Abstract – This article responds to the calls of Evangelestia-Dougherty, Williams, and Punzalan, and elaborates on Bastian’s model of cultural archiving to broaden and deepen practices of community-based archiving. Through literature and case-study research into cultural archival practices in Flanders (Belgium), this article explores the ontological conditions preceding the practice of institutional cultural archiving. Recommendations are formulated to develop a community-oriented institutional archival practice that is responsive to how cultural memory operates, to what constitutes the community record, and to the need to not only talk with communities but also to engage in connection between communities.

Three insights are presented. Firstly, the strategy of community-based archiving needs to incorporate the model of cultural archiving, emphasizing the ‘archiving’ of the community record. Secondly, a relevant and proactive institutional attitude is required that focusses through outreach on the boundary-spanning capacities of the community record, rather than on strengthening the boundary markers. Finally, an institutional cultural archival praxis is perceived as a laboratory for discussing perspectives on the making of memory and meaning, with a focus on intercommunity and intercultural recognition. Since these preconditions for implementing such a praxis are not yet met in the field, this article refrains from concrete techno-practical discussions but encourages further research and practical experiments.

The author of this article is employed at a local public archival institution in a small to medium-sized city in the Flemish region of Belgium. Additionally, the author is affiliated with the University of Antwerp, where he works on a dissertation on the role of archives in society. From the positioning that public institutional archival institutions have a societal responsibility, the article focuses on the practical implementation of the calls made by Evangelestia-Dougherty, Williams, and Punzalan.

Keywords – Community-based archiving, relevance, cultural archiving, boundary objects

This paper was submitted for the iPRES2024 conference on March 17, 2024 and reviewed by Carly Lenz, Lauren Work and 2 anonymous reviewers. The paper was accepted with reviewer suggestions on May 6, 2024 by co-chairs Heather Moulaison-Sandy (University of Missouri), Jean-Yves Le Meur (CERN) and Julie M. Birkholz (Ghent University & KBR) on behalf of the iPRES2024 Program Committee.

Introduction

The keynote speakers at iPRES 2022 and 2023 ignited a discussion on the responsibilities surrounding community archiving, sparked by Tamar Evangelestia-Dougherty. Evangelestia-Dougherty emphasized the importance of deeper collaboration with community archives, listening to their experiences, being open to their perspectives, and fostering long-term relationships [1]. This call was echoed by Sherry Williams and Ricardo Punzalan, emphasizing the need to not only talk about designated communities but also to engage with them directly [2].

Engaging communities, rather than speaking about, is an ethical important and morally appealing discourse. However, practical implementation reveals problematic elements. Institutional archival practices inherently reinforce dominant narratives unless deliberate action is taken to counteract this tendency. To break this cycle of dominant narrative formation, it is essential to accommodate more voices, not only in the formation of collections but also in broader practices and frameworks [3]. To achieve this goal, institutional archives approach community resources, through the establishment of community-based archiving initiatives. Community-based archiving refers to the projects where institutional archives designate communities and utilize archival practices to better incorporate the experiences of this community into institutional archival and collection practices [4].

This article argues that while community-based archiving is ethically significant, and a valid approach for diversifying and making institutional practices more inclusive, it may not be the most suitable for strengthening the public sphere. Heritage, once it becomes ‘community-forming’ it inherently becomes exclusive [5]. A focus on designated communities can lead to the thickening of community identity [6] and the construction of boundaries against outsiders [7], hindering connections between communities. To strengthen connections between communities and to counteract social closure, institutional archival practices should strive to foster connections between communities.

Therefore, this article addresses the questions: In what ways can institutional archives develop practices aimed not only at strengthening communities but also, and more importantly, towards fostering connections between communities? What preconditions must be met to effectively implement such practices at the local level?

To answer these questions, firstly, the concepts of community and cultural memory are discussed. Jeannette A. Bastian’s cultural archives-model provides a framework for, secondly, exploring the concept of the community record. Through two case studies, supported by theory and literature, this article, thirdly, investigates how institutional archival practices can be developed and implemented departing from this framework. Finally, four challenges are formulated to serve as a guide in the practical implementation of a community-oriented institutional praxis.

