top of page
Search

Archive Fever’s Freudian Impression: The Digital Humanities and the Ethics of Cyborgian Care

Introduction

The digital age has ushered in unprecedented capacities to record, store, and recall information, leading the humanities into an “archival” turn magnified by technology. In this context, the term archive fever – originally coined by Jacques Derrida in Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression – takes on new resonance. Archive fever describes a compulsive desire to preserve the past, tinged with a paradoxical drive toward forgetting or destruction inherent in the act of archiving (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). As digital humanists build vast repositories of cultural data, they must grapple with the psychological and ethical dimensions of this archive fever in a digital key. Our computers and networks have become external extensions of memory, effectively making us part-human, part-machine “cyborgs” in our handling of knowledge (The Extended Mind: The Mind Outside of Your Brain | TheCollector). This cyborgian entanglement of humans with technology raises pressing ethical questions: How should we care for digital memories? What responsibilities do we have toward the people and communities those archives represent? And how do power, repression, and forgetting play out in digital archives?

This essay expands on the blog post “Archive Fever’s Freudian Impression: The Digital Humanities and the Ethics of Cyborgian Care,” developing its arguments into a long-form analysis. We will maintain an academic and theoretical tone, situating the discussion at the intersection of digital humanities, psychoanalytic theory, and ethics. The essay draws on contemporary digital humanities scholars, psychoanalysts, and ethicists to provide a well-rounded exploration. We begin by laying out a theoretical framework that connects Derrida’s and Freud’s ideas about archives and memory to Donna Haraway’s cyborg theory and the feminist ethics of care. Then, we move into a discussion of digital memory and repression, examining how digital archives function as an externalized memory that both preserves and hides information, analogous to Freud’s concept of the unconscious. Next, we delve into ethical considerations, arguing that digital humanists should adopt an “ethics of cyborgian care” – a framework that blends humanistic care and technological responsibility – when managing digital archives. Throughout, we integrate insights from scholars and ethicists, and we avoid direct quotations unless necessary, paraphrasing key ideas with appropriate citation. In conclusion, we reflect on the implications of archive fever and cyborgian care for the future of the digital humanities, suggesting that the field’s relevance is ever more critical in an era of AI and ubiquitous data. By acknowledging our cyborg nature and embracing an ethic of care, digital humanists can ensure that the archival abundance of the present serves humanity in a compassionate and just manner.

Theoretical Framework

Any rigorous inquiry into digital archives and ethics must rest on a solid theoretical foundation. This section outlines three interlocking frameworks: psychoanalytic archive theory, the cyborg paradigm, and the ethics of care. Together, these will help us understand what “archive fever” means in the digital realm and why “cyborgian care” is a necessary ethical response.

Archive Fever: Freud and Derrida’s Impressions

Jacques Derrida’s Archive Fever (1995) provides a crucial starting point for theorizing archives in relation to memory, power, and desire. Derrida’s subtitle, “A Freudian Impression,” indicates his dialogue with Sigmund Freud’s ideas (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). In the text, Derrida examines how archives are not neutral storehouses of information but are bound up with both the structures of human memory and with power (Analysis of Derrida’s Archive Fever – Literary Theory and Criticism ) (Analysis of Derrida’s Archive Fever – Literary Theory and Criticism ). He famously traces the word “archive” to the ancient Greek arkheion, the home of the archons or magistrates; from the beginning, archives were about commencement and commandment, origin and authority (Analysis of Derrida’s Archive Fever – Literary Theory and Criticism ) (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). In other words, whoever controls the archive wields power over what is remembered as official history. Michel Foucault had similarly argued that the archive governs what can be said in a given era, highlighting its law-like power (Analysis of Derrida’s Archive Fever – Literary Theory and Criticism ). Derrida builds on this, emphasizing that archives have a “house arrest” quality – historically, records were kept in the house of those in power (Analysis of Derrida’s Archive Fever – Literary Theory and Criticism ). This power dynamic remains relevant in digital archives: tech companies and institutions acting as modern archons decide which data to save or erase, effectively shaping cultural memory.

Beyond power, Derrida brings in Freud’s psychoanalysis to explore the internal dynamics of archiving. One of Freud’s metaphors for memory – the Mystic Writing Pad (or “Wunderblock”) – looms large in this discussion. Freud described a children’s writing toy consisting of layers: one can write on it, then lift a sheet to apparently erase the text, yet the impressions remain on a wax tablet underneath (Greig Roselli — Teacher, Writer, Philosophy Sprinkles Maker: Analysis: Freud, Derrida and the Magic Slate) (Greig Roselli — Teacher, Writer, Philosophy Sprinkles Maker: Analysis: Freud, Derrida and the Magic Slate). He offered this as a model of the human mind: the conscious memory traces can be wiped clean, but the unconscious retains every imprint (Greig Roselli — Teacher, Writer, Philosophy Sprinkles Maker: Analysis: Freud, Derrida and the Magic Slate). In Freud’s view, the mind’s capacity to forget (consciously) is balanced by an inability to truly erase the past – repressed memories persist and may return (e.g. in dreams or slips). Derrida seizes on this analogy to suggest that all archives have a dual nature: they preserve traces of the past even as they enable forgetting. Every act of archiving is also an act of selection and exclusion, and what is excluded is not truly gone – it lingers, capable of resurfacing in unexpected ways. This is the germ of “archive fever”: a feverish desire to record everything, driven by the fear of loss, coupled with an inherent destructive impulse that undermines the archive from within (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING).

