Book review: Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography

The writers’ reflection on modern conception of oral history

Fatemeh Moradi
Translated by Mohammad Bagher Khoshnevisan

2016-4-24

According to the website of Iranian Oral History, a meeting on reviewing and criticizing the book “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography (1979 – 2006)” was held in the Methodology and Historiography Group of Islamic History Research Center on Monday 11^th of April 2016. It was attended by Morteza Rasouli Pour, the book’s critic and Dr. Mehdi Abolhassani Taraqi, one of the two writers of the book. The book has been co-authored by Dr. Morteza Nouraee and Dr. Mehdi Abolhassan Taraqi in 430 pages and has been published by the research center in 2015.

Book is a Ph.D. Thesis

In the beginning of the meeting, Abolhassani said, “The basis for writing the book has been the thesis of my Ph.D. I have studied in the field of Iranian History and this subject has been carried out with the guidance of Dr. Nouraee. I had the experience of oral history in 2000s in Humanities Research Center. My work of oral history was about the political life of Ayatollah Seyed Reza Zanjani.”

He added, “Dr. Nouraee, the professor of Isfahan University brought up the topic of oral history as a scientific mechanism in this university. Three decades have been passed since oral history has engaged in the country’s institutions. So it was necessary that an indigenous text on the theoretical debates of oral history and the ways for its pathology is introduced and the works of research centers in this regard are reviewed and criticized scientifically. The product of my thesis was the book “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography” in three parts.”

Abolhassani continued, “The first part of the book includes theoretical debates which took a long time. I had to use western articles for writing this part. But we indigenized these theories cautiously, bringing up in a simple language and briefly. The second part of the book is the application of this method (oral history) in Iran’s contemporary historiography, and finally the third part deals with the foreign and domestic institutions which are active in the field of Iranian contemporary history and use the oral history method. According to their establishment and activity, these institutions are: The Foundation for the History of Islamic Revolution, the Institute for Contemporary History Studies, the Office of Islamic Revolution Literature, National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran, the Organization of Libraries, Museums and the Document Center of Astan-e Qods Razavi, the Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works, and the Center for Holy Defense Documents and Research (The Center of War Studies and Research) which are active in the field of oral history of the holy defense.”

Referring to the activity of three institutions abroad in the field of Iran’s contemporary history, he said, “The three institutions are: Harvard University, Oral History of Columbia University, and Oral History of Left in Iran. On average, three works from each of the institutions were evaluated in terms of oral history and we presented solutions in this regard.”

Abolhassani added, “The oral history products of the institutions in the period between the years 1979 to 2006 have been reviewed in this book; for instance, the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran has released only one book about oral history revolving around the memoirs of Gholam Hossain Big’deli which we reviewed and evaluated it. However, it has released other works in the area of oral history after 2006.”

About how oral history was shaped in Iran and the west, he said, “The developments that happen in the west cover a natural way in order to reach the course, but in Iran, the developments had not covered their natural course and we face some mutations and the process of the shaping of oral history is in this way.”

Abolhassani added, “The book has been a Ph.D.  Thesis; I followed up the viewpoints of Dr. Nowzari till two months after defending my thesis in order to satisfy him.”

The viewpoint of writers not clear

Then Morteza Rasouli Pour the Head of the Oral History Department of the Institute for Iranian Contemporary History Studies and the book’s critic said, “The book is the result of the hard work and concern of Dr. Nouraee and Dr. Abolhassani in the area of oral history.”

He added, “I am active in the area of oral history for 24 years and we have not had until now a book like “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography” for being so comprehensive in the subject of oral history.  We have witnesses ten expert meeting in the area of oral history since 2004. The last one was held last year.”

Rasouli Pour said, “If this research work is going to be given a grade, this should be given to the mental workout and considerations of the authors in this work.”

Referring to the book’s parts, he added, “I do not want to just criticize the book and it has many positive points. To me, personal debate is not considered in research discussions. Any research work begins with questions. I saw less consideration in the discussion of oral history in this book; any discussion in this book has been in the form of articles.”

He continued, “Many claims have been brought up regarding the scientific method, nature and the reason and the existential philosophy in oral history. But does oral history have a separate conception or the one with the history? Authors often interpret oral history mentally! From the viewpoint of authors, the book does not clarify in which area oral history is; narrative history or analytical history?”

