Search

While outlining the goals and impacts that community archives organize around, the text argues crucial parts of community archives involve the personal dimensions that center the construction and purpose of developing a community archive, autonomy/independence, ownership, and sustainability. Personal dimensions refer to the diverse stakeholders involved in the curation and curation of a community archive. Autonomy, ownership, and sustainability refers to the desire for the archive to adapt to address new contexts and issues.

Examples are drawn from a variety of community archives operating in London. Specifically the Future Histories, the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum, rukus!, and the visual archive of Moroccan heritage in the UK and Eastside Community Heritage. Although, the study was ongoing at the time of publishing the article, the authors describe using open participatory method, case studies, and participatory research.

A quote I found exemplary was “A community’s custody over its archives and cultural heritage means power over what is to be preserved and what is to be destroyed, how it is to be described and on what terms it is to be accessed” (83).

This text suggests for my own work to identify and engage in the communities concerned with privacy rights. Prior to this text, my work was mainly focused on the actions and voices of mainstream government institutions and private advertising organizations.

The text builds on community archives by researching the process by which they seek empowerment and social change (84).

This article discusses the concept and application of community archives. Community archives are established with skepticism of mainstream archival practices such as those made by heritage organizations addressing the power of erasure. The author explores the impacts of community archives and their relationship with mainstream archives. Community archives often form with agendas that are political and/or activist. These independent archival practices often seek to “redress or rebalance” the “history of a place, occupation, or interest” (74).

“Aggression, this second great vital force beside libido, had been identified by Freud variously –at least since the topic pressed itself upon his attention with the events of World War I –as an equally powerful and parallel drive to libido, or one at odds with libido and providing a countervailing pressure, or one which got peculiarly mixed up with and fused with libido (or vice versa, as libido got fused with aggression), or a phenomenon which grew in proportion as libidinal aims were thwarted.-hard to think about views of aggression not being informed by their intrinsic associa

post-World War II West Germany:"In no other national context would the attempt to make sense of aggression become such a core preoccupation specifically for psychoanalysts and allied professionals" (124)"On Aggression, … was a vigorous defense of aggression … It had two main components: aggression was ubiquitous in animals and in people (i.e., it was not just a German specialty). And more importantly: aggression was a force for good." (126)"By the later 1960s and early 1970s, at least three new versions of Freud were circulating in the West German media and wider public discussion.

"What Lorenz did find useful, however, was Freud's belatedly found conviction that aggression, like libido, was a drive.

"On Aggression, after all, as the original German title indicated, was a vigorous defense of aggression as by no means always a forcefor evil. The short take- home message –amidst all the witty, cheerfully chatty accounts of animal conduct –was welcome indeed. It had twomain components: aggression was ubiquitous in animals and in people (i.e., it was not just a German specialty). And more importantly: aggression was a force for good.