I visited the Library of Congress Manuscript Division reading room yesterday to look at some archival papers for work. The reference librarians on duty asked me to fill out a survey. The questions on it entertainingly illuminated archivists' and historians anxieties about digitization and authenticity.
It is impossible to interpret the survey's precise intent and design by reverse-engineering from the questions. (To be honest, I did not read all of the long (and small) print matter on the first page of the survey. Not because of I didn't care, but because I had to answer 100 questions while on the clock.) However, the questions seemed to broadly gauge researchers' attachment to original documents as opposed to digital and microform copies or printed transcriptions.
Was it important for me to see the original version of this document? Why? Sentimental attachment? The tactile 'feel' of the paper? The sound it makes in your hands? The smell? Does this documents connect you to your ancestry? Is it important for civic engagement? Oversight of government? (Rate 1-7, 1 for statements with which I agreed the least, 7 the most.)
The variety of questions struck me as a bit defensive. I wonder if, based on these questions, researchers have criticized the Library of Congress for making certain documents unavailable for use. I'm sure it has happened, but do people really whine that they are being denied the right to "feel" the paper or "connect" with their ancestry?
If so, enough with the indignance. Archivists must make certain exceptions and allow researchers with compelling cases to access open, original papers that have been filmed or digitized. Copying on microfilm and through digitization is useful and necessary as a preservation, storage, and distribution measure.
The most interesting question asked what, in my opinion, was a suitable life span for the document, and what I imagined was a likely scenario for that document's destruction. Personally, I can't imagine acquiring an archival collection and then later getting rid of it, let alone destroying it. (I understand from my archivist friends and acquaintances that deaccessioning actually occurs rather frequently. Surely archivists have their reasons for deaccessioning certain papers, but, as a researcher, that power strikes me as God-like.) Maybe this question was a Solomonic test of my devotion to historical manuscripts. I answered that I thought a suitable life span was 10,000 years. Why? History is - will always be - relevant.
Perhaps tellingly, the survey was on paper - to my knowledge, it is not online.
