Week 1/Intro

An overview of the approaches to oral history--from David K. Dunaway, "Introduction: the interdisciplinarity of oral history," in Dunaway and Baum (1996): 7-22.

OH began as a method in history to record memories as recounted by elite society

1948, Allan Nevins, Columbia

--some people still have this orientation

Columbia University, for example It evolved, through several "generations," to cover far more, and

to explain far more

Each generation's emphasis reflects the predominant concerns or trends of that age each generation also retained much of the concerns of the previous generation 4 generations of oral historians 40s-50s archival, elite 60s-70s activists 70s-80s more professional; oh as history-making 80s-90s audience-centered; post-modernist; interdisciplinary Disciplines involved in oral historical research

Anthropology

longtime tradition of fieldwork is directly analogous to oral history methodology brings into play context, cultural meaning tends to be a social orientation as well tends to have a bottom-up approach, but not always very inclusive however, most anthropologists do not interview in America Education/Teaching interested mainly in curricular benefits of oh Ethnic studies/ethnohistory/American studies involves a more activist stance, often a from the bottom up approach emphasis on social history Folklore longtime tradition of fieldwork is directly analogous to oral history methodology looks at the forms of expression, what those expressions mean brings a relativistic focus to the study (along with Anthro) sees people as creative forces in constructing their histories provides a means for narrative analysis Gerontology a logical outgrowth of the emphasis on older people as oral resources also an emphasis on life review, therapy for older people Legal studies sometimes oral historians (typically anthropologists or folklorists) are used as expert witnesses in legal cases, such as those involving minorities (Native Americans, etc.) some law firms have oral histories done of their practices legal considerations are an intrinsic part of the oral history process, one which cannot be ignored by any interviewer Literary history part of the contextual approach to literary studies: the context in which literary works are written includes linguistic analysis Media studies/media production deals with format, mostly format does influence the type of oral history devised, constructed movies, tv, documentaries, radio shows—each uses different conventions, styles these conventions and styles imply different meanings for the narrative given Sociology & Community studies in America, this tends to be more statistical and less interactive "fixed focus" interviewing—where narrator is seen as specialist in one topic and is interviewed only on that topic non-contextual

usually complemented by surveys and such

Women & gender studies like ethnic studies, a focus on a segment of the population that is typically underrepresented emphasizes themes such as power relations brings up good questions of proper interviewer/interviewee relationships should women interview women? old interview old? what are the effects of odd-match relationships? RETURN TO THE TOP

Paul Thompson, on the social and humanistic purposes of oral history; in "The voice of the past: oral history," in Perks and Thomson (1998): 21-28.

(As you may notice, Paul Thompson is a working-class historian with a Marxist orientation)

as such, he provides a good corrective to the often class-insensitive approach of other studies Historical study has always had a social purpose whether to support a political system, or to support a movement (e.g., feminism), or to engender pride in and a sense of immortality to one's family (genealogy)

it can be aggressive in its agenda (war propaganda, subjugation of people, etc.)

OR: it can be quite bland: provide a nostalgic look at the past, which justifies a people's current safety or standard of living

Historical study up until the 20th century has always been political and elitist the 20th century ushered in the great interest in social and cultural history, which is what oral history is part of Oral history also has a social purpose: to allow people to understand the experiences they have within a social context this frightens some people Oral history's social traits oh is democratic
its inherent nature is to study all, and in that sense is democratic

it can be either conservative or liberal or inbetween

oh is interactive: people studying people, each side contributing to the crafting of the text

it isn't always that way, but it is ideally

oh should not "take" from the people;

rather, it should be informed by the people's history, and it gives back to the people

oh needs to draw from a wide range of the population

it would show the variety of social experience better

it celebrates the complexity of life and of society

inevitably there is a tendency of the oral historian to focus on the most articulate, on the middle class or upper class, on men instead of women, etc.

but there should always be an effort to balance the sample groups

Thompson would argue for a history that impels people to make changes in their society the Marxist idea of praxis: history melded with experience to create change: an applied historical consciousness RETURN TO THE TOP

Michael Frisch, on the analytical focus of oral history; in "Oral history and Hard Times: a review essay," in Perks and Thomson (1998): 29-37.

