which makes the document a focus for mistrust. Nothing is so closely examined as documents. However, it is not the details contained within the document that are carefully checked (it is usually impossible to verify them) but what the details are encased in (its properties and so on), as it is usually assumed that the actual details have already been checked and verified. Documents can be falsified in two ways: the details of the document may be altered; or it may be made out to a totally different person. However, in this case the contents of the document have to be changed (such as inserting a false photograph). Both the ability to check the information contained in the document, and having a method for doing this are inextricably linked to its contents. So the document has to be examined in a much wider way. It is not just a question of how to create the document but, first and foremost, how it is going to be used. We might call this ‘the pragmatism’ of the document (this will be dealt with in the third part of this book).
4.
Documents that certify who a person is (such as a passport and others) hold a special interest for historical anthropologists, because they demonstrate how the state views the person. Those who created the document certifying who a person is wish that this certificate should bear witness to the fact that this is the person in question (at least in the sense that the person bearing the document is the one whom it claims to represent). This, in turn, presupposes that, before the certificate was issued, a procedure took place that verified who the person was.
Establishing who a person is, is not the same as identification, although they are related. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to identify a person, because a person can never be defined categorically: their personality is constantly changing.22 All one can say is that at any given moment of existence this personality is what it is, and the only comparison that makes sense is with the previous or the following moment. A person can be identified as a physical object by his or her anthropomorphic (or biometric) characteristics, but even this brings with it serious difficulties, as mistakes are always possible. Paradoxically, such information about a person is always of a secondary nature and is of use only in the much later stages.
Establishing identity should confirm who a person actually is. This procedure is carried out by the person who has to answer for the results. The reasons for having to confirm someone’s identity can be very varied: for example, joining a trade union, registering at a library, issuing a passport, and so on. The process of certifying who a person is, is done on the basis of whatever information is available about a particular individual. The way in which this is done depends to a great extent on what the particular aim is. So to join a trade union a document such as a pass needs to be produced, confirming what work the person does. To register at a library in Russia you have to show your passport; but if the would-be reader is not yet old enough to have their own passport, then they may be accepted simply on information given verbally. As a rule, though, a person’s identity is established on the basis of documents issued by various organizations. For example, in order to receive a passport, one has to produce a birth certificate, proof of place of work or study, proof of address and so forth. The more certification that is provided, the more secure the people feel who are responsible for certifying who a person is, because the real responsibility lies on those who issued the original documents (this leads to the situations one often hears of where bureaucrats demand that the person in front of them dig out and produce all the proof of identity that they can). Furthermore, responsibility falls on the shoulders also of those whose identity needs to be verified: by signing their passport, they are confirming that all of their personal details contained therein are true, and thus they become one of the authors of the document and participants in the division of responsibility.
The imperfect nature of this system is clear: for example, a person could produce someone else’s documents, but with their own photograph. The physical identity has been established only approximately, since there is insufficient evidence for it to be complete (most documents that are produced do not include a person’s photograph). And, perhaps most importantly, information about a person is not the same as the person themselves. So we can talk about ‘establishing identity’ only based on great assumptions. In actual fact, the final document does not establish a person’s identity, but simply bears witness that a particular bureaucrat considers that the identity has been ‘established’.
Nonetheless, the result of this process should be the issuing of a document which is considered as certifying a person’s identity for a given period. In the examples we have been discussing, these are a trade union card, a reader’s ticket and a passport. Each of them ‘certifies identity’, but each carries a different weight, as they not only confirm a person’s identity but also confer different rights: the right to belong to a trade union; the right to use the facilities of a library; or the rights of the citizen, which in effect means the right to exist.
The presence of the passport as a certificate of identity confirms that the person’s identity has been established and no further proof of identity is needed (or if it is necessary this is done by producing the actual document). The document itself provides the necessary proof, with all the information contained therein (such as the photograph and the age of the bearer); the visual appearance of the holder has been established, which means this has been authenticated.23
The type of check carried out – the actual act of certifying a person’s identity – also depends on the particular situation. In an official institution, a pass should be shown even when the person checking passes knows the bearer well. It is assumed that there is a purpose to the identification process, which is just as important as knowing who the person is. On entering a public library, it is sufficient to flash your reader’s ticket without even opening it; and a full-time member of staff of an institute may not even have to show any identification. They may have to show their pass only if there is a check in progress. Naturally, it helps if you have good relations with the person checking passes (if there is one); how you show your pass; the condition it is in, and so on. But none of this has anything to do with the contents of the document. From this (purely pragmatic) point of view, the document ‘works’ depending on the context. Sometimes you have to show it clearly, on other occasions it all depends on your personal status.
5.
An important element in researching documents is the question of trust. This became a subject of study at the start of the twentieth century.24 A new twist in this study is the need to define the understanding of the term and where it exists (as has been described by Piotr Sztompka, Geoffrey Hosking and others).25 Its role in particular circumstances needs to be clarified, including cases with documents, which can probably be considered as instruments ‘for formalizing the practice of trust’ (in the words of Irina Kaspe). However, this does not always happen, at least in Soviet practice.
The category of trust is fundamental, and not only for legal issues. It is the basic foundation for relations between people, because man has to consider the way he behaves. In so-called traditional cultures, trust was upheld by various exchanges, by social status and by class honour. It was always strengthened by specially designed, artificial practices, such as word of honour, oath and agreement. But it was vital that these ‘supports’ upholding trust lasted the test of time; hence the written form is so important. The document becomes one of – and, with time, the most important – support for trust.
Written documentation arose almost as soon as writing appeared, but it became especially significant in the modern age. The characteristics of this period are well known: the rationalization of all areas of the life of society; greater mobility; economic growth; greater public activity; the spread of accounting and measuring practice; the dawn of statistics and the census; the list goes on, and all of this was accompanied by a greater emphasis on the person, a previously unknown acceptance of their individuality, not to say their uniqueness. But perhaps the changes taking place with the person themselves represented the most important characteristic of all: they were becoming an active subject.
