“Oral History” by Professor Morteza Nouraei/1

“Active Interview"is one of the topics of contemporary history

Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by Natalie Haghverdian

2018-12-11

Professor Morteza Nouraei believes that since audio recording and active interviewing have been combined with theoretical discussions, oral history has become a method that has its own place in contemporary history. Because the active interview is one of the topics of contemporary history. There is debate on teaching oral history as a science. But oral history is more pragmatic.

According to the Iran Oral History Site, despite the widening of the activities of oral historians in Iran, there remain ambiguities, questions and doubts about the oral history. Therefore, we have conducted three interviews with Professor Morteza Nouraei, a professor and a faculty member of the University of Isfahan and an expert on Oral History in Iran.

He devoted himself to eliminating deprivation and poverty in Bashgard, and in the context of the historical sociology of that area, he repeatedly conducted interviews in the region; the resulting book was publication by the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee, entitled "Historical Sociology of Bashagard" in 1993. Then, for his PhD dissertation, he studied the contemporary social history of Iran, a case study of Mashhad (1900-1914), and inevitably conducted interviews for information on the historical sociology of Mashhad. During the years of 1995 and 1996, he had extensive studies on oral history and, after graduating in 2000, he updated his research in the field of theoretical and practical oral history. Also, in 2004 and 2005, several projects were conducted on issues related to active interviewing. One of them, titled "Pahlavi Social Change in 1921-1980", was conducted for the Isfahan Broadcasting Organization, where several interviews took place on how urban modernization resulted in the extinction of some guilds and professions. He also succeeded in completing several dissertations at the Master's and PhD levels in various theoretical and applied fields of oral history. Presentations, workshops, articles and publications on oral history have been documented in the resume of Professor Morteza Nouraee.

In 2004, he held the first educational oral history seminar at the University of Isfahan, which has been followed up since then by the Oral History Association of Iran, and these seminars have taken place more or less annually throughout the country. For this reason, in the first part of the interview, we have addressed the issue of quality and quantity of "oral history".

Doctor, there is still no consensus on whether oral history is a science or methodology, at least in Iran. Given that oral history originates from the United States, do they have a clear definition of oral history?

Since oral history is a multidisciplinary phenomenon, single interpretations and definitions do not include all aspects of it. Therefore, it is defined depending on where the history is viewed from this perspective. First of all, oral history, however, is a discipline, methodology, method, and mechanism. Oral History emerged in 1947, and even earlier, in American universities, on the one hand, as a way out of the "historiographical crisis" and the inadequacy of historiography, and addressing the history in hand, on the other, relying on the collection of memories; and after that microphone and voice recordings were included. Then, from the early 1950s to the 1970s, it gradually organized itself and became a scientific form, and gradually became known as an interdisciplinary academic discipline. Now, in most reputable universities in the world, independent departments and centers of oral history are conducting a variety of studies, particularly in the study of lost worlds. "Is this other than science?" In light of this, Oral history experienced questions from the critical philosophy of history: "Are oral historians involved in active (challenging) interviews?", "Whether it merely reconstructs the event or involves the margins of events?” "What role does the periphery of events play in understanding the origins of events and how oral historians help future historians in this direction?" Or are they "discussing issues which are the necessity of time and reproducing the past?" And finally "What is the role of oral historians in social history?”

Except for the soldiers in World War I, which groups were targeted by oral history since then?

Undoubtedly, in the 1960s and 1970s, women, workers and illiterates were the main target groups of oral historians. Because they couldn’t or never had the opportunity to write. The interviews would capture the experiences of this community, as they constituted the majority. But gradually the question became whether they want to capture merely the event or the surrounding. For example, if something happens in a factory, do we only talk about the event itself with the workers? Or do we also look for the whats and why(s) of the event? This perspective created several attitudes in oral history. In this way, oral historians were drawn to theoretical debates. Since the voice recorder and active interview with theoretical discussions have been gathered, oral history has become a scientific method that has gained its status in contemporary history. Because an active interview, or oral history, is one of the topics of contemporary history. There is debate about teaching oral history as a science and its implication in the field of epistemology.

You referred to two perspectives: First, whether oral history should record the original event from the point of view of the witnesses, or examine the root causes of that event. Can oral history address both?

Yes. Historians who believe in the rebuilding of events say that every event itself registers in different places. But when it comes to what and why the event is being discussed, another group of oral historians get involved. They believe that oral history is the history of the future. That is, the interviews we are collecting today are undoubtedly to help the future historian; not the current historian; at least for the future, it shows where the questions should start. So when we look at events like the Islamic Revolution or the Holy Defense, we really want to answer the questions of future historians. For example: What do you mean by interviewing young people from the 50s? Was there an Islamic revolution? There is no doubt that there was an Islamic revolution. So what is being asked today by the future historian - which we are now in the future of the revolution - is what they wanted and what were the outcomes of such demands? What was the ambiance in that period might be the question of a historian 50 years after us. In this way, we conduct interviews to answer the questions of the future historians and these interviews are the capital of the future. This group of historians - including myself - believe that if we have a rich history through active interviews, we can overcome the future. To overcome the future means planning and targeting; researching the future. That's why the whole world has become the focus of oral history and oral historians. Which system does not want to be sustainable? Even the people we interview with, they tend to be named in the future. A human being is an entity that always likes to have the future in his disposal. Oral historians believe that the creation of "historicity" and its continuity is possible with active interviewing. This continuity is inevitable in the minds. It should be converted into words and a words converted into lines and lines into books. Then they will be used by the future historian and political-cultural planners of the country. That's why various organizations have gone to their oral histories. For example, when one person writes the history of a university on a continuous basis, the posterity has the tools needed to plan it correctly.

In this way, history is automatically recorded. It might be recorded as the word of mouth or by parties depending on the perspectives. Meanwhile, recognition of the real history is important. Do you think oral history has the ability to extract truth from the hearts of a multitude of narratives?

However, some believe that some aspects of events are not recorded. History is a collective experience, not personal experience. If you went and interviewed someone and said a unique narrative, this is not history; it's a personal experience. When many people narrate an event in a unitary way frequently, then collective experience is formed. We believe that every event, according to its radius, registers itself; in a circle of formal and informal letters, newspapers or memoirs and thoughts. But in interviews we have to be careful not to transform a personal experience into a collective one. The second argument is the surrounding of an event. These peripherals seem to be much more important; margins are more important than context. They show the why(s) of the event. For example, there is a dissertation on revolutionary students of the 1970s and 1980s - who experienced the events in the age of 17-18. This research examines the perspectives of these students during the revolution in this enormous movement: what did you want? And what were the results? Perhaps this aspect of the revolution has not been recorded, but this personal experience - with single, but multiple narrators - can become a collective experience. As such, oral history helps to open blind nodes in the recording and understanding of the past, a movement, flow or event, and contributes to its interpretation and clarification.