Radicalizing the Politics of the Archive: An Ethnographic Reading of an Activist Archive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates about the politics of the archive centre largely on the archive’s role in knowledge production. Often critiques focus on the archive’s control of information and its use in maintaining privileged groups’ power. Within these debates, it is often institutional archives (e.g., government, university, professional organizations) that are discussed and, as a result, archival power is largely conceived of as domination. In this article, I seek to re-imagine the politics of the archive from the perspective of autonomous archives and from activist archival practices in order to explore archival power as an enabling force. I draw upon fieldwork at the 56a Infoshop Archive and from the Southwark Notes Archive Group, both in London, England. Using an ethnographic approach, I focus on the formation of the Archive and its activation in political struggles, examining the relationship between archiving, knowledge production, and political practices. I argue that autonomous, activist archives reaffirm the archive as a key site of political power, yet at the same time they subvert the archive’s role as a tool of domination. By collectivizing knowledge production and operating as spaces of empowerment, these archives radicalize the politics of the archive and point to possibilities for democratic politics more broadly. RÉSUMÉ Les débats portant sur l’aspect politique des archives se centrent surtout sur le rôle des archives dans la production du savoir. La critique se concentre souvent sur le contrôle de l’information exercé par les archives et sur son utilisation pour maintenir le pouvoir de groupes privilégiés. Au coeur de ces débats, on discute souvent des archives institutionnelles (par exemple : le gouvernement, les universités, les organisations professionnelles) et, par conséquent, le pouvoir archivistique est conçu en général comme une domination. Dans cet article, je cherche à imaginer autrement l’aspect politique des archives à partir de la perspective des archives autonomes et à partir des pratiques archivistiques des activistes afin d’explorer le pouvoir archivistique comme une force habilitante. Je m’inspire des enquêtes sur le terrain de la 56a Infoshop Archive et du Southwark Notes Archive Group, tous les deux de Londres, en Angleterre. En me servant d’une approche ethnographique, je me concentre sur la création des Archives et sur leur activation dans les luttes politiques, en examinant les liens entre l’action d’archiver, la production du savoir et les pratiques politiques. Je soutiens que les archives autonomes et activistes resituent les archives comme site clé du pouvoir politique, tout en renversant le rôle des archives comme outil de domination. En collectivisant la production du savoir et en fonctionnant comme espaces de responsabilisation, ces archives radicalisent l’aspect politique des archives et, de façon plus vaste, pointent vers des possibilités pour les politiques démocratiques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".