Anthropology 291, Honors 353: Oral History of the City |
Professor John B. Wolford
|
| Ref. No. 10340 (Anthro
291) 3 credits
Ref. No. 25830(Honors 353) 3 credits
Fall semester, 2001
University of Missouri÷St. Louis
Class room: Clark Hall 417
Class time: TR 4:00 - 5:15 p.m.
Wolford's web page: http://www.umsl.edu/~wolfordj |
Office Hours: TR 5:45 - 6:45 p.m.;
and by appointment on TR
Anthro Dept. Clark Hall 516
JBW Phone: 516-6474 (TR)
746-4560 (MWF)
516-6020 (dept.)
Email: wolfordj@msx.umsl.edu |
A291/HC353:
Oral History of the City
Professor's Notes for:
Introduction to Oral History
Ritchie,
"An oral history of our time," from Doing oral history (1995): 1-10
The Questions he asks [FILL IN THE ANSWERS]:
What is oral history? (1)
When did people begin to collect oral history? (1-4)
Who is being interviewed? (4-5)
When journalists interview, are they doing oral history? (5-6)
What does it take to become an oral historian? (6)
How reliable is the information gathered by oral historians? (6-7)
Then why are some historians still skeptical about oral history? (7-8)
Should the interviewer be an objective--or neutral--observer? (8-9)
If doing an oral history is a shared responsibility between the interviewee
and the interviewer, which one is the oral historian? (10)
RETURN TO THE TOP
Ordinary people,
everyday life: folk culture in New York City, by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett
(ca. 1987); in Gmelch & Zenner, 3rd ed., 1996: 548-562
Overview:
focus on vernacular culture and how people
use it as a means of re-appropriating power and control for their lives
an antidote to studies that focus only or primarily
on elite culture and its institutions
an antidote to studies of lower-income people
that focus only on "social problems"
a social history that redefines assumptions
about norms and terms
What is vernacular culture?
"rooted in the immediate conditions of social
life, homemade, peculiar to a locale, and often outside of, if not in opposition
to, official or established culture" (548)
"vernacular culture is what ordinary people
create in their everyday lives" (548)
obviously, derives from linguistics, where vernacular
refers to a region- or people-specific form of language, a usage of language
that is quite distinctive and easily attributable to a specific people
Vernacular culture study offers an alternative to the standard fare of
urban anthropology
urban anthropology conventionally studies territory, politics,
social segmentation, and work
standard divisions in cultural anthropology, which urban anthro
inherits
alternatively, incorporating vernacular cultural study into urban anthro
yields:
study of a neighborhood conceptualized in terms other than residential
study of cultural politics, not politics (which tends to be
of dominant politics)
study of ethnic/racial segmentation as a social construction
study of work supplemented by studies of domestic life, play, variant
religious activities
that is, incorporating vernacular cultural study into urban anthro
yields studies that explore how people express themselves in situations
where they exercise some control, some autonomy
and thus, it allows the researcher to understand the better the
values, norms, wishes, desires of the people who are living life in
the areas being studied
more humanistic
[ RETURN
TO TOP ]
Place
a place is a transformed space:
a space with invested meaning
the meaning is created through interpersonal relationships, through
shared experiences
how to define a city's "places"?
bureaucratic territories
zip codes, area codes, police precincts, electoral districts, school
districts, zoning
areas defined by service deliveries
cable television, messenger delivery, parcel deliveries, taxis,
drug traffic
manufacturing and business areas
hospital zones, downtown retail, downtown business, business office
complexes, Clayton governmental center, Chrysler plant, malls
local spheres of influence
parishes, neighborhood assns, Block Watches
recreational geography of culture and entertainment
Grandel Center, sports arenas, the Hill, Forest Park
ceremonial centers
the Arch, Market Street, Kiener Plaza
neighborhoods are not always defined by residence
[ RETURN
TO TOP ]
Cultural Politics
cultures competing for self-determination
and assertion of their individual identities
this is not just a Marxist view (oppositional cultures, alternative
cultures, dominant, hegemonic)
takes into account the huge variety of subcultures and their
various modes and styles of expression
all cultures require expressions and autonomy
all cultures are worthy of study, for all are systems of value
representative of a society
she discusses Hip Hop culture as oppositional, and its international
analogues
cultural politics also involve the indoctrination of values by
a prevailing system
schools, media, athletic leagues, churches, other institutions controlled
by adults and by the dominant society instill values in youth that shape
them
the effect is homogenization of cultureshomogenizing difference
yet differentiation persists, thriveshow? why?
[ RETURN
TO TOP ]
Social Boundaries
social boundaries are determined by the
attribution
of similarity or difference, however small or great, apparent
or invisible
race, for example, is an attribution based on perception
of difference and the significance attached to that perceptual difference
also: social identity is neither singular nor unchangeable
people have multiple social identities
people change their identities throughout their lives: from
liberal to conservative, e.g.
time and its organization is an index to what identities people craft
for themselves
religious holidays
differentiate people, their behavior, and their actions
e.g.: acc to Jewish calendar, religious Jews go certain places and
don't do certain things, whereas non-Jews and non-religious Jews do not
go to those places and do not do those certain things
that religious calendar integrates some people, segregates others
Everyday Life
everyday life is best explored where people
have some autonomy over their lives
thus, work often is NOT a good spot to study, simply because most
people have little control over their work
on the other hand, play is a great place to start, because
typically people have great control over that
[ RETURN
TO TOP ]
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
RETURN TO THE TOP
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
RETURN TO THE TOP
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
Created: August 2001
Previously revised: August 16, 2001
Last revised: August 26,
2001