[Reader-list] Archive is not memory: Response II to Prem
Prem Chandavarkar
prem.cnt at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 08:09:47 IST 2008
Hi Arnab,
This is getting very interesting.
Is your question really about "history" or is it about "archives"? If one
argues for a history that is specific, postivist, empirical and subsequently
detemporalised - then all kinds of questions arise - and the question of
archives is just one of them. But if one argues that history is always
temporalised, then the topic, and all its connotations on the question of
disciplinarity, take on a totally different hue. What is your stand here?
To add some more fuel to the fire, let me quote Hayden White from his book
"Tropics of Discourse":
" In my view, history as a discipline is in bad shape today because it has
lost sight of its origins in the literary imagination. In the interest of
appearing scientific and objective, it has repressed and denied to itself
its greatest source of strength and renewal. By drawing historiography back
once more to an intimate connection with its literary basis, we should not
only be putting ourselves on guard against merely ideological distortions,
we should be by way of arriving at that 'theory' of history without which it
cannot pass for a 'discipline' at all."
Regards,
Prem
On 07/01/2008, ARNAB CHATTERJEE <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Prem,
> Your humility is astonishing but loving. If
> you think your comments are non technical and
> nonperplexing, I shall ask your archive of audacious
> tumult as to where did you get them.
> Now, I must acknowledge you and Sadan for
> helping me and many get a sense of the problems at
> stake; and now I'll be able to catalogue the questions
> in a precise manner. So any engagement would be a bit
> predisposed but still a bit of self clarification I
> assume would contribute and not limit that what is
> here.
> Your first question is this : "Is there any
> activity that is possible that is not touched by
> archives?" Firstly we should not use archives as a
> name for any form of collection. The archival logic is
> a part of the one time emergent public sphere where
> museums, displays etc achieved a new meaning in frozen
> and empty time. Here I can cite one argument which
> should have come later (u've taxed it out of me):
> History which gets validated by the archives is
> pushed out of time : history which is time--linked
> discipline in a sense--is thus detemporalized. Let us
> take a more practical argument : if everything is
> touched by the archives then any thing I write about a
> particular temporal shelf ( say, past) would be
> archival history. You banish the specificity of
> empirical, positivist historiography.
> 2) Secondly, I quote you : "it is tantamount to a
> claim that one can step into a position that is free
> from memory." Firstly, memory, recollection,
> reminiscience --are they the same? Memory I think is
> the cognitive instrument by which we re-collect, it is
> not recollection. Now a short twist, if this is
> correct, then re-membering or re-collection is a new
> act, a repitiion while archive is only collection.
> Re-collection orders them once again; and because it
> is a new act, I'll argue it is a different act. You
> are conflating two different things together.
> How is this now, dear prem?
> with love
> arnab
>
>
> --- Prem Chandavarkar <prem.cnt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Arnab,
> > I am afraid I find the questions you raise rather
> > technical and perplexing
> > (which is perhaps due to my limitations more than
> > anything else). But to
> > me, the starting point is another question: Is there
> > any activity that is
> > possible that is not touched by archives? I find it
> > difficult to answer yes
> > to this question, because it is tantamount to a
> > claim that one can step into
> > a position that is free from memory. I do not read
> > the Foucauldean
> > geneology as a claim to archives as being
> > foundational, but rather as a
> > critique of claims that one can either be free of
> > archives, or to treat
> > archives as substantive truth.
> >
> > So my later questions about alertness revolves
> > around how we choose to
> > construct history as a discipline: whether it is a
> > factual description that
> > uses foundational archives, or whether it is a
> > moment located in the present
> > that centres around the question of "What do we
> > choose to remember?"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Prem
> >
> >
> > On 04/01/2008, ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> > <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Prem,
> > > I think the questions are already
> > > separate and needs to be rephrased if you want it
> > the
> > > way you've put it.
> > > 1. The question is not whether WE need
> > archives
> > > or not( there are many things which exist even if
> > we
> > > don't need them); lets talk in terms of practices
> > and
> > > ask, infact that is what I've asked, what sort of
> > > practices need archives?What sort of practices
> > don't
> > > need them? Does philosophical history ( I have in
> > mind
> > > the Hegelian or the Kantian kind) need the
> > archival
> > > backing? Does Nietzschean or Foucauldean genealogy
> > > need it? With all its distrust of origins, what is
> > the
> > > status of the use of sources in Foucault? (
> > Mahmood
> > > for instance asked, will the Foucauldian
> > enterprise
> > > remain intact if his source materialiastic
> > resources
> > > are removed? I think yes but many will say no,
> > lets
> > > discuss it . What is the difference between
> > origins
> > > and sources? --and join in other questions I've
> > > already asked and has been asked by many of us and
> > > others.
> > > 2. Secondly, in response to the phrasing of your
> > > second question, let me tell you and all, the
> > answer
> > > we would like to know is not whether archives
> > are
> > > neutral or not ( You know and have told the
> > answer),
> > > but whether the question of neutrality can itself
> > be
> > > based on the archives. Your other questions stand
> > > automatically modified in regard to the revision
> > of
> > > your two questions I've made. It'll be great if
> > you
> > > attempt to answer them for us.
> > >
> > > Thanking you
> > > with apologies for making frequent postings (
> > even
> > > though I'm not a hindu right)but immediate
> > responses I
> > > guess will put the debate in perspective and
> > maintain
> > > it.)
> > > Arnab
> > >
> > > --- Prem Chandavarkar <prem.cnt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are we not confusing two questions here which
> > need
> > > > to be kept separate:
> > > > 1. Do we need archives?
> > > > 2. Are archives neutral?
> > > > The answer to each question could be different.
