Meeting on oral history of Islamic Revolution of Iran – 3

Q&A about oral history of revolution

Maryam Rajabi
Translated by M. B. Khoshnevisan

2019-2-19

A meeting on the oral history of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was held in Dr. Parham Hall of the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran on Monday 21^st of January 2019, Iranian Oral History website reported.
In the first part of the full report of the meeting, you read the texts of the speeches by Gholam Reza Azizi, the Head of the Research Centre of the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the meeting’s head, Morteza Mirdar, the Deputy of Oral History of the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran, and Mohsen Kazemi, an author and a history researcher. In the second part, we got familiar with the viewpoint of Morteza Rasouli Pour, a history author and researcher about the meeting’s subject, and then, you read the words of Mohammad Hasan Asghar Nia, one of the survivors of the incident of the7^th of Tir, 1360 (28^th of June 1981).

Oral history can cope with historiography of revolution

The meeting on the oral history of the Islamic Revolution of Iran went on with the question and answer of the participants. Nader Parvaneh, the Editor of Nashr-e Movarekhan (publication of historians) asked Mohsen Kazemi, “That you said “what kind of revolution this revolution has been, is a fundamental question that oral history has not so far been able to enter it proficiently or to be addressed by the oral historians”. Is it really the responsibility of oral historian to move toward this direction? Or should the oral historian collect the data and the historian move toward that direction?”

In response, Mohsen Kazemi said, “That what kind of revolution this revolution has been, is not my subject, but I want to say that such questions haven not been addressed. It means that oral history addresses unessential questions. Since the individuals are not specialists and experts cannot go and find the root causes of this. An expert person like Mr. Jahanbegloo comes and works here, and the book of Dr. Hossain Nasr (In Search of the Scared) or Mr. Shayegan’s book (Under the World Skies) are published. The point is that we must now value the social and legal demands of the people too. As Mr. Mirdar says, oral history should not become just political. It should be involved in other areas. Until today, we have not been able to enter the philosophical atmosphere of the history of the Islamic revolution. In this area, in the department where I work and study and conduct interviews and publish its books, the main issues are how people have grown up. To which group have they been connected? What have been their ranks in that group? Who have been their heads? What did they do in the team houses? How did they fight? How did they distribute communiqués? How did they resist in the prisons? But we have not worked on the philosophy their movement or oral history have not been bold enough to move toward this direction.”

Nade Parvaneh said, “I complete my question this way that where the job description of an oral history activist with that of historian finds difference? Our oral history activists can go to a direction to analyse the issue and provide such questions. Our historians should also come and sum up and analyse it. But the two categories have a gap with each other. My question was where this gap is?”

Mohsen Kazemi said, “You differentiate between the work of historians and oral history activists and the problem starts form here.”

Nader Parvaneh said, “The main problem is here; our oral history activists are not historians.”

Kazemi replied, “Our oral history activists are oral historians. What is an oral history activist such as Mr. Rasouli Pour doing? What is Mr. Mirdar doing?”

Nader Parvaneh said, “Mr. Mirdar has a Ph.D. degree in history, so he is familiar with historical research method. Is our oral history activist for example in the field of literature familiar with the method of citation, method of research, philosophy of history, philosophy of research method and such issues or not?” 

Kazemi replied, “Everyone who works on history, should be exactly familiar with these. Oral history has exactly a research method for itself. In general, what distinguishes oral history from the work of memory-writing, is the same research, methodical and epistemological discussions. Such points do not exist in the issue of oral memories, but it does in oral history. What you can attach for classical and academic history, can do for oral history too. Meanwhile, here, I am not going to draw a border for oral history and written history. I want to say that the significance of history is in month and date. The history of the Islamic revolution is important for me here. Oral history can cope with the historiography of the Islamic revolution alongside other methods and types of historiography. I want to say that these are the neglected spaces either intentionally or unintentionally. You must first see what differences and commonalities the oral historian and the historian who you are considered have, and then say this.”

Interviewee and interviewer: both in the status of historians

In continuation, Gholamreza Azizi said, “I have fixed an idiom for myself, we have oral history interviews and oral historians. In an oral history interview, with a little knowledge from the history of a period or the history of my family, I can go and conduct an oral history interview with my family or an individual. When the interview was conducted, the second part is whether I can be a historian or not? Anyone who is conducting oral history interviews, even if he or she publishes that book, is not an oral historian necessarily, and on the other hand, an oral history activist is not a historiographer. Many of our historians have not had a degree in the field of history but they were historians. An oral historian can be an interviewer himself or herself, can use the interview of another person, can study history, can study management, can study sociology, but as Mr. Kazemi said, he or she can produce a historical work through understanding the formats namely by using a historiographical research method, by internal and external critique, by taking a look at the philosophy of history and the course of the history’s evolution. Definitely, someone who has been a history student, someone who is a university historian, has practiced this method for many years and is very more comfortable than someone who has come from other field. But an oral historian should not have studied history necessarily, although those friends who have studied history do not agree with this and argue that we do not comment on sociology. However, it’s two or three decades that science especially in humanities is becoming interdisciplinary.”

