An archive is more than a repository of historical documents; it is a structured collection of records that
preserves knowledge about the past. Archives house a variety of materials, including government
records, personal correspondence, photographs, legal documents, and cultural artifacts. These
collections are carefully curated, maintained, and classified according to specific systems that reflect the
priorities and values of the institutions or individuals responsible for their creation. Far from being
neutral or objective, archives are shaped by power dynamics, and their content and organization can
influence the way history is written, remembered, and understood.
In their essay *“Archive and Access,”* Aparna Balachandran and Rochelle Pinto explore the complexities
of archives in colonial and postcolonial contexts, particularly in India. They argue that archives are sites
of power where decisions about inclusion, exclusion, and classification can shape collective memory and
historical narratives. Similarly, Joan Schwartz and Terry Cook, in their essay *“Archives, Records, and
Power: The Making of Modern Memory,”* emphasize the interplay between archives and power,
arguing that the creation, management, and access to archives are deeply political processes. Together,
these scholars highlight how archives are instrumental in the production of history, reflecting and
reinforcing social, political, and cultural hierarchies.
The power of an archive lies in its ability to control access and inclusion. Balachandran and Pinto argue
that access to archives is a contested terrain, reflecting hierarchies and exclusions rooted in broader
societal structures. Archives often privilege elite or dominant voices, marginalizing those of subaltern
groups. This process of selection, both in what is archived and how it is cataloged, inherently shapes
historical narratives. By controlling who can access these records, archives become gatekeepers of
historical knowledge, thereby reinforcing or challenging existing power structures. Schwartz and Cook’s
analysis highlights how archives are not passive depositories but active agents in the production of
history. The act of archiving is infused with choices that reflect the archivists' perspectives, institutional
priorities, and the socio-political contexts in which they operate. For example, colonial archives were
instrumental in consolidating imperial power by documenting the colonizers’ activities while often
erasing or distorting the histories of the colonized. This archival bias perpetuates systems of domination,
framing the past in ways that serve current power dynamics.
Moreover, the authors underscore the reciprocal relationship between records and power. Records
legitimize authority, as governments, institutions, and individuals rely on them for validation and
continuity. Conversely, the absence or destruction of records can delegitimize claims, rendering
communities and events invisible in the historical record. This interplay reveals the dynamic role of
archives in shaping not just memory but also the identities and political realities tied to that memory.
Balachandran and Pinto also emphasize the transformative potential of increasing access to archives.
Democratizing access can challenge entrenched power dynamics, allowing marginalized communities to
reclaim their histories and create counter-narratives. This aligns with Schwartz and Cook’s call to view
archives as sites of intervention, where archivists can actively work to decolonize and diversify the
historical record.
In essence, archives are not merely custodians of the past; they are active participants in the creation of
historical knowledge and collective memory. They reflect and reproduce power structures, but they also
hold the potential for disruption and reform. By critically examining how archives operate—who creates,
controls, and accesses them—scholars and practitioners can uncover their role in both perpetuating and
challenging historical silences and biases. The works of Balachandran, Pinto, Schwartz, and Cook
collectively urge us to view archives not just as repositories but as dynamic spaces where history and
power are continuously negotiated.