Derrida explicitly connects archive fever to Freud’s concept of the death drive (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). In Freudian theory, the death drive (Thanatos) is a subconscious impulse toward destruction, oblivion, and a return to an inorganic state – a counterforce to the life instinct. Derrida argues that this drive infiltrates the archive. He introduces the term “archiviolithic” (archive-destroying) to describe how the archive carries within it the seeds of its own erasure (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). The logic is paradoxical: the same passion that drives us to preserve everything (to have a complete archive of memory) can result in overwhelming or obliterating memory (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING). By trying to capture all, we risk losing context or meaning, and we inevitably leave something out. Archive fever, then, is a fever to capture memory, born from the trauma of knowing memory is incomplete and mortal – but it is also a fever in the pathological sense, potentially destructive. Derrida notes, for instance, that an obsessive focus on archiving certain narratives can silence others, effectively repressing alternate histories (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). Every archive is built on principles of inclusion and exclusion, reflecting the biases or anxieties of its creators.

Crucially, Derrida shifts the question of the archive from one of the past to one of the future. He writes that “the question of the archive is not… a question of the past. It is a question of the future… the question of a response, of a promise, and of a responsibility for tomorrow” (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). This profound insight means that how we archive today determines how history will be understood tomorrow. Archives are not static; they “live” and evolve as new material is added or as old material is reinterpreted (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). Derrida gives the example of Freud’s own documents moving from private home to public museum, transforming their meaning and accessibility (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). We can thus speak of the spectral nature of archives: they are haunted by what they omit and animated by the expectations of the future. In sum, Derrida’s theoretical framing tells us that archives (digital or otherwise) are sites of power, haunted by repression and the unconscious, and fundamentally oriented toward what is yet to come. An ethical approach to archives must acknowledge these dimensions.

Cyborgs and the Collapse of Human–Machine Boundaries

If Derrida and Freud guide our understanding of archive fever, Donna Haraway’s work on the cyborg helps us understand the condition of the modern scholar (or archivist) who operates in a techno-cultural environment. In “A Cyborg Manifesto” (1985), Haraway defines the cyborg as a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as science fiction. The cyborg is a potent metaphor for how technology blurs the boundaries between human and machine (A Cyborg Manifesto - Wikipedia). Haraway pointed out that in the late 20th century, three crucial boundary breakdowns had occurred: between human and animal, between organism and machine, and between the physical and non-physical (A Cyborg Manifesto - Wikipedia). For our purposes, the second and third breakdowns are key – the lines between humans and machines, and between our physical memories and digital information, have become porous.

Today’s “digital humanist” or indeed any connected individual is arguably a kind of cyborg, seamlessly using devices to augment cognitive tasks. Our smartphones, computers, and cloud drives function as external memory banks; we offload facts, dates, personal reminders, even intimate memories (photographs, diary entries on blogs, etc.) onto digital devices. Philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers, in the theory of the extended mind, argue that tools like notebooks or smartphones can literally become part of our cognitive process – extensions of our mind outside the skull (The Extended Mind: The Mind Outside of Your Brain | TheCollector) (The Extended Mind: The Mind Outside of Your Brain | TheCollector). If a scholar uses a digital archive to remember what no single brain could (say, an entire corpus of literature searchable in seconds), the archive is serving as an externalized memory or “prosthetic” brain. In effect, the mind extends into the archive, and the human researcher becomes a human-machine assemblage. Contemporary cognitive science and media theory support this view: our memory and identity are increasingly distributed across networks and devices (as when one says “I don’t recall the information, but I know I have it saved on my computer”). In the digital humanities, scholars rely on databases, algorithms, and visualization tools – an ecosystem of technologies – to produce knowledge. Thus, the digital archive is not something “out there” separate from us; it is entwined with how we think and who we are. This situation exemplifies Haraway’s cyborg, which “represents a rejection of rigid boundaries” between human and machine (A Cyborg Manifesto - Wikipedia).