Community, cultural MEMORY, and cultural archiving

Community and the community record

Conversing with communities rather than about them presupposes a clear definition of these groups. Here we encounter a dilemma: the notion that we should speak with rather than about immediately clashes with the challenge of identification: what exactly constitute ‘our’ communities? The assumed conversation ultimately occurs within the interaction among individuals at the grassroots, local level. However, even within these local contexts, in every neighborhood, municipality, or local territory, we encounter a myriad of individuals and groups. From an ethical standpoint of equality and with the aim of avoiding the formation of new hegemonic narratives, it is necessary – or at least provide the opportunity – to engage all these groups equally within an institutional community-oriented practice. How can an institution navigate within this variety? And is it ethically justifiable, and if so, to delineate groups?

Community

The notion of community is inherently problematic because it typically represents an imposed category that does not exist as a clearly delineated entity, nor do these individuals perceive their relationships in that way. A community is an emergent phenomenon where individuals share ‘something’ in common. The categorizing of individuals is typically based on, often ascribed, characteristics and more often by an outsider than by someone from within the group [8]. These commonalities, however, are fluid and are interpreted in various ways by the individuals presumed to be part of such a group. Therefore, delineating a group of individuals as ‘a community’ is always a projection onto a group of individuals who may or may not actually share something in common [9]. Every attempt at categorization inevitably brings forth anomalies [10].

To engage in discussions about the role of communities in institutional archival practices, it is necessary, however, to have a wieldable concept. Yack provides guidance by suggesting that a community may be based on a shared characteristic, such as a belief, a territory, a purpose, an activity, or the absence of a quality attributed to another group. Yack distinguishes three types of community: natural (individuals who depend on each other for survival), chosen (individuals who choose to associate with like-minded individuals with whom they share similar values and objectives), and contingent communities (individuals who share certain interests, albeit unconsciously and involuntarily) [11].

The challenge of a community-based archival practice lies in recognizing the communities it designates. Recognizing chosen communities can happen relatively easily when these communities make themselves visible in the public sphere, for example, in the case of community archives. However, a community-oriented practice that solely focuses on visible and self-identifying communities retains significant blind spots and would result in the creation of new dominant narratives [12], while identifying contingent communities is inherently problematic due to the implicit power dynamics associated with projecting and categorizing. It is important to note that delineating communities cannot be based on objective criteria or assigned membership to a specific group, to avoid the pitfalls of projection and categorization. Instead, the notion of community record can offer a useful guide to navigate this fluidity. Identifying and distinguishing communities could be based on the collective memory.

Cultural memory and the community record.

Community-oriented archival practices engage with the social or cultural memory of a community [13] We must first clarify how cultural memory functions and how this is subsequently expressed via the community record, before we can delve deeper into how institutional archives can become accommodating to include the community record in their practices.

The process of remembering involves incorporating elements from the past into the experience of the present and into projections unto the future. Individuals recollect the past through the lens of the present, employing multiple social frameworks to interpret that past. Each lens belongs to a group rather than an individual. Memory is thus socially constructed, shaped by the specific nature of that group and its collective experience. Each collective memory requires the support of a group that is delineated in time and space. In turn, the specific nature of a group’s experience has its own collective memory, one that differs from the collective memory of other groups [14]. Collective memory is “the representation of the past, both that shared by a group and that which is collectively commemorated, that enacts and gives substance to the group’s identity, its present conditions and its vision of the future” [15].

Archives are neither the cultural memory of a community or society; they are “among countless different devices in the process of transforming individual memories into collective remembering” [16]. Nevertheless, archives are an integral part of cultural memory [17]. They are representations and references that can be activated into living memory [18]. Cultural institutions, such as archival institutions, preserve the cultural capital of a society. They are the public safeguards to prevent important matters from getting forgotten, as actual remembering is, in cultural memory, the exception [17].

Archival institutions are essentially a tool for remembering and a precaution to be able to remember in the future. Archiving is the set of processes that enables remembering and creates a societal hippocampus. This memory center, the reference memory, is a foundational part of the arsenal with which future generations can construct their memories of our contemporary world. However, this institutional reference memory is currently particularly selective [20], not only because it excludes certain voices [20] but also because it ignores certain carriers of information [21]. It is therefore imperative to deepen, enrich and broaden this societal memory [22]. An institutional community-oriented archival strategy should therefore be aimed at balancing this reference memory by incorporating the community record. However, before looking into the ways the community record manifest itself, and exploring a responsive practice, we must first consider how the cultural memory of a community is expressed.

