Telling the Full Story: A Literature Review of LGBTQ+ Erasure in Archives

Kayla Wilson

LIS 540
 1

Abstract

This paper discusses the systematic erasure of LGBTQ+ stories, feelings, and history

from traditional archives and how to best correct this erasure to show a more full and

complete picture of both the past and present LGBTQ+ communities. Politics has a

significant effect on the erasure of LGBTQ+ history within archives. While there are

arguments against archives as a neutral or “non-political” space, this kind of

non-neutrality can actually be detrimental to politicized communities when it comes to

inclusion in more traditional archive spaces. While neutrality may not be the solution to

this problem, it does need to be looked at more closely. Archives also need to make

sure to keep strong community ties and positive donor relations in order to prevent

people of the LGBTQ+ community being driven away. Due to exclusion and erasure,

LGBTQ+ communities have had to rely on community archives for documenting and

preserving their heritage, stories, memoirs and histories in a more complete way.

Research shows that this erasure is not only happening to LGBTQ+ communities from

the outside, but also from within the communities themselves. There are documented

instances of minority and intersectional erasure from even LGBTQ+ archives. Only once

erasure has been combated from inside LGBTQ+ and community archives can

communities fully work towards combating erasure from within more traditional archival

structures. The removal of LGBTQ+ erasure from all archives will require an

understanding of the past and present political climates affecting archives, the internal

and external causes of erasure, the acceptance of LGBTQ+ communities, LGBTQ+

activism, and listening to the intersectional voices that tend to be missing from archives.
 2

Telling the Full Story: A Literature Review of LGBTQ+ Erasure in Archives

Erasure is defined as “the exclusion of a minority group or group member from

the historical record, or from the discussion of current events'', “the replacement or

whitewashing of a minority character or group with a member or members of the

dominant cultural group in fictional representations of historical events'' and “the denial

of an individual’s or group’s minority identity, or the misidentification of a minority group

member” (Erasure, 2021). When it comes to archives and historical documentation,

some erasure is done accidentally through the mishandling of materials or

miscommunication of ideas. However, erasure can also happen on purpose. Leaving

out materials that might be considered more “controversial” is one way archives can

erase the history, feelings and memories of a cultural group or community. LGBTQ+

community members might also be leaving less materials behind to be archived in the

first place. This could happen for a variety of reasons: some personal, some legal and

some political. The erasure of LGBTQ+ stories from the history books is one of the

many ongoing struggles for LGBTQ+ communities. There are even archival issues

within the LGBTQ+ community dealing with the erasure of intersectional BIPOC stories

and culture. There is no “one size fits all” solution to this problem, but discussion and

awareness of these problems are some good steps in the right direction.

Causes of LGBTQ+ Erasure

It would be amiss to discuss LGBTQ+ erasure without first discussing the causes

of this erasure. There are various speculations on what causes LGBTQ+ erasure within

archival records and history in general. One of the reasons LGBTQ+ archival erasure is

so pervasive is the years of self-censorship by LGBTQ+ communities (Moore, 2021).

 3

Over the years, LGBTQ+ people have needed to self-censor for a number of reasons,

including the fact that homosexuality was, and in many places around the world still is,

illegal. Historical evidence suggests that many people throughout the course of modern

history felt the need to hide their identities for legal or even monetary reasons (Baucom,

2018). In the United States, it wasn’t until 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled that

private, intimate acts by consenting adults were covered under the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Even so, sodomy laws, which

were state laws disallowing homosexuality, were still prevalent in many states even after

2003. The United States military didn’t repeal their sodomy laws until 2014, which was

three years after the repealing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which encouraged

LGBTQ+ military members to stay silent about their lives.

There have also been other instances of the intentional silencing of LGBTQ+

trauma and memory, like in the case of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church spent

most of it’s existance covering up sexual abuse, pedophila and homosexuality within

their ranks (Petro, 2015). While this kind of victim silencing isn’t quite the same as the

silencing of the LGBTQ+ military population, both result in the silencing of histories,

stories and memories. These kinds of repressions have led to a sort of back-alley

approach to being LGBTQ+ that has “... made a point of being transmitted through

secret codes, slang, ephemeral traces, and fleeting moments meant for those in the

know.” (Moore, 2021). This can be seen in LGBTQ+ “closet” culture and members of the

LGBTQ+ community who actively hide their queerness for whatever personal reasons.