Rasouli Pour added, “The book’s authors consider oral history as modern. When we can say oral history has a modern conception that we had realized the conception of history in traditional form; what has been the conception of history in the past and at present in general? Where has been the course of the conceptual developments of history in the west and its inception? The oral history approach is not clear in the book and it is not clear whether the authors have attached any distinction between an event and occurrence?”

He added, “The issue of oil nationalization or constitutional movement in Iran are events; but when we talk about observations about an occurrence, it is an incident. IS oral history closer to an event or an occurrence? Those who witness an event objectively, it does not mean that they know it very well. On the contrary, the more we distance from an event, the more we know it. But in the book’s theoretical discussions, we see nothing about the authors’ viewpoint; do the incidents form events or vice versa? Does the history contribute to recognizing an incident or an event? To what extent does the book help us in this are to realize more?”

Rasouli Pour said, “Foreign writers have been used many times in the book like Stanford. Mr. Abolhassani! If I ask the opinions of this writer do you have presence of mind to answer me? Although I do not have presence of mind too.”

The Head of the Oral History Department of the Institute for Iranian Contemporary History Studies said, “Some phrases are occasionally found in the book that as if oral history has a remote meaning; referring to page 59 of the book; while oral history is part of our history and has no separate meaning; but still the realization of the authors is not clear. Why do we study history? Because history explains about the happened event. Since an event has no tongue, a living creature expresses the event in the status of a historian and the human being expresses the event according to love and hatred and according to existential shortcomings. When a historic event happens, we will have different viewpoints.”

Pointing out that Dr. Nouraee had a metal look at oral history in this book, Rasouli Pour asked Dr. Abolhassani to use “oral history intern” instead of “oral historian” in the book. Then he referred to third part of the book and said, “According to Mr. Abolhassani, when an interview has been conducted with a person, there is no need that any other organization or person interviews that man again. Although any interview has its own nature, it is possible that in an interview we obtain points that have not in other ones. However, we may suffer many costs in interviews.”

He added, “The main problem of our society in the area of oral history is that we do not have questions. Instead of talking about historical periods, we must raise historical questions.”

“Mnemonic” psychological method should be used

In continuation of the meeting on reviewing and criticizing the book “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography” and in response to the critic, Dr. Abolhassani said, “Dr. Rasoul Pour has not studies the book seriously. When I picked up the book’s subject for my thesis, Dr. Nouraee was of the opinion that I had started a heavy duty. When I defended my thesis, Dr. Nowzari made me some complaints all of which were removed. In producing and compiling this book, we in the section of interviews and questions used “Mnemonic” psychological technique, verbal boosters, and expert discussions in oral history.”

He added, “The book’s subject was the subject of my thesis for three years and I spent two years to publish this book. The present book has opened a door for research in the area of oral history academically.”

About the lack of course of western thinking in the book, Abolhassani said, “We raised the debate of democracy and extracted a number of small theories. The discussion of democracy in its educational, social meaning, the participation of people in science, history and oral history exist in the book in details.”

Pointing out that “I regard oral history as a method and approach”, about working in parallel, he said, “In the section of oral history of the holy defense in Isfahan, different institutions and individuals have been interviewed which caused confusion, waste of budget and opportunity.”

Regarding edition in oral history, he said, “Edition is different in oral history, because any interview is not oral history. In the left oral history, Hamid Ahmadi has conducted excellent interviews with the officers who were members of Tudeh Part by having a pile of documents. Edition in oral history does not mean distortion of history and text.”

Three approaches to oral history

In response to Dr. Abolhassani, Rasouli Pour said, “We look at oral history with three approaches: 1- we consider oral history as a tool for collecting information. In this approach, oral history is assumed as a triangle one angle of which is interviewer, the second angle interviewee and the other one tape recorder and document centers. 2- Oral history is a way for collecting information in any area. 3- We regard oral history as a kind of historic knowledge. Important questions need to be answered for achieving this historic knowledge and its perception. In view of these points, the book “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography” has weakness in the section of theoretical discussion.”

The meeting on reviewing and criticizing the book “Oral History and its Status in Iran’s Contemporary Historiography (1979 – 2006)” came to an end after the questions and answers of the participants.