John Ridener

From Polders to Postmodernism: A Concise History of Archival Theory provides much what the title claims it does. Ridener breaks archival theory down into four major periods: consolidation (late 19th century), confirmation and reinforcement (post-WWI), modernism (post-WWII), and questioning (the present). With each of these periods, he provides a brief sketch of what that particular theory entailed, who developed it (the first three are each the work of one particular individual), and what show more circumstances led to its creation. Though it probably helps to be somewhat familiar with archival theory before reading, I assume this book is meant to be accessible to a non-specialist; why else would it have been distributed through such a non-targeted program as EarlyReviewers? That's where this book falls down a bit-- I almost never had a clear idea of what any of these archival theories actually entailed. What sets modernism apart from confirmation and reinforcement? Who knows? This is probably an area where being a "concise history" hurts the book; a more fleshed-out history could have explained each of these in depth.

Ridener provides a lot of background and context for each theory, showing how it rose out of the context of the time and place of its creation. He does this well-- almost too well. Consolidation, for example, is derived from what was going on in the Netherlands in the late 19th century, whereas conformation and reinforcement comes out of postwar British problems. It is hard to understand, then, why we should see all of these linking together as one continuous story: it's like writing a history of literature that connects Wilkie Collins to William Faulkner simply because one follows the other chronologically. Certainly there could be connections between these different theories, but Ridener's explanations are so rooted in the times of their creations that it's hard to see them. Consolidation must have spread from the Netherlands to the rest of the world for some reason, but why? What conditions existed in the world of archival theory as a whole, not just in one country, that made consolidation dominate archival theory? Ridener himself acknowledges this circumstance, saying that "Each of the paradigms discussed above come from countries with specific and independent archival needs created as a function of varied geographic location.... the geographic factor played a very important role by isolating archivists in their own theoretical situations" (153). How the local needs became universal and how these isolated archivists connected with each others' work are both notions that Ridener never satisfactorily addresses.

His rooting in specific time periods can also go a bit too far; he has a tendency to claim that every single societal shift contributed to changes in archival theory. When discussing the questioning era, he says that "The Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, and anti-war movements of the 20th century, coupled with the entrenchment of the Cold War and possibility of total destruction through nuclear war, created a new cultural and social landscape that required significant shifts in records and record keeping" (103). I doubt that gay marriage much affected the way our government maintains archives. (Maybe it did, but if so, Ridener never shows a correlation.) Focusing in on specific historical trends that affected specific archival ones would have worked much better.

Of course, I always find that it's easier to criticize works of nonfiction than to praise. I can point out where it ignores something or leaves something unsaid or unexamined; there's no real way to go through and list every thing the work does right. And it in general is quite fine. Though I think its conciseness hurts it a little, it usually presents an acceptable history, showing the background of each theory it deals with. Not the most riveting of reads, but I doubt that anyone expected otherwise; as far as academic books go, it's rather average in that regard. I really think this book's largest problem is not aiming itself at the layman enough. Without a full comprehension of each archival theory, it's hard to see the paradigm shifts that Ridener says are always occurring: to me, modernism seems much the same as confirmation and reinforcement. Isn't it all just storing records?

My biggest complaint, however, is that I have no flipping clue what a "polder" even is. show less

I regret reading this book, not so much because I found the links between history and archival theory tenuous (even though they were), but rather because I have been mocked incessantly by everyone I know who has seen this book in my library! I think in the right place, with the right person reading it, this book is a joy (I have come across more than a few of these in my time), but in this instance, I am not the person and my home wasn't the place.

I hestiate to review this title, I received it as part of Library Thing's Early Reviewer Program. The title and blurb sounded interesting so I went in for the lottery to "win" a copy. Since I received a copy through this program, my obligation in return is to write a few coherent words about it after reading. My hesitation stems from that while a portion of my graduate degree includes the word Archive, I am not sure if I possess the tools to make an informed decision and properly give this show more book its due.

Yet, this I can say: I believe it is yet another book suffering from an unfortunate subtitle. If one were to believe it, within its mere 184 pages, one would expect to find a comprehensive and comprehensible look at archival theory in general. Cox argues that this is a good introductory text on the major theories (Reading Archives: Archival Theory), yet I hesitate. While the major schools are mentioned to some depth, I am frustrated that no other voices or localities are heard. Furthermore, I felt that while some key aspects of the theories were expressed in detail (p 52, Jenkinson's definition of archives), this reader was left with a gloss of the material that felt dimmed and incomplete.

Each theory is organized into its own chapter and for the most part left in isolation there. I found it difficult to build upon and to compare and contrast the evolution of the theories, despite Ridener's assertion that "at almost every turn, one can contrast the two theories" (p 69). While I'm sure the material is there in order to perform this analysis, I believe it is disjointed and lacking a focus in its portrayal. Furthermore I found the strict chronological path restricting, though I'm not entirely sure why. I am thankful that Ridener makes a strong point that it is technological change that has driven most of the changes in Archival Theory over the years, as that is the largest challenge facing Archivists today.

It is the final 18 pages, consisting of the whole Conclusion, which I found to be the most tightly written and comprehensive of all the included text. It is here that Ridener concisely lays out the theories and (to the limited degree afforded by the length) contrasting view points. Additionally, there are views here which are not touched upon elsewhere in the text and I would have liked to see these points expanded after receiving a strong basis of the theories from which they spring. It is these examples which form the strongest evidence to the evolution of this new Questioning Method and the challenges modern Archivists face in an age of yet more rapid technological change.

So is this a good introductory text to Archival Theory as Cox has suggested? I believe yes, when supplemented with other readings and discussion. In isolation, it cannot stand on its own. show less

I've long been fascinated with historiography, and as such felt that reading a book on archival theory would add to my thinking on the subject. The standards of selection and the problems of processing information for archive is rather fascinating from a historical perspective. Unfortunately for me, I'm much too much a novice for this book.

Ridener's book is dense with information, chronicling and dissecting archival theory concisely (as stated in the title) but said conciseness is not show more necessarily beneficial to my noobie self. I enjoyed reading about the theories but had difficulty fully processing the information. That being said, I do think that this book is wonderful for those interested in and familiar with the subject, and I think that further research and a re-read is in my future. show less