Cultural memory is a form of collective discourse, and consists of a synergetic and dynamic interaction between archival memory and embodied memory. Embodied memory is the mnemonic of the body, transmitted through conscious and unconscious bodily performances and culturally specific gestures. The archival memory is what is transmitted through written and other media. These two components of cultural memory are intertwined. Collective aspects of events cannot be understood solely through traditional historical sources but must be supplemented with immaterial testimonies. [23] These immaterial testimonies are embodied memory. Remembering them is performative [24]. Cultural performances, such as oral traditions, are powerful evokers and transmitters of cultural knowledge and memory [4]: “Performers embody identity, tradition, and memory. Performances is the repertoire of embodied memory, offering alternative cultural perspectives to the written archives” [23].

An institutional community-oriented archival practice must, in effect, not only respond to the need to include more voices by incorporating more records from the community but must also adopt a broader understanding of what constitutes the community record, and by extension, what constitutes the ‘archive’. The archival memory (archives) would not only be incomplete without the embodied memory (repertoire), but it would also generate a significant power imbalance in what future generations can remember about our current society. The groups in our society that have the most power to articulate themselves are not coincidentally also the groups that are best able to express themselves through written sources [26]. However, institutional archives today do not undertake sufficient measures to include the repertoire of cultural memory in their practices [27].

To engage with cultural memory, institutions must acknowledge that archival memory and embodied memory are closely entangled, and that the reference memory would be incomplete without accommodating immaterial carriers of information. A community-oriented archival practice must therefore embrace the totality of cultural memory and bridge the binary between material and immaterial forms and formats of records. To become hospitable to the community record requires a paradigm shift, as proposed through the concept of cultural archiving [27].

Cultural archiving

“Dynamic cultural expressions are the legitimate archives of a community and critical components of documenting societies. History is not expressed through text, but expressed orally, musically, performatively, and artifactually. Communities document their heritage and cultures through a broad variety of tangible and intangible forms and formats, including oral traditions, performative arts, festivals, commemorations, materiality, and monuments. These living cultural traditions function as dynamic records of their communities and as archives of their evolving history.” [27]

A cultural archive accommodates this diversity of memories, both tangible and intangible, and consider both equality as records in its practice. The cultural archive is both a custodial archive, a physical and digital repository of scribal and externalized memory, a living archive [28], as well as a postcustodial praxis that accommodates an ontology wherein records are not fixed and static, but flexible and dynamic, often embodied within people [29]. Cultural archives are responsive and adaptive to the needs of communities [28] instead of “prison houses of the past” [26].

This mindset preludes a paradigm shift: traditional Western archival models, codified in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, have proven inadequate to fully accommodate the variety of records of a globalized society [31]. Institutional archival practices tend to reduce by operating with fixed schemas in an attempt to standardize diverse records [31]. A cultural archival practice, on the other hand, acknowledges that each culture expresses its cultural memory in individualistic ways, and creates and maintains its own strategies for preserving and transferring its history and memory [27]. A cultural archive should refrain from practices that seek to filter the community record through the discourses of state-based institutions [31]: “If archives are truly the storehouses of our collective memory, then the archives cannot be selective and choose only to store memory that conforms to a particular tradition or function within a particular framework” [27].

Expanding our idea of what constitutes the archive, and working towards enriched relationships within society, requires pluralizing our own archival paradigm: “In order to be relevant, meaningful and enduring in a global society, the archives must be ready to represent everyone and must have the mechanisms and the strategies to do so” [32]. Reimagining archives as spaces that accommodate and equalize both the textual and the cultural [27], and acknowledging that traditional methods no longer meet societal needs, are prerequisites for the call to place ourselves more broadly in society [27], as well as for beginning to rectify archival imbalances, including archival silences, western-dominated discourse, and the sidelining of non-western cultures as folklore [33].

Moreover, a community-oriented archival praxis requires a focus that starts from the individual and from the affective mutual interrelations between the individual and the collective. A community exists only as the sum of its parts [11], [8]. The community record arises through the sharing of personal archival objects and stories with the ‘archive’. During this sharing, contributors experience perceptions of community history, community involvement, and feelings of belonging to the community [34]. The absence of these emotions in the archival gaze can lead to tokenistic checkbox-inclusion, where assumptions are made, and community resources are extracted for other, more institutional, and hegemonic interests [35]. In participatory practices, individuals are too often invited to participate as representatives based on the category they are assigned to, rather than because of the expertise they can contribute [36].