Recognizing the cyborg nature of digital scholarship has two implications. First, it highlights responsibility: if we are part machine (in terms of dependence on machines for memory and analysis), then the design and use of those machines are integral to our humanity. We must be critically aware of how the tools shape our thinking. For example, algorithms that filter or sort archival data might unconsciously direct our attention – much as the psychoanalytic unconscious might steer behavior. The scholar, as a cyborg, must take care of the machine part of themselves: maintaining the integrity of data, questioning software biases, and so on. Second, the cyborg metaphor encourages imagination beyond traditional human limits. A cyborg can potentially process far more information than an unaided human; digital archives can store nearly limitless data. But with this super-human capability comes the challenge of making meaning and maintaining ethics. We may be able to record “everything,” but should we? How do we ensure that enhanced power is used with wisdom and care? The cyborg concept sets the stage for an ethics that is hybrid in nature – one that treats technology not as a neutral tool but as part of the moral equation.

Ethics of Care in a Digital World

To bridge archive fever and our cyborg condition, we turn to the ethics of care, a framework from moral philosophy that emphasizes relationality, empathy, and responsibility in context. The ethics of care emerged from feminist theory in the late 20th century, notably through the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan. Dissatisfied with traditional ethics that prioritized abstract principles (like justice or utility), Gilligan proposed that morality also emerges from caring relationships and the obligation to attend to the needs of others. “The ethics of care starts from the premise that as humans we are inherently relational, responsive beings and the human condition is one of connectedness or interdependence,” Gilligan explains (Carol Gilligan - Ethics of care). Rather than seeing individuals as isolated decision-makers, care ethics views them as embedded in webs of relationships – family, community, society – where emotional engagement and attentiveness are crucial. In Gilligan’s words, an ethics of care is “grounded in voice and relationships, in the importance of everyone having a voice, being listened to carefully… and heard with respect”. It directs our attention to “the need for responsiveness in relationships (paying attention, listening, responding) and to the costs of losing connection” (Carol Gilligan - Ethics of care). This approach values context and particularity over universal rules, and it values empathy and caring response as much as (or more than) impartial analysis.

Bringing an ethics of care into the digital humanities means recognizing that archives and data are not just abstract information – they are tied to real human lives, stories, and traumas. Archives are relationships: between the archivist and the sources, between the past and the present, between the powerful and the marginalized. A care ethic suggests that archivists and digital humanists should see themselves as caregivers, not just information managers (From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in Archives). As archival studies scholars Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor argue, archivists are “bound to records creators, subjects, users, and communities through a web of mutual affective responsibility” (From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in Archives). In their view, we should pivot from a rights-based discourse (which, say, focuses on abstract rights to access or privacy) to a feminist ethics of care, which emphasizes concrete relationships and “radical empathy” in archival practice (From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in Archives) (From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in Archives). Radical empathy in this sense means actively imagining and accounting for the needs and feelings of those represented in archives and those who use them. It is an approach that asks: Who might be hurt by the way we handle this data? Who is being left out or silenced, and how can we include them? How can the archive serve the community’s well-being?

In practical terms, an ethic of care in digital archiving would stress principles like consent, reciprocity, and mindfulness of impact. For example, rather than indiscriminately scraping social media data for a research project, a care-centered approach might involve engaging with the online community that created that data, seeking permission or offering something back to them. It might involve protecting sensitive information even if it’s publicly available, out of respect for individuals’ privacy or safety. It certainly involves acknowledging bias and power differences: the archivist (or digital scholar) has power in how they frame and preserve a narrative, and an ethic of care would urge using that power to empower others (such as preserving voices of marginalized groups) and to avoid exploitation.

Synthesizing these frameworks, the ethics of cyborgian care can be formulated as follows: Because we (digital humanists) are effectively cyborgs – our work and memory entwined with machines – we have a duty to care for both the human and technological dimensions of our practice. We must care for the archives (the digital systems and data, keeping them robust, secure, and usable for the future) and care for the people (those who contribute data, those represented in it, and those who will be affected by how history is recorded). Theoretical guidance from Freud/Derrida alerts us that what we exclude will haunt us; Haraway’s cyborg reminds us that technology is part of us; and Gilligan’s care ethic reminds us that moral action centers on responding to others’ needs and maintaining connectedness (Carol Gilligan - Ethics of care) (Carol Gilligan - Ethics of care). In the next section, we will apply these theories to understand phenomena of digital memory, forgetting, and repression – essentially examining the psyche of the digital archive and how an ethic of care might address its fevers.

Digital Memory and Repression

Digital archives have often been heralded as the solution to humanity’s forgetting: the internet never forgets, it is said, and everything from mundane emails to entire libraries can now be preserved in bits and bytes indefinitely. However, a psychoanalytic lens reveals that digital memory is not a straightforward boon; it has its own forms of repression, forgetting, and return of the repressed. In this section, we explore how Freud’s model of memory (with conscious forgetting and unconscious trace-retention) maps onto digital information practices, and how Derrida’s archive fever manifests in contemporary issues of information overload and loss. We also consider how the unconscious of the digital archive – its hidden or repressed contents – can surface in uncanny ways, affecting individuals and society.