> > We
> > > > would probably say yes to
> > > > the first and no to the second. In which case
> > we
> > > > confront the need for a
> > > > critical and discerning alertness when we
> > consider
> > > > archives. Which raises
> > > > some other questions such as:
> > > > 1. What are the ethical dimensions and
> > compulsions
> > > > of this alertness?
> > > > 2. How does it shape the discipline of history?
> > > > 3. How does it determine what we consider an
> > > > archive?
> > > > 4. How does it determine where we search for
> > > > archives?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Prem
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 04/01/2008, ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> > > > <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Sadan,
> > > > > Thank you! Your prompt response
> > > > actually
> > > > > begins the discussion where I gues others will
> > > > soon
> > > > > join in and we shall all learn and unlearn
> > from
> > > > each
> > > > > other in a very very creative way.
> > > > > You do recognise Foucault and I think let us
> > limit
> > > > > ourselves to a few texts in the beginning. I
> > shall
> > > > > keep aside Derrida and Agamben on archives,
> > since
> > > > none
> > > > > of them claimed to have been practising
> > genealogy
> > > > like
> > > > > Foucault. And my hunch was simply this : to
> > > > involve
> > > > > many who have been doing things on archives
> > etc
> > > > and
> > > > > make such an involved statement as you've
> > done. It
> > > > is
> > > > > not a comment on yr text in the Censor book.
> > But
> > > > your
> > > > > one might be engaged later while we discuss
> > memory
> > > > vis
> > > > > a vis Foucault and Nietzsche. I'm perturbed by
> > one
> > > > > question here and let me state that for all :
> > > > > genealogy has a problem with origins (
> > singular or
> > > > > not) and therefore distrusts history but still
> > > > > Foucault calls for heavy documentation using
> > > > volatile
> > > > > sources : What is the difference between
> > sources
> > > > and
> > > > > origins?
> > > > > And Sadan, neither I'm making a case for
> > the
> > > > non
> > > > > existence of archives. I'm far from making any
> > > > such
> > > > > logistical suggestions, I'm troubled by the
> > > > compulsion
> > > > > with which the question of the archive is
> > driven
> > > > at
> > > > > some who have been trying to practise
> > something
> > > > > else.This question remains to be settled, yes
> > I am
> > > > > sincere here and I can quote you major
> > incidents
> > > > here
> > > > > and abroad. Let us try to find a way out.
> > > > > So, its purely an academic question for me and
> > I
> > > > think
> > > > > all of us.
> > > > > More soon
> > > > > love
> > > > > arnab
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- "sadan at sarai.net" <sadan at sarai.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Arnab,
> > > > > > thanks for suggestion to reread Foucault on
> > > > > > archives. Agamben may be
> > > > > > another person to consider in this
> > excercise.
> > > > Tow
> > > > > > quick respond, we also
> > > > > > need to read Foucault's geneology,
> > Nietzsche...
> > > > as a
> > > > > > point in between his
> > > > > > earlier 'Archeology' and his lecutures...
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > > his power/knowledge.
> > > > > > The point i was trying to raise in my
> > article
> > > > though
> > > > > > is not whether we need
> > > > > > archives or not but how archives can be
> > > > profitably
> > > > > > seen from vantage points
> > > > > > of different sets of people.
> > > > > > thanks.
> > > > > > sadan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4:53 pm 01/03/08 ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> > > > > > <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > > > > > > Dear friends,
> > > > > > > Now atlast I'm geared up to rise
> > and
> > > > make
> > > > > > > reviews of sentences we talked and
> > questions
> > > > we
> > > > > > > answered or left them out at our last
> > meeting
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Delhi.
> > > > > > > First my conversation with mahmood
> > farooqui
> > > > and
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is simultaneously for Sadan Jha and Ritwik
> > > > > > > Bhattacharya ( our own Kolkata archive
> > > > theorist)
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > well ( having read sadan's stuff on
> > archive
> > > > in
> > > > > > > CENSOR..book etc. and Ritwik's research on
> > the
> > > > > > archive
> > > > > > > and our own debate ehether pornography
> > could
> > > > have
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > archival living or not). Does
> > philosophical
> > > > > > history
> > > > > > > need archival materials? Does genealogy
> > need
> > > > > > archives?
> > > > > > > My answer is unequivocal "No". I'll go
> > into
> > > > the
> > > > > > > speculated details in my next post-- a bit
> > of
> > > > > > detail,
> > > > > > > that is. But I'll first submit to mahmood
> > > > farooqui
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > my friends to reread Foucault's
> > 'Nietzsche,
> > > > > > genealogy
> > > > > > > and History' because there is stuff for
> > both
> > > > sides
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I think Foucault simply puts his own
> > oeuvre
> > > > down
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > claiming a case for vast source materials
> > once
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then declaiming by saying archival
> > materials
> > > > have
> > > > > > > their origin in a sort of non archival
> > trace.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > argue, we could start by asking again ,
> > > > whether
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > necessity of archives arises from within
> > the
> > > > > > archives.
> > > > > > > If not, what are the consequences?
> > > > > > > And another hint,Foucault is helped by
> > > > Nietzsche
> > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > but consider Nietzsche's career as a
> > > > genealogist(
> > > > > > e.g
> > > > > > > of values): how much of a source
> > materialist
> > > > he
> > > > > > was,
> > > > > > > how deep referential?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lets get onto the game, the outwork
> > once
> > > > more.
> > > > > > > Un happy new year to all
> > > > > > > arnab
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DELETE button is history. Unlimited
> > mail
> > > > > > storage is just a
> > > > > > > click away. Go to
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail
> > > > storage is just a click
> > > > > away. Go to
> > > >
> > https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media
> > and
> > > > the city.
> > > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > > To subscribe: send an email to
> > > > reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > >
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > > List archive:
> > > > <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bring your gang together - do your thing. Go
> > to
> > > http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click
> away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list