In response to Azizi’s words, Nader Parvaneh said, “I agree with your words totally. It seems that interview is a technique and an art not a knowledge which collects data. But our oral historian wants to do something on which historiography starts to be carried out in the third phase. If he or she wants to refer to an interview and has a coherent historiography, needs questions. Unfortunately, those who conduct interviews and compile them, we do not see in their text about what question what answer we have. They have become the data of our Islamic revolution and sacred defence and all of us have to refer to them.”

Then, Shifteh Nik Nafs, the Head of the Oral History Group of the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran said, “In terms of scientific resources written about oral history, both the interviewee and the interviewer are in the position of historians, it means that both of them are historiographers somehow, but I think we should pay attention to concept of history which here what history means that historiography or history registration is carried out. If we regard history as historical data and news, exactly both of them are doing the same; it means that they are recording and producing a series of historical information; historiography or the necessities that an interviewee or interviewer should have are also other discussions.”   

In continuation, Gholamreza Azizi said, “At present, our problem is not what impact the importing of Chinese fabrics has had on the lives of Tehran’s spinning workers. This does not mean that we do not like to see them. It means that the social history in Iran has yet to reach the stage of development. The Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade and those people who are concerned about such subjects should go to find them. When such phenomena (bankruptcy, unemployment and …) happen, the family breakup is one of its consequences and the institutions which are involved in such special subjects have not looked for them.”

We should work on subjects in area of oral history

In continuation, Ali Kassaee, an expert in the document department of the National Library said, “It is good for us to review since when the period of the Islamic revolution started. Is it since 1963 or before that or since one or two years before the victory of the Islamic revolution? If God forbid, the revolution was defeated in 1979 or 1980, would the discussions regarding the revolution not be brought up? It would certainly. But how long? 1980? 1981? It is good for us to consider the periods in the oral history of the Islamic revolution and mention the turning points. For instance, if we start from the Tobacco Movement, what is after that? We should write the turning points. Anything cannot be said about the oral history of a subject including the revolution. If we can compensate this fear in a way that the individuals do not fear and can speak about the revolution, we may be able to have many works about oral history of the revolution, but we cannot write them easily have in written form. Thus, how can we remove the fear that the individuals can speak our easily? Maybe, the Supreme Leader’s view that we should have free intellectual seats is not just for the students, it also covers the professors and what place better than here (national library) where the individuals can come and express their views freely and record them in the archive of oral history until they allow to be used. If the professors do not like to discuss, then who likes to do? Another point is whether we can refer to oral history resources easily?”  

In response to Kassaee, Morteza Mirdar said, “One of the problems the oral history activists have is that they find with the assistance of the documents how many people were arrested and then find their addresses, or find those who have been arrested. In the normal state, all of them say we were present in the event, but when we chat with them, they say that they have only crossed there! This is one of the problems that exist in oral history which works on a subject. About reference to oral history resources, I should say that in the existing research methods, the experts who usually work in the area of research method have accepted one thing: An institute or a place should be created; for example, any document which enters in the collection of the National Library and Archives of Islamic Republic of Iran, should be inserted in the system of the documents’ organization immediately, and it should receive an organization code so that the researchers refer to it and you may be the first one who refers. This is something that has been accepted.”

He continued, “We had invited to a meeting and Mr. Abolfazl Hasan Abadi pointed to the oral history of Mashhad’s cholera and the city’s cemetery. I said that such subjects are not in the present priorities, because the people of the society want to be aware of the social developments; we must first deal with subjects which are more important. We in oral history of the revolution bring up the generalities and are not fastidious, like the pre-revolution political prisoners, since 1963 to 1979 in Evin Prison, Qasr Prison and the prisons of the towns and … someone who is imprisoned politically, does not any hope of the future. After the revolution, we conducted interviews with these political prisoners. Many of them had somehow witnessed the political groupings which have been created after the revolution like the principalists, reformers, left, right and …which date back to their personal interpretations. One of the works that we oral history activists should do in the area of the revolution is that we have to go and find the origin of many of the incidents that have happened in the prisons, parties and … I am of the view that we should work on subjects in the area of oral history of the revolution.  It has been generalized enough. Now, we should be a little fastidious and act inductively. For instance, martyr Motahari has been in Qom Seminary, what atmosphere drove him to Tehran? What atmosphere drove him to the academic places? What atmosphere drove him for the university to Al-Javad Mosque, other mosques and then Abadan’s Oil Industry University? There is an attraction that his speech in Abadan’s Oil Industry University is heard. We must from being generalized and review the events in details. You must also pay attention to the documents. What have been remained in the memory of the humans after twenty or forty days are very limited and we as oral history activists or researchers should not pay attention to some words too. Why? Because when the reason for the incidents is asked, baseless arguments are also raised. At present, we have found a rival named cyber space. If we give the historical findings of fifty years ago to the new generation, it does not pay attention at all. He or she says that I want today, because he or she is present in the development directly. Now, why have the historical documentations been welcomed by the society? Because it is new and updated, answering the historical questions. If we do not pay attention to such issues, will become the consumers of the people who look at a historical documentary form the perspective of power and politics definitely. Many want to politicize the history of the Islamic revolution, and we should reflect what has happened exactly.”        

Meeting on oral history of Islamic Revolution of Iran – 1: Two viewpoints regarding the hidden angles of oral history of revolution

Meeting on oral history of Islamic Revolution of Iran – 2: Oral history should contribute to recognize our history