The Digital Unconscious: Memory Traces in the Machine

On the surface, computer memory and human memory seem very different. Computers explicitly record binary data, whereas humans are prone to forgetting, distortion, and subjective recall. Yet, intriguingly, digital systems exhibit a dynamic reminiscent of Freud’s Mystic Writing Pad. When a file is “deleted” from a hard drive, it often isn’t truly erased – the data remains on the disk until overwritten, analogous to the magic slate’s lingering traces (Greig Roselli — Teacher, Writer, Philosophy Sprinkles Maker: Analysis: Freud, Derrida and the Magic Slate) (Greig Roselli — Teacher, Writer, Philosophy Sprinkles Maker: Analysis: Freud, Derrida and the Magic Slate). As digital archivist and scholar Matthew Kirschenbaum notes, in computing “every contact leaves a trace”, meaning that every operation (opening a file, editing, saving, deleting) leaves some residual evidence on storage media ([PDF] "Every Contact Leaves a Trace": Storage, Inscription, and Computer ...) (The forensic imagination: interdisciplinary approaches to tracing ...). The result is that a skilled technician can often recover files that a user thought were gone. Our digital devices, like the unconscious mind, retain essentially everything, even if not immediately accessible. This can be a blessing for data recovery and historical research – for instance, lost manuscripts or old websites can sometimes be resurrected from server backups or archives. But it also means that digital forgetting is difficult: embarrassing posts, personal data, or traumatic memories might persist against our wishes, lurking in old databases or the corners of the internet. This persistence has led to calls for a “right to be forgotten” in digital policy, precisely because nothing seems to vanish on its own (The Right to Be Forgotten: An Archival Perspective - Allen Press).

Freud described how repressed content in the psyche doesn’t vanish but returns in disguised forms (dreams, symptoms). Analogously, in the digital world, information thought to be hidden can resurface unexpectedly – a phenomenon we might call the return of the digitally repressed. For example, a person’s deleted social media photo might be suddenly circulated years later because someone had saved a copy, or an old tweet might be dredged up in a new context, causing public outcry. The collective nature of digital memory (where others can copy and re-upload data) means that control over information is diffuse; what one platform “forgets,” another may remember. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which automatically preserves snapshots of web pages, is an instance of an externalized memory that can make the supposedly forgotten past accessible. Many have found comfort in retrieving vanished sites from the Archive, but others have experienced the uncanny shock of seeing long-ago, seemingly buried aspects of their digital lives reappear. The unheimlich (uncanny) feeling Freud wrote about – something familiar that was hidden returning as strange – is frequently reported in digital culture when past online content re-emerges. This dynamic underscores Derrida’s point: the archive (here, the internet or any digital repository) always harbors the capacity to surprise us with what it stores, because storing is never neutral or complete.

At the societal level, digital memory’s extreme durability contributes to what some scholars call a state of “hyperthymesia” (excessive remembering) for culture. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, in Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, argues that historically humans and institutions benefitted from forgetting as a filter – we moved on from old data and focused on the present – whereas now our default is to remember everything, which can be paralyzing or harmful (Why we must remember to delete – and forget – in the digital age). For instance, individuals may struggle to escape youthful mistakes that remain on Google search results forever, and organizations may cling to outdated information because nothing forces them to purge it. Archive fever here takes the form of an anxiety: if everything is saved, how do we make sense of it? The feverish collection of data (all your emails, every version of a document, every tweet ever made) can lead to a kind of digital hoarding. In digital humanities, researchers sometimes speak of “data deluge” or “information overload” – having so much data that meaningful analysis becomes the challenge. The sublime in the digital archive (to borrow an aesthetic term) refers to the awe and terror evoked by almost infinite information. This sense of being overwhelmed by sheer volume can be seen as the death drive within archive fever: an archive so all-encompassing that it threatens to engulf the user in noise, effectively annihilating understanding.

Yet, just as the death drive was also the condition of possibility for the archive (recall Derrida’s insight that the archive’s desire and danger come from the same source (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING)), the digital surfeit of memory both empowers and endangers knowledge. On one hand, historians and scholars can now explore patterns and voices that would have been lost – e.g. mining millions of old newspapers for trends, or recovering minority viewpoints from overlooked records. On the other hand, important signals can be drowned out. We see a paradox: digital repression often occurs not by deletion but by addition. When there is a cacophony of stored voices, the soft ones (e.g. voices of marginalized communities) may be effectively repressed unless efforts are made to highlight them. In psychoanalysis, one way the psyche defends itself is by overwhelming the conscious mind with distractions to avoid confronting a painful memory. Likewise, a society might “forget” an injustice not by failing to record it, but by burying it in an abundance of other news and data.

