maybe our history isn’t important after all.
Then, for some reason, a passage from George Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind. The main character Winston is altering old newspaper articles; the original messages are burned, erased from history. “Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct . . . all history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary” (40). Orwell’s portrayal of a society completely void of truth suddenly reminds me why we value history. Perhaps I am wrong to try to evaluate the monetary worth of archives. After all, preserving our history is not about money; it is about differentiating between myth and reality. It is about acknowledging the existence of fact. It is about freedom. As Winston says, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows” (81).
Comments