Ive been thinking a lot lately on what digital archiving means for the 'Big' historian. It may help, before reflecting on the connections between the two, to briefly describe what I see as the fundamental viewpoints of 'Big History'.
'Big History' is, to my understanding, the most recent extension of 'world' or 'global' histories. Herodotus, Ssu Ma Chien and others way back in the day, constructed what they saw as complete histories. They related those facts and stories which were fundamental in understanding 'their' world. They traveled to the limits of their world and attempted to explain what they saw, knew or felt about it. There goal in doing so, I believe, was not just to relate this knowledge to others, but to better understand where they fit within it.
What do I mean by 'their world'? I think of world as a relative term . Everyone has their own. A world, then, consists of all of those things which an individual feels influenced by, connected to, or part of. For Herodotus, living on the outskirts of the Ancient Greek empire, the world consisted of the geographic area, politics, and culture which surrounded the Mediterranean. He was limited to this area for practical reasons. He was unable to travel further because more extensive networks did not exist (be it because of an absence of the technology which would have allowed him to travel further or the lack of linguistic and cultural similarities in more distant areas.) Ssu Ma Chien's world was similarly limited (his though, to the geographic area, culture and language of China circa 100 B.C.)
The 'Big' historian, then, would argue that through globalization and technological advances, the scope of the world one feels tangibly connected to has expanded significantly from the time of Herodotus until now. We now have at least some basic knowledge of the complex processes which formed the planet, galaxy, and universe in which we live. Surely we have to feel influenced by these processes. Had they not occurred, we would not be hire in the first place. Suddenly, if we are to understand the world in which we live, and our role within it, we must attempt to organize an exponentially larger amount of information. This is the attempt of the big historian.
Digital archiving is, I think, not dissimilar in its objectives. Using technology that was previously unavailable, it is the attempt, not only to amass, but to organize all the information available to us. Like big history, there is nothing novel about this objective. Also like big history, the amount of information has grown exponentially.
To me, though, the point at which the two seem most strongly linked regards access. Not necessarily access to that which has been archived or that which is written, but rather access to the process of archiving and writing. Perhaps it deserves the title 'potential to participate' more than access. As the information being compiled in either case pertains to (& in some way effects) a global audience, does it not seem problematic that those spearheading both movements are (if not western) from the developed world? If we cannot find a way to effectively incorporate opinions and information from remote areas and inaudible populations, how can we claim to provide a 'complete archive' or 'total history'. I believe this is an issue that must be addressed in order to preserve the integrity of both professions (if in fact the two are separate).
This is an issue I have thought about quite a bit. And no immediate answer or remedy presents itself. At the risk of sounding like a Marxist, or as if I am from the Subaltern School, until everyone has the ability to participate in archiving or history writing, we cannot claim anything as infinite, total, or complete. Until then, all I feel I can do is be aware of how limited my perspective is.