Silences and Inclusions: Whose Memory Gets Archived?

Another key aspect of digital repression concerns which memories are included in official archives and which are left out. This is a classic concern of archive theory: as the saying goes, archives are as notable for what’s missing as for what’s present. In the shift from paper archives to digital, some hoped that democratization would occur – that many voices could now be preserved cheaply, not just those of elites. To some extent this has happened: community archives, oral history projects, fan-curated databases, and more have sprung up online, giving presence to histories of women, LGBTQ+ people, people of color, indigenous communities, etc., that were often absent from mainstream archives. However, digital technology by itself doesn’t remove bias; in fact, without conscious guidance, it can amplify existing biases. For example, consider digitization initiatives: libraries choose which books or records to digitize first, often favoring more popular or canonical materials. Social media archives might reflect the loudest or most active users, not the most representative. Furthermore, algorithms (which govern what content is surfaced in searches or feeds) may inadvertently erase certain content from view – a kind of algorithmic repression. A search engine’s algorithm might, for instance, rarely show documents about a minoritized group’s history due to low linkage, effectively keeping those records “in the dark” unless one knows exactly how to find them.

Digital humanists have increasingly engaged with this issue by promoting inclusive archiving and postcolonial/critical archiving practices. This is where the “ethics of care” intersects strongly with memory. If left to its own devices (or to profit motives), the digital archive – especially when driven by AI or algorithms – may privilege content that is commercially viable or majority-centric, leaving “migrant archives” or subaltern memories in obscurity. Derrida’s notion that archives are about the future (Archive Fever - Wikipedia) is relevant here: if marginalized voices are not archived or made visible, they risk being excluded from the future’s understanding of the past. Conversely, making a concerted effort to archive those voices is a way of carving out space in the collective memory for them. One example is the rise of community-driven digital archives, such as projects that document the history of indigenous peoples using digital platforms where the community retains control over the narrative and access. These projects often explicitly aim to “cure” archive fever in the sense of remedying the feverish exclusion and suppression of certain histories (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING) (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING). By situating memory in the lived experience of communities (what one scholar called “situatedness” in archiving (Curing the Archive Fever: Filling the Gaps Through Situatedness - ONCURATING)), archivists try to mitigate the archival “infection” – the distortions introduced by power and neglect – and allow multiple truths to co-exist.

In psychoanalytic terms, one might say these efforts allow the return of the repressed in a constructive way. Instead of traumatic returns (e.g., suddenly discovering a cache of records of abuse that were hidden), we proactively invite the hidden stories to surface in a respectful manner. A powerful illustration came from the #MeToo movement: people began digitally archiving and sharing their personal stories of harassment and assault, breaking a long-standing cultural silence. Social media acted as an archive of trauma that forced society to confront what had been repressed in plain sight. This kind of archiving – victims documenting their experiences collectively – exemplifies how digital archives can function like a therapeutic space, bringing the repressed to consciousness. However, it also raised issues of privacy and consent (many stories were shared without anonymity, exposing survivors to scrutiny). Thus, even liberating uses of the archive fever (collect everything, share everything) must be tempered with care, lest re-traumatization occur.

We also see digital repression in more overtly political forms: authoritarian regimes now use digital archiving and surveillance to repress dissent. Massive databases of personal information can enable state control – a dark inversion of archive fever, where the feverish collection of data (facial recognition images, social media posts, etc.) serves the death drive of a repressive power structure. In such cases, the ethics of care would demand resistance: perhaps via encryption (to help people “forget” or hide what could harm them in oppressive archives), or via advocacy for data rights. The archive here becomes a battlefield between total recall for control and selective memory for liberation. Digital humanists and archivists find themselves sometimes in whistleblower or activist roles, as seen in projects to archive government websites that might be taken down during administration changes, or scientists racing to save climate data they fear could be deleted. Archive fever in these scenarios manifests as an urgent race to preserve truth before an opponent can erase or alter it – essentially a struggle between memory and intentional forgetting as a tool of power.

In summary, digital memory is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it externalizes and amplifies our capacity to remember, serving as a bulwark against forgetting – we can now access information with ease that would astound past generations. On the other hand, it introduces new forms of forgetting: forgetting by inundation, forgetting by omission, forgetting by algorithm. The unconscious of the digital archive – those suppressed, hidden, or inaccessible parts – is alive and active, whether it is an artifact of technical processes (like deleted files lingering) or social processes (like marginal voices being ignored). Recognizing this is crucial for ethical stewardship. It is not enough to build big archives; digital humanists must interrogate how those archives might be perpetuating silences or causing unintended harm. This leads directly to the ethical considerations: how do we care for and through archives in the digital age to address these challenges?

Ethical Considerations in the Age of Cyborgian Care

Having established the psychological and theoretical complexities of digital archives, we now turn to concrete ethical considerations. What does it mean to practice an ethics of cyborgian care in digital humanities and archival work? In this section, we outline key ethical domains – ranging from personal data privacy to the politics of inclusion – and discuss how a care-centered approach can guide decision-making. We also incorporate perspectives from contemporary ethicists and practitioners who grapple with these issues.

Caring for Privacy and Consent

One of the most immediate ethical issues with digital archives is privacy. Unlike traditional archives that might contain private letters or records boxed away (accessible only to determined researchers), digital data often comes from living individuals who may not even realize they are contributing to an archive. Social media, for instance, is a vast living archive of human communication. Digital humanists often use social media data (tweets, blog posts, comments) for research on language, culture, or social movements. However, just because data is publicly available does not automatically make it ethical to re-use. An ethic of care urges us to consider the perspective of the data subject. Are we treating people as mere data points, or as persons with dignity and agency? For example, pulling thousands of tweets from protesters in a conflict region might yield interesting insights, but could it expose those protesters to identification and persecution? A care-oriented approach might limit or anonymize certain data to protect participants, even if it means sacrificing some analytical completeness.

Consent is another pillar of ethical research. In an ideal scenario, researchers obtain informed consent from participants. But in the context of archiving broad swathes of digital content, individual consent is often impractical. Here, community norms and expectations matter. If we apply care ethics, we might engage with communities to gauge what they consider permissible. A noteworthy initiative is Documenting the Now, which develops tools and guidelines for ethical collection of social media content. The project asks questions like: “How can archivists navigate issues relating to content owners’ privacy, consent, and control?” (Documenting the Now | Humanities for All). It emphasizes being community-centered – working with the people whose posts are being archived, and giving them a say in how their content is preserved or shared (Documenting the Now | Humanities for All). Such measures align with care ethics by respecting the autonomy and feelings of those whose lives become part of the archive. Practically, this can involve allowing users to opt out, or blurring usernames and personal info, or delaying publication of data until potential risks have passed.

Ethicist Helen Nissenbaum’s concept of contextual integrity is useful here: information shared in one context (say, a support group forum) shouldn’t freely migrate to a radically different context (like a public dataset) without considering the norms of the original context. A caring archivist or scholar would strive to maintain contextual integrity, ensuring that sensitive information is handled in ways consistent with its origin. This might mean restricting access to certain archives or adding layers of confidentiality. It also means being transparent about one’s intentions and methods, so that trust is built rather than betrayed.

In addition, the notion of the right to be forgotten presents an ethical tension for archivists: individuals may request that their personal data be removed from archives or search results (The Right to Be Forgotten: An Archival Perspective - Allen Press). From a historical perspective, complete removal can be problematic (we generally don’t allow people to rewrite the historical record at will). But from a human perspective, people deserve a chance at privacy and reinvention. A balanced, care-based ethics might approach this case-by-case, weighing the public’s interest in the information against the individual’s well-being. For instance, someone’s youthful indiscretion that’s archived in a news article might not need to be prominently indexed by search engines forever; ethically, we might support its “partial forgetting” (e.g., de-indexing it so it’s not easily found by a casual search, while still keeping it in an archive for serious research). Care ethics would lean toward compassion for the individual, provided that doing so does not cause greater harm to society’s need for accountability or memory.

Bias, Inclusion, and “Radical Empathy” in Archival Practice

Another ethical area is representation and bias within digital archives. As discussed, decisions about what to include or exclude can either perpetuate injustices or help remedy them. An ethics of cyborgian care requires actively reflecting on one’s own biases (the “programming” we carry in our human minds as well as in our software) and taking steps to counteract them. Contemporary digital humanists often collaborate with experts in critical race studies, gender studies, and postcolonial theory to design archives that decenter the traditionally privileged voices. This might involve deliberately seeking out materials by people of color, by women, by queer communities, etc., to include in a digital collection that has historically been homogeneous. It could also involve adopting metadata practices that respect the self-identifications of communities (for example, using Indigenous names and categories for an archive of Native American history, rather than imposing Western classification).

Implementing “radical empathy” as Caswell and Cifor suggest (From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in Archives)means the archivist/researcher tries to put themselves in the shoes of all stakeholders: the creator of the record, the subject of the record, the potential user, and even the record itself as something entrusted to our care. It asks us to consider the emotional weight of archives. For those who have been traumatized or marginalized, seeing their stories preserved (or omitted) can have real psychological effects. Ethically, this means archivists might, for example, include content warnings for distressing material (a practice increasingly common in digital collections dealing with violence or abuse). It also means providing context so that records are not misinterpreted in harmful ways. A snippet of a historical document could be misleading without noting the broader context – which, if omitted, might perpetuate stereotypes or false narratives. Caring for the archive entails caring for its truthfulness and its impact on understanding.

A practical ethical guideline from this perspective is: do no harm – a principle borrowed from medicine but apt for archives. Before undertaking an archival project or publishing data, digital humanists can ask: Could this inadvertently cause harm? If yes, how can we mitigate that? For example, publishing an online archive of colonial-era photographs might harm by reinforcing a colonial gaze, unless curated with commentary from the descendants of those depicted, thereby reframing the narrative. A feminist ethics of care might advocate forming an advisory board including members of communities represented in the archive, to guide such decisions. This collaborative and inclusive approach ensures that the archive is not an exercise of power over others’ memories, but a shared space of memory.

In line with cyborgian thinking, we should also care for the technological components to reduce bias. Algorithms used in archiving (say, for optical character recognition, or for tagging images) can carry biases – perhaps misrecognizing faces of people with darker skin, or classifying literature by women as “less relevant” due to training data bias. Ethically, digital humanists have a duty to audit and tweak these tools. This is an aspect of cyborg care: caring for the machine’s alignment with human values. It might involve selecting training datasets that are diverse and inclusive, or manually correcting algorithmic outputs with the aid of culturally knowledgeable curators.

Caring for Sustainability and Access

The ethics of archiving is not only about what we do now, but also about stewardship for the future – fulfilling that Derridean responsibility to tomorrow (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). A rarely discussed but vital ethical aspect is the sustainability of digital archives. Technology changes rapidly; files become unreadable as formats obsolesce, websites go offline, storage media degrade. A digital archive that isn’t cared for will, in effect, “die,” leading to collective forgetting despite our current archive fever. Therefore, an ethic of care implies a commitment to preservation: using stable formats, refreshing storage, and planning for succession (who will maintain the archive in 5, 10, 50 years?). It also means documenting the archive’s structure and metadata so that future researchers can understand what they are looking at. Imagine a giant database saved from 2020 being opened in 2120 without documentation – it would be like an unconscious memory trace with no way to interpret it, a jumble that might as well be lost. Caring for an archive is akin to caring for a garden: it needs ongoing attention, not one-time creation.

Access is another future-oriented ethical issue. From a justice perspective, archives should ideally be accessible to the public, not just elites. Digital technology has helped in this regard (many archives publish materials freely online now). However, there are still barriers: paywalls, lack of internet in some areas, or disabilities that make standard interfaces unusable. The ethic of care pushes archivists to consider universal design and accessibility. For example, ensuring a digital archive is navigable by screen readers for the visually impaired, or providing transcripts for audio files to include those with hearing impairments, are acts of care. Similarly, making user interfaces in multiple languages could be crucial for a global audience. Ethicist Luciano Floridi often speaks of the infosphere and the need for digital inclusion – not leaving parts of humanity behind in the distribution of information. Digital humanists mindful of this strive to avoid creating archives that only academics in wealthy institutions can use; they seek to democratize knowledge while respecting rights (as discussed, sometimes restricting access is the ethical choice if content is sensitive).

Transparency is an ethical principle that overlaps with care: being open about what an archive contains, what it does not, and why. If certain data were excluded (say, to respect a community’s request), that rationale can be shared so that users understand the context. If edits or annotations were added, that should be indicated. Such transparency is a form of respect – it treats users not as passive consumers but as participants in knowledge production who deserve to know how the archive was assembled.

Finally, we should mention the ethical role of education and dialogue. In a cyborgian paradigm, humans and tech co-evolve – we need to educate ourselves (and our machines) continuously. Digital humanists, as a bridge between technology and culture, often play an educational role, teaching the public about digital literacy, the permanence of digital footprints, and why archives matter. Engaging people about archive fever – explaining that the urge to document everything comes with responsibilities – is itself an ethical act, cultivating a more informed citizenry. Likewise, listening to public concerns about archives (for instance, fears of surveillance or misuse of data) is crucial. It’s a two-way street: care implies listening as much as telling. In some cases, the ethical choice may be to refrain from creating an archive that people clearly oppose. For instance, if a community expresses that certain knowledge is sacred or should remain within the community (a known issue in Indigenous archives), ethical archivists may choose not to digitize or make public those materials. Restraint, a form of negative capability, can be just as ethical as action.

In sum, the ethics of cyborgian care in digital humanities call for a holistic approach: one that cares for individuals (privacy, consent, voice), cares for communities (inclusion, respect, collaboration), cares for technology (bias checking, preservation), and cares for the future (sustainability, transparency, education). This multi-dimensional care is challenging – it may slow down projects or complicate them, and it often requires interdisciplinary teamwork (scholars, IT experts, community liaisons, ethicists, legal advisors). Yet, the alternative is to risk letting archive fever run unchecked, producing an inhuman and potentially harmful digital cultural record.

Conclusion

Digital humanities stands at the crossroads of memory, technology, and human values. By revisiting the notion of archive fever in light of our contemporary digital condition, we uncover a landscape where Freud’s insights into memory and repression, Derrida’s deconstructive analysis of archiving, and Haraway’s cyborg vision all converge. Archive fever in the digital age is at once amplified – we truly attempt to archive everything, feverishly – and complicated by the fact that our tools of remembering have become parts of ourselves. The ethical imperative that emerges is what we have termed cyborgian care: an ethic that acknowledges our hybrid human-machine identity and strives to care for both the technological and the human in tandem.

The implications of embracing cyborgian care in the digital humanities are profound. First, it ensures the sustainability and humanity of the field. Rather than chasing novelty or sheer scale (the biggest database, the most comprehensive corpus), a care-focused approach asks what the purpose of those archives are and whom they serve. It reorients digital humanities toward being a custodian of cultural memory that is accountable to people’s well-being and informed by empathy. This does not mean sacrificing scholarly rigor; on the contrary, it means adding moral rigor to scholarly rigor. A digital archive curated with care is likely to be more nuanced and self-aware, documenting not just data but the context and emotions surrounding that data. Such archives become rich resources for future generations – living archives that carry forward multiple voices and truths, rather than monolithic accounts.

Second, the lens of cyborgian care helps rebuff the narrative that digital humanities is a passing fad or “bust.” As referenced in our discussion, some commentators declared a “digital humanities bust”, claiming the field did not deliver on its revolutionary promises (The Chronicle of Higher Education - X). What this criticism misses is that digital humanities is evolving to meet new challenges – precisely those challenges of AI, big data, and ethical quandaries we’ve outlined. If the initial hype was about flashy projects, the enduring value is in forging methodologies to understand an ever-more digital world. The archival politics of AI, for instance, is an area where digital humanists are actively debunking biases and unveiling how algorithmic curation shapes knowledge (The Future Isn't Static: How AI and Archival Politics Undermine the ...). Rather than being static, the field is dynamically responding to issues like misinformation, surveillance, and the need for digital memory justice. The integration of care ethics is part of that maturation. In a way, the “fever” is breaking: digital humanists are less feverishly utopian about tech and more clear-eyed about responsibilities. By underscoring ethical practices, the field proves its resilience and importance. Far from bust, it is a field taking on the hard work of ensuring technology serves humane ends.

Third, our exploration highlights an interdisciplinary dialogue – between humanists, psychoanalysts, technologists, and ethicists – that enriches understanding on all sides. For example, psychoanalysis gives digital archivists a vocabulary (repression, unconscious, trauma) to describe phenomena they observe in information ecosystems. Conversely, the digital context challenges psychoanalysts to consider new forms of subjectivity and memory (what does the unconscious look like when one’s life is half online?). Ethicists, too, are prompted to extend principles like care into cyberspace, testing their universality. This cross-pollination leads to more robust theories and practices. A concrete outcome might be guidelines or manifestos for ethical digital archiving, drawing on all these fields – something already hinted at by projects like Documenting the Now and writings on radical empathy in archives.

In reflecting on archive fever and cyborgian care, it becomes evident that memory is not merely an archive of the past but a promise to the future (Archive Fever - Wikipedia). How we remember (and what we forget) in our digital systems will shape the narratives and identities available to those who come after us. If we succumb to archive fever without reflection, we risk creating an exhaustive but unexamined repository – a memory that maybe remembers facts but forgets values. On the other hand, if we temper archive fever with care, we actively decide what matters and why, acknowledging limits and making conscious choices about preservation and deletion. This is analogous to personal growth: a person who remembers everything without processing emotions may be overwhelmed, but one who curates their memories – letting go of grievances, holding onto lessons – tends to thrive. Societies, through their archives, face a similar challenge.

In closing, the ethics of cyborgian care offers a hopeful path. It suggests that even in a high-tech world of AI and big data, humanistic virtues like empathy, responsibility, and critical self-awareness can guide progress. The archive need not be a cold tomb of data; it can be a garden we cultivate. The cyborg – half human, half machine – need not be a monster; it can be a caregiver, extending our capacity to remember and understand in compassionate ways. Digital humanists, as “cyborg archivists,” have the opportunity to be the conscience of the digital age, ensuring that our feverish building of archives does indeed serve life and not death. By caring for our archives and the people in and around them, we honor the Freudian truth that what we suppress will return – so we choose, instead, to confront it with love and reason. In doing so, we create a legacy of memory that is not just extensive, but also wise and just, for the generations to come.

Works Cited

(The essay content above has integrated source material with inline citations in MLA style. Below is a list of works referenced, formatted in MLA.)

 
 
 

Hozzászólások

The

Undecidable

Unconscious

Contact us

bottom of page