Outline
Roundtable speakers: Antoon de Baets (RUG), Marit Monteiro (RU) and Carine Zaayman (RCMC).
A growing number of sites, artworks, and historical narratives aim to counter the invisibility of marginalized people in history. Their names, faces, and/or stories are often put on display in such publications. Permission for this invasion of privacy is not a legal matter once they have deceased. But does that mean that historians should uncritically reproduce the intimate information they find? How important is personal data? When writing about marginalized people, should naming their names and telling their stories always take precedence precisely because they have been silenced for so long, or do some details remain private: names, medical conditions, sexual lives?
When it comes to the ethics of writing histories in which scholars want to “give a voice” to those who have been silenced in history, quite a lot is written but little actual discussion is held. In particular a conversation is lacking across disciplines that encounter the same issue yet may have different interests (that may even collide) – for instance colonial or medical history. This roundtable What’s in a name? Privacy, ethics, and intimate histories aims to open this conversation between historians working with private details of historical actors, and welcomes interested scholars from different backgrounds, in order to reflect on our practices and shape the future of life-histories.
This roundtable will contribute to the current additions that are being made to the Royal Netherlands Historical Society’s (KNHG) ethical norms for historians. One of these additions focuses on privacy of the historical subject. This roundtable aims to contribute to this development in the form of a final report to be shared with the KNHG subcommittee.
Discussion topics will be based on the participants’ input: questions or struggles that they encounter in their own research. One may think of topics such as cultural or historical differences in privacy concerns, paternalism, positionality, and so on.
As the roundtable will be followed by a museum visit, this event also encourages participants to not only consider the theoretical aspects of historical subjects’ privacy, but to also envision what this can look like in practice. Participants will visit the Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht in the afternoon. This museum displays objects that will allow them to connect all kinds of science to history and to the ethical dilemma’s discussed: think of the Nias masks, of human remains, and of the current exhibition by Bart Lutters ‘Meer dan je label’ in which patient perspectives and privacy are a central topic.
Programme
10:45 Door open, coffee/tea
11:00 – 13:00 Roundtable
- Each speaker reflects on (a selection of) the participants’ issues in max. 5 minutes
- Discussion, including the audience, is held based on 4 to 5 topics – max. 15 minutes per topic
13:00-14:00 Lunch (vegetarian, included) and walk to museum
14:00-17:00 Visit Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht
Preparations & literature
To receive 1 ECTS, participants are expected to read at least 4 articles of their choice (if desired, related to their own field/interests) from the literature list below. They hand in a short reflection (ca. 1000 words) on issues of privacy, ethics and intimate histories in their own research, how they propose to ethically deal with these, and what role they assign to naming their historical subjects. The organizer will read these think-pieces in advance and share some of the dilemma’s with the speakers. During the roundtable, participants are expected to be present and participate in the discussion. They are particularly invited to join the conversation on the issues that they have brought to the table. Deadline preparatory reflection: 6 March 2025 ([email protected]). Furthermore, they actively participate in the session on 21 March.
Literature:
- Jonathan Sadowsky and Kylie Smith, ‘Reflections on the use of patient records: Privacy, ethics, and reparations in the history of psychiatry’ Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 60:1 (2024).
- Laura Nys, ‘“I am F. B.”: historians, ethics and the anonymisation of autobiographical sources’ Paedagogica Historica 58:3 (2021) 424-438.
- Ana Lucia Araujo, ‘Raising the Dead : Walls of Names as Mnemonic Devices to Commemorate Enslaved People’ Current Anthropology 61:22 (2020) 328-339.
- Jane Nicholas, ‘A Debt to the Dead? Ethics, Photography, History, and the Study of Freakery’ Social History 47 (2014) 139-155.
- David Wright and Renée Saucier, ‘Madness in the Archives: Anonymity, Ethics, and Mental Health History Research’ Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 23:2 (2012) 65-90.
- Julie Parle, ‘The Voice of History? Patients, Privacy and Archival Research Ethics in Histories of Insanity’ Journal of Natal and Zulu History 25:1 (2007) 164-187.
- Sjaak van der Geest, “Confidentiality and Pseudonyms: A Fieldwork Dilemma from Ghana,” Anthropology Today 19:1 (2003) 14-18.
- David H. Flaherty, ‘Privacy and Confidentiality: The Responsibilities of Historians’ Reviews in American History 8:3 (1980) 419-429.
Optional/further reading:
- Susan C. Lawrence, Privacy and the Past: Research, Law, Archives, Ethics (United States: Rutgers University Press, 2016)
Learning aims and outcomes
In their preparation, participants will be challenged to reflect on the work ethics of the historian. They will contemplate issues of privacy and how these have developed through time. The roundtable will be an opportunity for participations to reconsider their own research and what ethical choices they make regarding their research subjects, how they can justify their choices, how they can reflect on their own positionality, and how they might be able to work towards more co-creation – for instance with descendants of a colonial past or with patient interest groups.
In joining the discussions of the roundtable, participants can learn to connect their own issues or obstacles with those that other historians encounter, and learn from each other. They can practice debating and defending their (ethical) choices as a researcher. The limited group size encourages participants to join the conversation. Before the session, the moderator will have informed the speakers about some of the participants’ dilemma’s. The speakers will reflect on these issues in their introduction, and if possible relate them to their own approach, thus inviting the participants to discuss with them.
Participants will furthermore learn to reflect not only on how researchers deal with historical privacy, but also how museums do this. What role does privacy and naming have in expositions? How can a true and compelling story be told and shown while still being attentive to these ethical issues?