There is also this idea that archives are forced to contend with what is considered

“respectable” or “appropriate” by society at large. These societal pressures imply that

 4

LGBTQ+ history and memory are not worthy of being preserved or celebrated (Loveland

& Doran, 2016).

Another consideration that needs to be more thoroughly examined is the effects

of hate crimes and American shame culture on the documentation of LGBTQ+ history.

There are a multitude of examples of hate crimes on LGBTQ+ communities, including

the murder of community leaders like Harvey Milk and the raiding of the Stonewall In,

which later incited the Stonewall riots (History of violence against LGBT people in the

United States, 2021). While these prolific events of hate and the misuses of authority

are well documented and remembered, it is how these events are documented that

often shows an extreme disparity on who and what is well documented (Cifor, 2016).

Often these stories are ethnocentric and focus on the less marginalized sections of the

LGBTQ+ community, which tends to exclude ethnic minorities, trans and intersectional

individuals (Brown, 2020). What needs to be looked at next is how continually seeing

the hate and death of those in the LGBTQ+ community, and which cases are seen in

the public eye, affect the histories and memories of those who remain.

The Effects of Politics on Erasure

LGBTQ+ communities and culture have become increasingly political since the

start of the 20th century, when the idea of human rights started gaining traction in

various communities. Because of this, the documentation of LGBTQ+ history, memory

and culture can be seen, to some, as an inherently political action. There is this idea in

the archival space of archival neutrality versus a more political and activist archival role.

In the case of Gays and Lesbians United for Equality (GLUE), an organization that

worked for LGBTQ+ rights in the 1980’s and 1990’s, they specifically took politics out of
 5

their meeting minutes and records and disidentified as a political organization. Due to

this intentional omission of politics, the group was able to unite their community and was

given the space to perform important archival queer worldbuilding (Wysocki, 2020).

Often, these actions were inherently political and in a way, GLUE was able to become

even more of an activist community by leaving politics at the door.

However, this perspective is generally an outlier. Much of the more recent

archival research suggests that it is better to be an archival activist. Archival activism

means that archivists should be both ethically and politically engaged with documented

communities, specifically ones that are marginalized (Cifor, 2016). Speaking up and

speaking out for marginalized and silenced populations about things like trauma and

hate is the only recourse or justice some people get (Petro, 2015). While this kind of

activism is good for said communities, there could be issues with this due to the

inherent political status of LGBTQ+ people.

Politics is a spectrum and there will always be people that do not agree with each

other. When determining a group of people as inherently political, that group becomes

vulnerable to being seen as “other” or different in a way that causes uproar and division.

“Respectability politics'' can put pressure on organizations that support or fund archiving

projects, which often affects what is saved and what isn’t. This often means that even

residual artifacts of LGBTQ+ history tend to be the more “clean” and socially acceptable

versions (Moore, 2021). This is another example of how shame culture is ingrained in

American politics. Political editing due to political pressure and shame culture only adds

to the erasure issue because it distorts the completeness of the history involved. This

implies that a more non-political approach to LGBTQ+ content within archives might be
 6

a potential solution. In essence, LGBTQ+ existences, history and memory should not be

immediately and inherently thought of as political because politicized content is more

likely to be scrutinized and subject to these “respectability politics”.

There are distinct implications for both politizing and depoliticizing the archival of

LGBTQ+ materials. However, it shouldn't have to be one way or the other in order to

successfully make sure those materials are protected from purposeful and accidental

erasure. Hopefully, there is a future archival solution that is able to more successfully

navigate the minefield of politics.

Solving the Problem

The issue of LGBTQ+ erasure in archives does not have one single solution

because it is not a singular problem. LGBTQ+ erasure has multiple complex causes

which means that there are numerous plans and ideas that need to come together in

order to eliminate this very serious archival problem. While this paper highlights some of

the potential solutions, there is also a need for further research and application into a

solution that not only fixes the causes of LGBTQ+ erasure but also keeps it from

recurring in the future.

Archival Organizations

Archives can come in many different sizes and formats. The way an archive is

organized can either enable or hinder access for its users. Depending on the type of

archive, archivists might run into different challenges when working with LGBTQ+

materials. Working with traditional institutions to document non-traditional histories, like

those from the LGBTQ+ community, often means barriers, limitations, and red tape

(Kumbier, 2009). These institutions might be put under the pressure of the
 7

aforementioned “respectability politics'' or even religious pressures. Another

consideration is that more traditional institutions might have trouble documenting illicit or

illegal LGBTQ+ history such as raves, prostituion and drug culture (Moore, 2021). An

institution's acquisitions policy will often help depict any barriers or issues the

organization might have with legally questionable LGBTQ+ material. While there are

some downsides of attempting to document the LGBTQ+ community through a more

traditional archive, it also has benefits. Histories that are documented through more

traditional archives are more likely to survive long term, and could keep future archivists

from having to re-document these histories (Ketchum, 2020).

Community archives are another option for the documentation and preservation

of LGBTQ+ history. Oftentimes, community archives are developed as a response to

traditional archiving institutions and are seen as opposing the traditional mainstream

archives and archival techniques (Brown, 2020). However, community archives have

their own issues with erasure. Even LGBTQ+ specific community archives might suffer

from a more ethnocentric view of history. Intersectional and inclusive archival

frameworks can be used in both traditional and community archives to help avoid telling

an ethnocentric LGBTQ+ history (Brown, 2020).

Individual and community projects that are divorced from institutional support are

more vulnerable to being lost (Ketchum, 2020). This primarily comes from issues with

funding, staffing, and space. Community archives are often smaller than traditional

archives, and have less funding. Lack of space and funding often greatly affects the

acquisitions process, which leaves more opportunity for erasure of less “desirable”

LGBTQ+ histories. In Ephemeral Materials: Queering the Archive, Kumbier (2009)

 8

discusses institutional support for LGBTQ+ archival projects and writes that it would be

“... irresponsible and unethical to start collecting records, papers, and oral histories

without having secured space in a reliable repository.” This way of thinking helps to

prevent accidental loss of LGBTQ+ histories, especially when dealing with smaller or

individual projects. However, some community archives do have reliable space and

ethical archival practices. Each situation will be different, so it is important that archivists

are diligent in making sure they have the support they need for their archiving projects.

The issues with traditional archival institutions are systemic in nature. They were

generally designed to exclude the history of marginalized groups. These systems need

to be remade from the ground up so that no group of people ever feel like their history is

not worthy of being saved by larger organizations. Collaboration between the different

archival structures is part of the solution. Community archives should be filling the gap

for traditional archives and digital repositories should be helping fill the gaps for

community archives (Ketchum, 2020).Traditional and community archives, as well as

independent creators and communities, need to work together to make sure that

marginalized stories, histories and memories are preserved.

Community and Donor Relations

It is important for all archival institutions to have positive relationships with donors

and community members. The documentation of specific groups or cultures can be

done “from the ground up” (Kumbier, 2009). This means that the documentation process

starts with the community and the creators of the archived material. Archivists should be

looking at the needs of the community and then do their best to meet those needs.

However, it could be difficult for traditional archiving institutions to meet these needs. As
 9

previously mentioned, the LGBTQ+ community has a rocky history with authority and

those with authority, which can prove to be an issue for archival “authorities'' (Baucom,

2018). A post-custodial approach to these materials could help maintain community

relationships and access to LGBTQ+ material (Brown, 2020). However, taking a

post-custodial approach requires more work for those who are actually physically caring

for the materials. Not all creators have the preservation capability or storage for these

materials. Post-custodial archiving would work better between archives, as opposed to

between community members and archives.

It is also important that the terminology used during the archival process matches

up to the wants and needs of the LGBTQ+ community. Acceptable terminology changes

over the course of history, and archives need to work with the LGBTQ+ community to

provide an acceptable controlled vocabulary. Finding aids should reflect ideal

terminology and need to be made both in person and online to help all types of users

find archived information, from scholars to more casual interest (Baucom, 2018).

Historically, terminology has mattered to those in the LGBTQ+ community because of its

power to affect the perceptions of identity. It is important that archives and archivists are

able to stay up to date with current accepted terminology in order to avoid accidentally

severing ties with donors and the LGBTQ+ community at large.

There is a general consensus that the LGBTQ+ community needs to be actively

involved in the archival process in order to retain authenticity. Even within the LGBTQ+

community itself, different people may respond differently to attempts at community

connections and donor relationships. Too much trial and error could end up damaging

LGBTQ+ community and donor relations with archives and archival institutions. While
 10

success cannot be guaranteed, actively listening to the needs of the community and

responding with empathy are good starting points to creating the relationships needed

to keep the LGBTQ+ community actively involved in the process.

Potential Outcomes

There are a good deal of potential positive outcomes from halting and reversing

LGBTQ+ erasure from archives. One such outcome is a sense of community and

belonging. Representation matters, and it is important that intersectional and minority

LGBTQ+ stories, histories and memories are available to be seen by future generations.

LGBTQ+ trans and minority histories often have less public visibility (Brown, 2020).

Increasing this visibility is pivotal to the acceptance of queer stories that are typically

pushed aside. Archival visibility in general also allows for LGBTQ+ voices to find new

audiences, potentially from all around the world depending on digital access (Loveland

& Doran, 2016).

However, it is also important to make sure that the LGBTQ+ history that is being

documented does not help to create a narrative of toxic positivity. Toxic positivity

promotes a culture of sympathy, while healthy community connections require empathy,

not sympathy. For example, not considering Catholic sexual abuse as a part of queer or

LGBTQ+ history actually does more harm than good for those who have undergone that

trauma (Petro, 2015). In a way, this documentation validates the feelings and responses

of survivors and creates empathetic connections within the community. This also applies

to the documentation of hate crimes and LGBTQ+ violence (Cifor, 2016). While it can be

hard to remember and document the bad or grim parts of history, it is an important part

of the healing process for many. Being able to relate to others who went through similar
 11

experiences is invaluable to not feeling alone during hard times, especially for those

who may not have anyone in their life that they can be open with.

Conclusion

While it is impossible to change the past causes of LGBTQ+ erasure, hopefully

there are solutions that can help to prevent modern and future causes, while also

attempting to mitigate the damage that has already been done. Archivists need to work

with LGBTQ+ communities and ensure institutional support in order to make sure these

histories are as future-proof as possible. However, knowing what needs to happen is

very different from doing what needs to be done. Due to the lack of a one “right”

solution, there is room for research to be done on how to effectively remove LGBTQ+

erasure and promote a fully rounded view of LGBTQ+ history. This research needs to

be done sooner rather than later, before precious LGBTQ+ memories, stories, and

histories are lost to time.

 12

References

Baucom, E. (2018). An exploration into archival descriptions of LGBTQ materials. The

American Archivist, 81(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-81.1.65

Brown, E. H. (2020). Archival activism, symbolic annihilation, and the LGBTQ2+

community archive. Archivaria, 89, 6-33.

http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-jo

urnals/archival-activism-symbolic-annihilation-lgbtq2/docview/2518363196/se-2?

accountid=8360

Cifor, M. (2016). Aligning bodies: Collecting, arranging, and describing hatred for a

critical queer archives. Library Trends, 64(4), 756–775.

https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0010

Erasure. (2021). Dictionary.com. Retrieved December 1st, 2021, from

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/erasure

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States. (2021, November 19). In

Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_violence_against_LGBT_pe

ople_in_the_United_States&oldid=1055993353

Ketchum, A. D. (2020). Lost spaces, lost technologies, and lost people: Online history

projects seek to recover LGBTQ+ spatial histories. Digital Humanities Quarterly,

14(3)

http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-jo

urnals/lost-spaces-technologies-people-online-history/docview/2553556395/se-2

Kumbier, A. (2009). Ephemeral material: Queering the archive. Litwin Books.

 13

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/539bv.pdf

Loveland, B., & Doran, M. T. (2016). Out of the closet and into the archives: A

partnership model for community-based collection and preservation of LGBTQ

history. Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, 83(3), 418–424.

https://doi.org/10.5325/pennhistory.83.3.0418

Moore, M. (2021). DARK ROOM. Sleaze and the queer archive. Contemporary Theatre

Review, 31(1-2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10486801.2021.1878510

Petro, A. M. (2015). Beyond accountability. Radical History Review, 122, 160–176.

https://doi-org.ezproxy3.library.arizona.edu/10.1215/01636545-2849594

Wysocki, R. (2020). Disidentification and documentation: LGBTQ records as emergent,

entangled rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 39(2), 174–187.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2020.1727101