The cultural archiving model provides a framework for diversifying institutional practices and restructuring them to be more inclusive and non-discriminatory. When engaging in conversations with rather than about communities, it is important that the dialogue starts from the conditions set by the communities themselves. This requires sensitivity and responsiveness to the specific ontologies and epistemologies of these communities. The ‘community’ cannot be pre-characterized but rather emerges in collective discourse. A cultural archival practice departs from the individual, and acknowledges that any commonality between individuals, whether conscious or incidental, is always contextual, fluid, and relational, and manifest in specific cases depending on the subject and contextual factors at that moment. Cultural archives strive to broaden the societal reference memory by including (a multitude) of community records. The reference memory hereby includes both the archival memory as well as the repertoire - the cultural memory embodied within the members of communities themselves. The community record is both scribal, non-scribal, archival, and embodied. These multiple manifestations are mutually inclusive and reinforcing. As a result, a responsive cultural preservation practice is not limited to preserving through the institutionalizing of cultural memory but focuses also on the embodied memory expressed in cultural performances. Such a preservation practice must accept the “constant state of againness” and not seek to fossilize cultural expressions [50]. How can such a cultural archive be implemented in practice?

Challenges to cultural archiving: two cases

Description of the cases

De Vierkante kilometer (2017-present), Gent [37]

In the permanent exhibition of STAM, the city museum of Gent (Belgium), a room is arranged with a large aerial photo of the city territory, divided into tiles of one square meter. Each tile corresponds to one square kilometer in reality. Since 2017, the project ‘De Vierkante kilometer’ (the square kilometer) is being executed. In rhythm with the tiles, hidden stories, city histories, (nearly) lost collections, and not yet forgotten traces of the past are brough to light: what shapes the neighborhood and the city but remains usually under the radar? Five tiles have been completed so far: Neuseplein (2018), Brugse Poort (2019-2020), Rabot (2020-2021), Ledeberg (2021), Dampoort (2023).

The project is twofold. On one hand, Tina De Gendt, who leads the project, guides a group of volunteers. These volunteers, about fifteen to twenty per neighborhood, are selected based on their insider’s perspective, their historical interest, and their willingness to negotiate with others about historical themes. A commitment for five months is required. Together with the residents, Tina and the volunteers walk the streets and investigate the stories emerging from the neighborhood. On the other hand, during the project she is ‘historian in residence’. Without a fixed residence, she wanders the street engaging in conversations. Open questions are asked about the neighborhood and its residents, about yesterday, today, tomorrow, and much more.

Each ‘residence’ – the period during which a neighborhood is being assessed – results in the creation of several products, such as an exhibition in the STAMplein (a part of the museum that is freely accessible), and periodic guided walks in the respective neighborhood. In the case of Neuzeplein, a loanable exhibition was developed; in the case of Brugse Poort, an educational program for primary schools.

Ons Buurtverhaal (2022-present), Herentals region [38]

Kempens Karakter is a cultural heritage collaboration between twelve municipalities in the Herentals region. In 2022, the project ‘Ons Buurtverhaal (our neighborhood story) was launched. Ons Buurtverhaal seeks out those stories, traditions, building, photos, landscapes, rituals, objects, and more that characterizes a specific neighborhood and its residents want to preserve for further generations. The project unfolds annually in two municipalities (three during the pilot), in which one neighborhood is selected each. The pilots were conducted in 2023 in Herenthout, Olen, and Vorselaar, during which a method was developed for the remaining nine municipalities, consisting of two formulas: a basic trajectory and an extended trajectory. The trajectories differ in the depth of exploration pursued and the intended social cohesion, with the extended trajectory mainly applied in neighborhoods where there are more challenges to bringing people together and aiming to make a significant difference. Since 2024, an extended trajectory is being conducted in Herentals, a basic in Nijlen.

The local trajectory starts with the selection of a neighborhood, based on criteria such as identifiable heritage, the ability to delineate the neighborhood, and potential alignment to existing local government neighborhood initiatives. The project group, consisting of staff from Kempens Karakter and the local authority, then maps the neighborhood demographically, socio-economically, and historically. Together with heritage organizations, the group starts searching for existing heritage. Subsequently, by involving volunteers, neighborhood walks, and door-to-door-distribution, residents are invited to share their stories, which are used to further explore the heritage of the neighborhood. During activities around this local heritage residents are brought together.

Again, the project is twofold: participatory methods are used to emerge the (hidden) heritage, during activities based on heritage themes that transcend designated groups, such as storytelling walks, local exhibitions and a ‘neighborhood weekend’ the results are shared with the residents, aiming to bring people together, stimulate encounters, and initiate neighborhood dynamics. The trajectory is concluded with the realization of a tangible product, such as a series of postcards or a street map. Local governments are invited to continue the neighborhood dynamics and to support further grassroots initiatives.

Discussion

In the cases, four challenges emerge that are considered crucial for the success of the projects and provide guidance for implementing an institutional community-oriented archival practice. Firstly, the need for relevance beyond the institutional walls is emphasized, implying that through such projects the institution becomes embedded in the local community. Secondly, through wielding a focus on individual experiences personal relationships are established. Thirdly, the importance of embodied preservation comes to the fore, focusing on preserving intangible cultural expressions without necessarily externalizing them into traditional collections, which implies a more inclusive approach to archiving taking into account the embodied nature of cultural heritage. Finally, the importance of intercommunity contact is emphasized, suggesting the avoidance of a singular focus on community in favor of addressing and connecting different communities.

Relevance

A first challenge concerns the issue of relevance. A community-oriented archiving practice requires the institution to place itself amidst communities and to build personal relationship based on the needs of individuals. To understand what is relevant within communities, the institution needs to be recognized and legitimated as a relevant conversational partner. This kind of relevance manifests in a twofold way: on one hand through offering inward hospitality that aligns with the designated communities’ needs, on the other hand by being considered as relevant outside the institution, within the communities themselves [39]. In both cases, through an open, accessible, and relatively unbiased position, and by strongly investing in empowering local ambassadors, the institutions become able to leverage the hospitality in the neighborhood. This might be a major challenge for institutional archives, as traditional archival practices are often based on mistrust and insider entitlement [40].

To establish a community-oriented archival practice within an institutional framework, it is important to build trust and obtain engagement from outside. Active outreach levers triggers for relevance, as relevance arises through public advocacy work. This requires, on the one hand, that institutions proactively stand up for communities when needed, on their terms, and not when it is convenient for the institution [41]. On the other hand, the institutions must become hospitable to include the community record.

To furthermore develop an inclusive praxis, institutions must acknowledge that communities are emergent in collective discourse and cannot be a priori designated. A community-oriented archival practice is not an extractive practice but a method, aimed at unfolding the community record. Initiatives of this nature must find ways to address the specific needs of the community while also providing space for the diversity of groups in society [41]. Both cases demonstrate that it is fruitful not to start from pre-identified communities but rather from a geographical delineated space and a focus that designates contingent communities.

Proactive attitude

A second challenge concerns the issue of a proactive professional attitude within archival practice. Traditional practice is generally characterized by a passive relationship between the institutional archival apparatus and society [42]. However, a more proactive role perception seems to be a prerequisite for the successful establishment of an institutional community-oriented archival practice.

Both cases express the indispensability of such a proactive professional attitude. Although the project-structures appear to be loose and guided by what emerges at the moment, they require strong institutional preparation and top-down coordination. End goals are not entirely set in advance; the focus lies more on the process than on the product. Both cases are dependent on the project coordinator, who has a crucial role by proactively engaging the residents; in the case of De Vierkante kilometer even by residing for nearly half a year to stimulate and to document the continuous flow of encounters.

It is, however, not self-evident to incorporate a proactive and socially oriented role conception within the current archival paradigm. Since the 1970s, there has been a call within the archival discipline for a more active approach by institutional archival practices to address the imbalance in the archival record, by taking a proactive stance in documenting society [43]. This ‘active archivist’ acknowledges the power and corresponding responsibility of the profession to diversify ‘the archive’ and the discipline [33], encourages the proactive building of community archives and archival communities [44], and “wields its power as gatekeeper of what becomes part of our cultural record and gives voice to those who have been silenced or ignored by dominant groups” [45]. Such an active attitude is not yet dominant discourse in the professional archival community. Records typically depict people without significant involvement from those individuals. Acknowledging that “all layers of society are participants in the record-making process and that the entire community becoming the larger provenance of the records”, requires a shift to a more self-reflective, critical approach through which archivists become aware of the multitude of perspectives and positionalities in society, and become more sensitive to social inequalities, rather than defending a perception of professional neutrality and focusing on the technical skills of archival practice [43]. In effect, institutional archival practices are characterized by a significant bias in what is documented in the archival memory and in which the dominant ontology is favored. The emphasis is on appraisal, the destruction of archives, and streamlining records management processes; (proactively) documenting is perceived a side issue [47]. In this perspective, it will require profound institutional change to remain relevant [41], which however will not happen if the archival apparatus does not actively undertake this change [47].

Archiving the community record

A third challenge concerns the issue of archiving the community record. Cultural experiences and embodied memory constitute essential aspects of the community record that are often not externally recorded but rather embedded in people. These records are intangible, liquid, mutable, and perishable [66], which contrasts with the current archival paradigm that is focused on fixing textual sources in time and space [49].

To overcome this duality, cultural archiving requires a shift in archival practice that can encompass both scribal, non-scribal, institutionalized, post-custodial, archival, and repertoire records. Both cases adopt a perspective that bridges the dualism between material and immaterial heritage. [50] Through storytelling, material records such as photos, are placed within a broader meaningful context of cultural experiences and expressions. The cases demonstrate a cultural archival process in which cultural expressions are documented by externalizing the community record, making it archival [51]. This process of externalization is not without its challenges. The choice to archive something, referred to by Ketelaar as ‘archivalization’, is determined by social and cultural factors and is influenced by the preconceptions of those who have the power to make this choice [52]. During the process of externalization, the community record is drawn into the trap of institutional paradigmatic archival bias [53]. Nevertheless, in a community-oriented archival practice, externalization must take place to create a more diverse and inclusive archival memory by encapsulating the community record into institutional collections. De Vierkante kilometer achieves a more comprehensive understanding as it also includes institutional collection formation, which Ons Buurtverhaal leaves out of its scope.

It is essential to be vigilant about the ways in which cultural community-oriented archiving takes place, particularly about the preconceptions present among those who decide what is archived and what is not. Ons Buurtverhaal departs from investigating the existing heritage in the neighborhood, wielding more technocratic notions, such as botanical heritage, monuments, archaeology or historical maps, alongside more open and intangible notions such as stories, sports and games, and traditions. However, during the pilots, it became evident that such an approach was problematic because residents did not recognize these concepts. In subsequent phases, the choice was made to consciously refrain from using the term heritage altogether during communication.

In community-oriented archiving, using the community resources to make institutional collections more diverse and inclusive, is important. However, due to the nature of the community record, which emerges anew from people’s expressions, community-oriented archival practices should not only focus on externalizing this embodied memory and preserving the outcomes, but also reinforcing and preserving it within both communities and individuals themselves. This is not without challenges. Where cultural experiences have not yet been archived, they are intangible and typically not yet recognized or labeled as archival or heritage by the involved communities or individuals. De Vierkante kilometer cleverly addresses this pre-archival memory by not starting from the jargon of ‘heritage’ but by asking concrete questions that trigger stories, which are then interconnected, making collectivity visible and tangible. While De Vierkante kilometer focuses more on stories and histories, leaning closer to oral history, Ons Buurtverhaal starts from both a tangible and an intangible cultural heritage approach, in which heritage, besides the tangible manifestation as discussed earlier, is perceived to be embedded in the vibrant diversity of people, traditions, and practices that enrich society, and thus on cultural expressions, traditions, and performances that radiate the heritage-related sentiments of place, identity, and belonging [54]. Nonetheless, Ons Buurtverhaal adopts a more narrow approach to heritage by explicitly naming and framing it beforehand, while De Vierkante kilometer leaves the concept entirely to crystallize during the project.

Diversifying and making institutional collections more inclusive entails deploying a practice that aims to externalize the embodied memory to enable intercommunity dialogue. To overcome archivalization bias [55], a community-oriented practice must simultaneously support embodied preservation and aim to strengthen the internalization of cultural memory. During the storytelling walks in both cases, collective memory is preserved through internalization within the contingent communities themselves.

Boundary marking

A fourth challenge concerns the issue of spanning cultural demarcations. Strong resilient communities, with sufficient social capital, play an essential role in fostering a healthy public sphere, in which they can mobilize the power the articulate themselves publicly and politically, strengthening their positions [56]. Heritage can function as an important lever for empowering communities, but at the same time, it can also contribute to the creation of cultural and ethnic boundaries [57]. Heritage can be understood as a process of creating, historicizing, legitimizing, the embodying into identity, and formalizing cultural and ethnic demarcation lines [58]. As soon as heritage is community-forming, it has the tendency to become exclusive [54]. In such cases, heritage strengthens what Terlouw describes as ‘thick identity’, a form of identity that, unlike ‘thin identity’, is more integrative and inward-oriented, conservative, regressive, and ethnically oriented. The deeper the cultural experiences of a particular community are anchored on thick identification, the more difficult the access for outsiders [59].

A community-oriented archival practice can reinforce these boundaries by stimulating the creation of a narrative of community that emphasizes exclusivity and erects barriers against outsiders. To counteract social closure, and to promote connection between communities instead, a community-oriented archival practice should not only focus on strengthening, preferably contingent, communities, but also on interconnecting them, and thus on transcending singular communities, preventing the thickening of a community, and fostering shared meaning.

To explore how connection can be fostered through archival practices, the concept of boundary objects is relevant. All records, including intangible cultural expressions, can be boundary objects [60]. Boundary objects are ‘objects’ that are both flexible enough to adapt to local needs yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are objects that can bring different communities together and enable translation between different social world [61]. Conceptualizing records as boundary objects elucidates how records can engage different communities of practice in conversation. However, because boundary objects can have multiple categorizations, usually one prototype categorization is employed for manageability. Each community of practice views, uses, and encapsulates an object differently in a different narrative, thereby guiding its meaning and depriving it of the potential for multiple meanings, limiting its findability to the own community of practice [62].

An institutional intervention aimed at upholding this multiplicity of meaning of these boundary objects can lead to a boundary spanning dialogue between communities, potentially creating mutual understandings. Dialogue is foundational for intercommunity contact [63]. Dialogue arises where potential conversational partners find common ground and get triggered to engage in conversation. Boundary objects enable to find a degree of commonality despite retaining different, even opposing, perspectives, [64] bridging boundary markers and creating shared meaning – a thin identity – and possibly connection [65]. A community-oriented archival practice that aims at boundary spanning must therefore have a dialogical orientation, using the records as boundary objects. To initiate this conversation, such a practice should, however, expand its participatory toolkit, while traditional methods such as interviews, surveys, focus groups, and digital participation are insufficient for initiating this dialogue [66].

Both cases emphasize the establishment of connections. Ons Buurtverhaal focuses on those heritage themes that transcend designated communities and aims bringing residents together. De Vierkante kilometer creates the forums to discuss difficult topics, using heritage as a means to negotiate the past, present, and future, where potential conversational partners can meet, and diverse narratives can emerge [49]. Although Ons Buurtverhaal specifically focuses on strengthening social cohesion, De Vierkante kilometer emphasizes that connection does not automatically conflates social cohesion [49]. This is not, however problematic, as although diversity politics often aim to (re)build a socially cohesive public sphere, the reality of people living together with differences is not perceived as difficult or challenging as often suggested in popular media. An intercultural approach may be relevant here, recognizing that differences are in fact crucial, and that solidarity does not necessarily require everyone in society to feel connected to each other, but rather to accept that people are jointly responsible and in it together [67]. The pursuit of connection does not imply giving up differences but rather striving for mutual recognition [68].

To translate a pursuit of boundary spanning into practice, the institution is required to act as a cultural broker [69]. A broker operates in the arena between different, often opposing, interests and must mediate between them. The challenge of reconciling non-complementary ideas or positions lies in finding common ground, and thus in translation [70]. Instead of imposing an expert view, the institution-as-broker supports and mediates the needs and interests of different stakeholders, including grassroots communities [71]. To achieve recognition as a cultural broker, the institution must acquire the trust of these communities, and therefore be or become relevant [41]. For every tile in De Vierkante kilometer, Tina organizes neighborhood walks. She tells the participants the stories that were collected and encourages the listeners to share their stories. Ons Buurtverhaal complements this format by organizing various neighborhood activities aimed at bringing residents together.

Culturally archiving the community record in practice

A community-oriented cultural archival practice that is hospitable to all forms and carriers of cultural experiences offers an important vehicle to deepen and broaden institutional archiving practices in an diversifying and inclusive manner. To prevent social closure, it seems important not to depart from a top-down community-based archiving approach that a priori designates communities, but, instead, commences from delineating a geographical region wherein it aims – in close collaboration with the residents – to identify the collective memory to unfold the community record, and mobilizes this community record via dialogical strategies to bridge the differences between communities. This does not imply that social cohesion is actually strengthened [36], nor that the institution can reach, involve, and mobilize everyone through such practice [41], but rather that the institution becomes able to act on the terms of the communities themselves while simultaneously transcending singular interests, and maneuvers itself in a better position to start talking with communities rather than about them [72].