Bases his comments on one of Studs Terkel's books, Hard Times

Terkel is a Chicago-based radio journalist/oral historian who writes about popular topics and has generated a lot of popular, broad-based interest in everyday history

Hard Times is full of oral histories (over 150) of people who lived through the Great Depression

The book was quite popular because it shows the strength of the human spirit, how people (Americans) stand strong in the face of adversity other reviews praised the book as "an anthem to the American spirit" and saw it as uplifiting Frisch sees the book as ultimately pessimistic, in terms of what it documents and in terms of the response to it WHY? because "the book seemed to show why Americans find it so hard to examine their culture and institutions /30/ critically, even when such massive breakdowns make such examination imperative." (29-30) It seems to highlight two assumptions about oral history: 1) the book (and oral history) functions as a source of more historical information to be mined --the MORE HISTORY approach

2) it functions as a window into the "pure experience" of past generations (and thus, truly, serves no historical purpose)

--the NO HISTORY approach Frisch indicates there is a middle ground, where analysis plays a crucial role: says: there is a "need for a more self-conscious and reflective sense of the nature of oral history, what it has to teach, and what questions the reader is obligated to bring to it." (32)

Oral history requires "a more critically analytic view of cultural processes" through interpretation (32)

Questions we should ask (34): who is speaking? what is being talked about? what are they saying about it? These are all questions of context and of analysis no history is understandable without understanding context in which one cna base analysis

Paradox: "oral history is of such self-evident importance and interest that it has proven difficult for people to take it very seriously" (32)

it is more than just "more history" or "no history"

it requires serious study in and of itself RETURN TO THE TOP

==================================

Lynwood Montell and the question of oral history and oral traditional history; from "Preface to The saga of Coe Ridge," in Dunaway and Baum (1996): 175-186.

What is the difference between oral history and oral traditional history?

oral history: the facts of lived history as remembered by individuals

oral traditional history: history of a more distant past as preserved in oral traditions

Is there a real difference between them? Question of memory and how it constructs and represents events

Question of reliability of oral texts

Question of reliability of memory

So...if memory is unreliable, how can oral history or oral trad history be reliable? has to do with how one understands what is said—interpretation People are always going to have different memories of same events because they experience it differently

because they reconstruct it differently—for some purpose in the present

Understanding the event necessarily means understanding what the person means by the telling of the event

Montell says:
An oral history is "founded on the premise that the story of any local group, as viewed by its people, is worthy of being recorded...." (176)

"One must be prepared to defend a thesis which holds that folk history can complement historical literature." (176)

Written vs oral history:

big bias toward written history in academia and in the popular mind

if something is written, it seems permanent, authoritative

if a history is written by someone with a degree, we assume it is objective

if something is oral, it seems subjective, transitory, impermanent

This bias comes from different cultural sources:

our valorization of things physical—

if it is written on paper, if it is physical, it is solid, believable
comes from a materialist orientation in our society also: academic degrees grant authority, whether the people are reliable or not
so if PhD's write a history, then we accept his or her authority Problems with these biases all things written are not absolutely correct
newspapers, email, chat rooms

competing positions taken by different authorities

things written begin as opinions, just as oral testimony does

things written are selected out for a reason, just as oral testimony is

Montell's characterizes these biases within historical inquiry: folk tradition as historical fallacy oral tradition as simply unreliable, because it cannot be critically verified

folklore as embellished history

1) oral traditions as containing a seed of historical truth, embellished by creative social and cultural stylistics
2) useful, but only when correlated with written historical documentation

folklore as a mirror of history

1) basically, the view that oral history provides background information for the underrepresented members of society that fleshes out history
2) also: the undocumented parts of elite history that will flesh out the written documentation

folk traditions as historical fact

1) oral traditions as reliable
2) oral traditions as record keeping

3 of these 4 approaches accept to varying degrees the validity of oral traditions, but mostly as a supplement to written documentation

Accepted: since oral traditions are not uniform in all societies—their forms, their structure, their assumptions vary according to the values and norms of the people expressing them—any oral testimony provided must be scrutinized in terms of the people or person constructing it

RETURN TO THE TOP

RETURN TO WOLFORD'S A291/HC353: ORAL HISTORY OF THE CITY COURSE PAGE