The Archival Turn in Feminism: Outrage in Order

Notes

Notes Introduction 1. Archiving Women, was promoted as “a one-day conference bringing together scholars and archivists to examine feminist practices in the archive” and sponsored by Columbia University’s Center for Critical Analysis of Social Difference as part of the three-year project entitled, “Engendering the Archive, Toward an Intellectual History of Black Women.” All references to the conference program in this discussion refer to the conference program posted at http://www.socialdifference.columbia.edu/events/ archiving-women-conference 2. Jenna Freedman, “Archiving Women Report Back,” Lower East Side Librarian (blog), February 2, 2009, http://lowereastsidelibrarian.info/ reportback/ archivingwomen 3. Ibid. 4. Kelly, February 5, 2009 (11:40 a.m.), comment on Jenna Freedman, “Archiving Women Report Back,” Lower East Side Librarian, February 2, 2009. 5. Emily, February 5, 2009 (12:28 p.m.), comment on Jenna Freedman, “Archiving Women Report Back,” Lower East Side Librarian, February 2, 2009. 6. The preoccupation with the archive since the early 1990s is frequently described as the “archival turn.” See, for example, Ann Laura Stoler’s discussion in Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 44–46. 7. For a more detailed discussion of my observations at the Archiving Women symposium, see Kate Eichhorn, “D.I.Y. Collectors, Archiving Scholars and Activist Librarians.” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 39 (2010): 622–646. 162 / notes 8. Astrid Henry, “Enviously Grateful, Gratefully Envious: The Dynamics of Generational Relationships in U.S. Feminism,” Women’s Studies Quarterly 34.3/4 (2006): 140–153. 9. For example, Ann Cvetkovich’s An Archive of Feelings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003) and Judith Halberstam’s discussion of queer subcultural archives in In a Queer Time & Place (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005). 10. As noted in the preface, the original proposal for this book sought to trace the migration of Riot Grrrl and third wave feminist zines into a wide range of university, community, and activist archives. Over time, my focus both broadened to include materials beyond zines and narrowed to focus on university-based collections. Several readers of this manuscript have, not surprisingly, questioned the fact that in the process I have seemingly overlooked the role of digital archiving projects in the collection and preservation of feminist activism since the mid 1990s. While one cannot underestimate the importance of digitization initiatives undertaken by university and public collections and DIY archiving projects (i.e., QZAP, the Queer Zine Archiving Project), it is important to acknowledge that the collections at the center of this study—all focused on the collection and preservation of printed materials—emerged simultaneous to the spread of the web and reflected a conscious decision on the part of the archivists, librarians, and donors involved to privilege materiality over digitization. In addition, as I discuss at length in chapter 4 of this book, the decision to forego putting one’s energy and resources into the creation of digital archives does not imply that these collections are averse to forms of new media activism. Indeed, all three collections have benefited from the widespread publicity available via the web, and in the case of the Barnard Zine Library, interlibrary online catalogs, such as WorldCat, have come to play a central role in the collection’s visibility and impact beyond the collection’s local origin. 11. While this may be a coincidence, it may also point to the fact that, in the United States, private institutions are paradoxically better positioned than public institutions to engage in collection development that represents some degree of political risk. This, however, is part of a larger discussion on the extent to which special collections are shaped by the mandates of funders, be they public or private. 12. Carolyn Steedman, Dust: The Archive and Cultural History (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 1. 13. Cvetkovich, Archive of Feelings, 268. 14. Kate Eichhorn, “Archival Genres: Gathering Texts and Reading Spaces.” Invisible Culture, 12 (Spring 2008) . 15. David Harvey, “Neoliberalism and Creative Destruction,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 610, NAFTA and notes / 163 Beyond: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Global Trade and Development (March 2007): 22. 16. Henry Giroux, “Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics.” College Literature 32.1 (Winter 2005): 1–19. 17. Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), 129. 18. Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian...