Oral History - Theoretical and Methodological Issues

“All history was at first oral”, says Samuel Johnson. Memory is the core of oral history, from which meaning can be extracted and preserved. Oral history collects memories and personal commentaries of historical significance through recorded interviews. As distinct from oral traditions (stories that societies passed along spoken from generation to generation) oral history interviewing has been occurring since history was first recorded. Oral history relates both personal stories and memories that people tell other people about the past and the formal collection or account of such stories and memories by oral historians and researchers.

The Oral History Association of Australia provides a two-part definition regarding oral history: as a practice or method for recording, processing and conserving oral accounts of the past. It highlights the importance of the background knowledge or preparedness of the interviewer and an interviewer that has direct experience and knowledge of the interview topic. As well, it covers the functional aspect and states oral history is a ‘tape-recorded interview in question and answer format … on the subject of historical interest … which is made accessible to the other researchers.” An interview becomes an oral history only when it has been recorded, processed in some way, made available in an archive, library, or reproduced in written form for publication.

Oral history is a history built around the people. It thrusts life into history itself and it widens its scope. It allows heroes not just from the leaders, but from the unknown majority of the people. Oral history offers a challenge to the accepted myths of history, to the authoritarian judgment inherent in its tradition. It provides a means for a radical transformation of the social meaning. (Paul Thompson, The Voice of the Past: Oral History). The general acceptance that oral history is critical to our understanding and appreciation of landscapes and places is located to broader trends in history.

Worldwide political and social changes during the last decades of the 20^th century confronted historians with the inadequacy of archival documentation which often reflected a discredited government rather than the resistance against it. Newly emerging nations in Asia and Africa found that the written documents reflect the view of former colonial masters and used oral history to revive buried national identities. Hence, oral history became an alternative source.

There are a number of theoretical and methodological issues and misunderstandings regarding oral history projects. There are questions on objectivity, reliability, multi-disciplinarily, the role of the interviewer, the role of interviewed, further interpretation of oral history, and so on.

Elite Historicism Vs Non-elite Historicism

Oral historians project the merits of the elite vs non-elite interviewing as it widens the understanding of historical phenomena. It is argued that the written histories project the views of the elite class written by the elite historian and written about the elite category of people in which the lives of non-elite masses were neglected. It is generally accepted that oral history clears this vacuum in historical narration. At the same time, this may lead to clashes of views on particular historical events.

The Question of Multi-disciplinarily

Oral history is always been multi-disciplinary. While many professional historians conduct oral history, a degree in history has been a prerequisite for entering the field. This has been questioned by traditional historians. To them, this will lead to the distortion of history.

The Question of Reliability

Ranke and the turn of history from a literary form into an academic discipline depended on the rigorous use of evidence. Ranke’s followers deemed oral evidence too subjective; shoddy memories told from a biased point of view. Many critics of oral history are skeptical about the accuracy of human memory and question the reliability of oral history sources. It is generally considered that archival and other written documents provide objective evidence. It can be said that oral history is as reliable or unreliable as other research sources.

Questions about the Role of the Interviewer

There are questions about the role of the interviewer in taking oral history interviews. Allan Nevins, who pioneered the oral history project at Colombia University, argued that the interviewer was envisioned as a neutral, objective collector of other people’s reminiscences. This will lead to the elimination of questions in taking interviews. Another view is that the interviewer should act as an active agent in the process of interviewing. This may lead to over-intervention of the interviewer. The more methodologically oriented oral historians criticized the uncritical acceptance of oral testimony and called for more thorough research and higher standards in conducting interviews.

Skepticism about the Accuracy of Human Memory

The critics of oral history argue that human memory is dependent on individuals and his/her memory power. Hence, oral history may lap the whole historical development of the discussed event. Further, the lack of accurate memory will lead to questions of objectivity, reliability, and authenticity.

Further Interpretation of Oral History

As the historian interprets the available written document to reconstruct a historical event, the recorded oral histories are also to be interpreted. While interpreting oral history, one should be aware of the time, context, space, and attitude of the interviewees. It should also be noted that it is the view of an individual about his surroundings and his experience with the past. 

Rumours Vs Memory

In some cases, the oral history may be mixed with rumors and hearsay. It should be clearly identified and analysed before taking it as a valid source. Most the individual memory is filled with exciting fascinating stories mixed with rumors.

Conclusion

Oral history emerged as a paradigm shift in the course of historical writings. It brings the histories of marginalized people to the centre of historical events and tries to give a counter-hegemonic historical understanding. It brought the clashes of objective evidence (archival or other documents) with Individual Testimony (Oral History) and thereby brought new ways of historical analysis. In the handling of oral histories and its interpretation, historians should be aware of its methodological and theoretical issues.