Archival Science

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 3–15 | Cite as

Questioning autonomy: an alternative perspective on the principles which govern archival description

Original Paper

Abstract

This article employs lenses of the history of systems thinking and elements of cybernetic thought to develop an alternative perspective on the principles (respect des fonds, provenance and original order) which govern the practice of archival description. It seeks to focus attention on the idea of autonomy and the questioning of this idea that rests within the practice and to demonstrate how this questioning ultimately resolves into a concern with epistemology and with the question of how we can describe the world around us without any point of reference external to ourselves. This article will also suggest an alternative perspective on the principles which govern archival description, namely that they should be seen as an injunction to account for the point of view in points of view. Moreover, that such principles should be seen as governing archival description, not in the sense of directing archivists how to describe archives, but rather in the sense of being an archival expression of the check that governs, the epistemological question inherent in, all our descriptions.

Keywords

Archival description Cybernetics Second-order observation Systems theory Autopoiesis Provenance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK) for funding the research upon which this article is based, all the participants in that research and Alexandra Eveleigh, Dr Andrew Flinn, Dr Elizabeth Shepherd, Geoffrey Yeo, the editors and all the anonymous peer reviewers for their comments and advice on drafts of this article.

References

  1. Baecker D (2006) The form of the firm. Organization 13(1):109–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunn J (2011) Multiple narratives, multiple perspectives: Observing archival description. PhD Thesis, UCL. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1322455/. Accessed 19 July 2012
  3. Duchein M (1983) Theoretical principles and practical problems of respect des fonds in archival science. Archivaria 16:64–82Google Scholar
  4. Duranti L (1993) Origin and development of the concept of archival description. Archivaria 35:47–54Google Scholar
  5. Eastwood T (2000) Putting the parts of the whole together: systematic arrangement of archives. Archivaria 50:93–116Google Scholar
  6. Fischer G (1973) Letting the archival dust settle: some remarks on the record group concept. J Soc Arch 4(8):640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franchi S, Güzeldere G and Minch E (1995) Interview with Heinz von Foerster” Stanf Humanit Rev 4: n. pagGoogle Scholar
  8. Heylighen F and Joslyn C (2001) Cybernetics and second order cybernetics. In Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, vol 4, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Horsman P (1993) Taming the elephant: an orthodox approach to the principle of provenance. In: Abukhanfusa K, Sydbeck S (eds) The principle of provenance: report from the First Stockholm Conference on Archival Theory and the Principle of Provenance 2–3 September 1993. Swedish National Archives, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. Horsman P (2002) The last dance of the phoenix, or the de-discovery of the archival fonds. Archivaria 54:1–23Google Scholar
  11. Hurley C (1995a) Ambient functions—abandoned children to zoos. Archivaria 40:21–39Google Scholar
  12. Hurley C (1995b) Problems with provenance. Arch Manuscr 23(2):234–259. Also available at: http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/provenance.html. Accessed 12 July 2012Google Scholar
  13. Hurley C (2005) Parallel provenance (If these are your records, where are your stories?). Records Continuum Research Group, Monash University. http://infotech.monash.edu/research/groups/rcrg/publications/parallel-provenance-combined.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2011
  14. Jenkinson H (1922) A manual of archive administration including the problems of war archives and archive making. Humphrey Milford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Luhmann N (2006) System as difference. Organization 13(1):37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacNeil H (2005) Picking our text: archival description, authenticity and the archivist as editor. Am Arch 68:264–278Google Scholar
  18. Maturana H, Varela F (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. D Reidel Publishing Co, Dordrecht. Boston studies in the philosophy of science 42Google Scholar
  19. Maturana H, Varela F (1998) The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala, Boston and LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. McKemmish S (1994) Are records ever actual? In: McKemmish S, Piggott M (eds) The records continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives first fifty years. Ancora Press in association with Australian Archives, Clayton, pp 187–203Google Scholar
  21. Meehan J (2009) Making the leap from parts to whole: evidence and inference in archival arrangement and description. Am Arch 72:72–90Google Scholar
  22. Millar L (2002) The death of the fonds and the resurrection of provenance: archival context in space and time. Archivaria 53:1–15Google Scholar
  23. Muller S, Feith JA, Fruin R (2003) Manual for the arrangement and description of archives; translation of the second edition by Arthur H. Leavitt. With New Introductions by Peter Horsman, Eric Ketelaar, Theo Thomassen and Marjorie Rabe Barritt. Society of American Archivists, Chicago, LeavittGoogle Scholar
  24. Oxford English Dictionary (2011) Cybernetics. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/Accessed 12 October 2011
  25. Scott P (1966) The record group concept: a case for abandonment. Am Arch 29:493–504Google Scholar
  26. Seidl D, Becker KH (2006) Organisations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Organization 13(1):9–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith C (1986) A case for abandonment of ‘respect’. Arch Manuscr 14(2):154–168Google Scholar
  28. Spencer-Brown G (1969) Laws of form. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Varela F (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. North Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. von Bertalanffy L (1950) An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci 1:134–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Foerster H (2003) Understanding understanding: essays on cybernetics and cognition. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. The Technology Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Yakel E (2003) Archival representation. Arch Sci 3:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations