| dc.description.abstract | This study explores the canonizing aspect of digitization through a case study. The collection of Sound and Vision, the Dutch national heritage institute, is part of the cultural memory that Jan and Aleida Assman outline. They describe the concept as a memory that is triggered by artefacts that are at display in cultural institutions. Canonization can be defined as the process that puts forth the Canon, which entails all that what is at display. This definition strongly resembles aspects of digitization as defined by multiple academics. This study claims that these two processes describe the same principle; they both entail the selection of material, ascribing value to it, preserving this material. This similarity is also visible in the Sound and Vision Institute. This claim is substantiated by a case study surrounding gypsy material in the Sound and Vision collection. Gypsy people are severely underrepresented in their archive and thus are barely included in its cultural memory. The main question in study is therefore: how does the digitization process of the Sound and Vision Collection shape a cultural memory that excludes gypsy history? On the basis of a Critical Discourse Analysis, it can be concluded that the process of digitization shapes a cultural memory that excludes gypsies by means of a process of canonization. This conclusion is derived from two major findings in this research: firstly, the fact that the process of digitization does in fact match the Assmanns’ description of canonization and secondly, the fact that digitization shapes the Canon of a cultural institution, which is the essence of canonization. On a discourse level this study concludes that the priorities and values of the archivists are the basis on which material is selected for digitization – which also means preservation – and on which the metadata is assigned. This is the groundwork for the first finding. On the textual level this study explores the constitution of two search queries and its metadata. These reveal that gypsy content and metadata terms are systematically excluded from structures that could facilitate the search for gypsy material. The last section argues that gypsy history is not a part of the Canon, even though all that is digitized constitutes the Canon. This exclusion from the Canon can be ascribed to the digitization process, which substantiates the second finding. On the one hand, the conclusion that digitization has canonizing aspects validates archivists’ anxieties about digitization, and on the other hand, the conclusion that canonization can take the form of digitization creates a new model that consolidates cultural memory and digitized archives. | |