Through the two cases, some challenges were discussed that can serve as a blueprint for developing a praxis that allows, from a local institutional position, to put Bastian’s cultural archival model into practice: a relevant and proactive institutional attitude; a focus on the emergent community record rather than on the community itself; and a focus on the boundary-spanning capacities of the community record. Such praxis requires a proactive attitude from the institution and its staff. To make community-facing projects meaningful, it is important to give communities ownership of these projects and for institutions to primarily listen to the needs and expectations of the communities [73], letting the process dominate rather than the product [74]. However, this does not imply that institutions should completely let go of the reins. The cases show that strong methodological planning and project coordination are essential for the success of such initiatives.

Approaching pre-archival heritage requires a personal approach that goes beyond traditional participatory methods [75]. To work at the grassroots level, the institution must be perceived as relevant in the communities [41]. This is achieved by active involvement of institutional staff within the communities, proactively engaging in the creation and sustainment of interpersonal relationships, by being attentive, sensitive, unbiased, and receptive to what happens, and by asking the right questions.

A responsive and adaptive institutional cultural outreaching practice hereby acknowledges that the community record and the archival memory are not static or fixed but flexible, dynamic, and even embodied, as well as that the community record largely exists in a state of pre-archivalization. However, approaching this discursive memory can unintentionally foster cultural demarcations and strengthen community boundaries. Therefore, such praxis simultaneously focuses on bridging these boundaries. For this, the institution needs to distance itself from its preconceptions about what heritage is or should be and instead listens to what is important to the communities. It is through conversing based on these preconditions, the telling and sharing of stories, and a participatory method pinpointed to the discursive level [76] that the community record emerges, and through which intercommunity meaning is created, or at least recognized.

An inclusive archival practice focuses both on institutionally preserving elements from the community record, in accordance with the community, as well as preserving the record within the community itself. The challenge lies in incorporating both strategies into the praxis, especially since such an approach transcends the boundaries of the current paradigmatic disciplinary framework. This requires a dialogical approach that aims at becoming relevant within and, above all, between communities. A community-oriented cultural archival practice that focuses on building bridges between communities, even if this does not immediately lead to strengthening social cohesion, requires a proactive approach to institutionally engage in collaborations and to stimulate and facilitate encounters within society. Boundary spanning requires a form of relevance that starts from developing partnerships, amplifying each other’s assets, and helping meet each other’s needs, and then aims for social bridging. By building intercommunity social capital, and by working interpersonally, intergenerationally, interculturally, and intersectionally, “unexpected connections and transformative relevance can be forged. If relevance goes deep, it does not look like relevance anymore: it looks like shared meaning [41].”

Conclusion

The strategy of community-based archiving needs to incorporate the model of cultural archiving. An inclusive institutional archival practice strives to broaden and deepen the societal reference memory by including the diverse voices in society, embodied in the community record. It adopts a broader understanding of what constitutes the community record, by acknowledging that it is both scribal, non-scribal, archival, and repertoire. It understands that both a community as well as its record are not a fixed entities but rather phenomena which emerge from collective discourse about cultural memory. It addresses the emergent community record rather than the community itself.

To implement this model on the local scale, institutions need to adopt a proactive attitude, along with an emphasis on the boundary spanning capacities of the community record rather than on the boundary markers. The externalization of collective memory into archival memory, and the internalization into embodied memory, can strengthen the community and increase its articulation power in the public sphere. It enables groups to preserve and share their heritage on equal terms. However, the institutional goal is not to strengthen the boundaries of a community but rather to bridge the differences between communities by establishing connections, to foster a sense of shared place [77]. This implies a thin form of identity formation that is more hospitable to connecting communities, instead of strengthening identity within a community. An institutional cultural archival praxis serves as a laboratory for discussing the making of meaning and memory, with a focus on intercommunity and intercultural recognition. The aim is not to fossilize cultural memory in institutional collections or to musealize them into a fictious collective identity.

This research leaves some important themes unexplored, such as how a digital environment should be configured to accommodate the community record, or the dynamics between center and periphery in the conception and implementation of these practices. This calls for continuing research to further develop and apply the concept of cultural archiving in practice. In particular, local public institutional archives are recommended to experiment with this model, and (supra)local policymakers are encouraged to stimulate and facilitate them. As publicly funded public sphere institutions, institutional archives have a special responsibility to fully commit to serving that public sphere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.