Research Note: Role of Oral History in Preparing Biographies

Habib Lajevardi*
ladjevar@fas.harvard.edu

Back in the fall of 1980, Edward Keenan, then Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, asked whether I would organize an oral history project on Iran. A Soviet specialist, Keenan saw certain similarities between the Russian and the Iranian revolutions and considered the immigration to the West of hundreds of former Iranian officials to be an exceptional opportunity to collect and preserve valuable historical data.
In our subsequent discussions it became clear that an in-depth study of the internal workings of Iran's former regime was difficult, as few reliable primary sources are available for this purpose. Because of the autocratic nature of Iran's political system, government papers, documents, and reports were (and still are) infrequently prepared prior to major decisions and subsequent to important events. Moreover, the relevant documents that, were produced have not been preserved systematically and, in cases where they do exist, are not generally available to researchers.
Other sources of information are equally deficient. Newspapers, for example, have been under government censorship. Few individuals, especially former public officials, have written their memoirs or given in-depth interviews. Those who have, with few exceptions, have rarely been objective about public issues because fear of the authorities has compelled them to self-censorship. Publications produced by exi1e groups tend to be one-sided and ideological. The main source of relatively objective data regarding internal Iranian politics is the diplomatic dispatches of Western embassies, which have their own obvious and inherent limitations and are only partially available after 30 years. For these reasons Dean Keenan and I agreed that recording the oral memoirs of former leaders of Iran would be a worthy endeavor.
Thus, the Iranian Oral History Project was launched in September 1981 at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. A series of experimental interviews were conducted in November and a committee was established in December of that year to review and advise on project design. Members of the advisory committee, nearly all of whom belong to the Society for Iranian Studies, include: Ervand Abrahamian, Shaul Bakhash, Ali Banuazizi, James Bill, Farhad Kazemi, Roy Mottahedeh, and Marvin Zonis. William Moss, formerly chief archivist of the John f. Kennedy Library and past president of the Oral History Association has also given valuable advice.
Our fund-raising drive began in the fall of 1981 with contributions from the Iranian exile community in the United States and ended in the winter of 1984 with a substantial grant from the Ford Foundation and a major award from the Nationa1 Endowment for the Humanities.

Aim of Project

The primary aim of the project is to collect and preserve personal accounts of individuals who played major roles in the important political events and decisions of the last four decades. More specifically, the project is attempting to provide three kinds of data:
1. a picture of the way the Iranian political system actually functioned, i.e., how foreign and domestic policies were formulated, adopted and implemented;
2. the background and reasons behind major political events and decisions; and
3. a more complete sketch of the key political, figures of the period.

A master list of potential narrators has been prepared, which includes leaders of nearly all political groups, parties, and institutions. More specifically, the list contains the names of members of the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties; all living former prime ministers and cabinet ministers; key members of the legislative branch, the judiciary, the media, and the private sector; leaders of the tribes, political parties, and opposition groups (including those who for a time held office in the Islamic Republic); commanders of the armed forces; top officials of the security agency (SAVAK); and foreign leaders and diplomats who played major roles in Iranian politics, including former U.S. presidents.
Unable, because of various constraints, to interview and process the recordings of all the individuals on our master list, we have settled on a smaller number. Yet the composition of the group we will actually interview must be such that the following three conditions will be satisfied:
(a) More than one account of major political events and decisions will be recorded;
(b) Three important historical periods in recent Iranian history, namely, 1941-1953) 1954-1962, and 1963-1978 will be covered;
(c) A fair proportion of individuals from each political group and institution will be represented.

To meet these conditions we have decided to record approximately 150 individuals during the life of the project.

Priority

As far as possible, the oldest and most prominent individuals on the list are being interviewed first. High priority has been assigned to the oldest and most prominent potential narrators for the following reasons: first the oldest political figures have the lowest life expectancy. Second, members of this group have the least hope of returning to power and have proved, so far; to be more forthright in their accounts. Third, the early participation of the older and more prominent individuals has increased the likelihood that potential narrators of lesser rank will also wish to be included in the project. Fourth, to give the interviewers greater perspective and background material, it is useful to record the events chronologically; thus, the oldest first.

Formal Agreement

Before the commencement of the initial interview, a formal letter of agreement is signed between the narrator and Harvard University. To assure maximum cooperation, the narrators are given the option of specifying a period of time before which their transcripts will not be open for review. Moreover, in cases where the narrators require anonymity, special arrangements are made. Because some narrators have chosen to place certain restrictions on the use of their memoir, Harvard's Houghton Library, which held Trotsky's papers under seal for several decades, has been designated as the repository of the tapes and transcripts. The commitment by the University to honor the various conditions set by the narrators has opened many doors to our interviewers which would otherwise have remained closed by the inherently cautious Iranian politicians.

Interview Procedure

At the outset of the interview, we stress that we are not seeking opinions of the narrators but that our primary aim is to record recollections of their own experiences, observations, feelings, attitudes, actions, and reactions. Only in special circumstances and when questions have been formulated in advance, do we ask for the narrators' views and opinions.
It is often difficult to prevent a certain amount of opinion-giving, but the interviewer can influence the ratio of opinion to concrete data by posing questions that bring the narrators back to their own experiences. We try to validate the reliability of important statements by asking narrators to specify whether their testimony is based on firsthand observation of on second-hand sources.
The interviews are conducted in Persian or English, depending on a narrator's preference, and they vary in length from two to 30 hours. The average length of an interview is, however, about six hours.

Two-Phase Interviews

Interviews with major political figures (for example, all former prime ministers) are conducted in two phases. These narrators are invited to present their own biographies and to stress those aspects of their political lives that they consider significant. In phase I, the interview is unstructured and impromptu, allowing narrators the opportunity to present a sketch of their role in the history of the period.
The limited biographical sources available force us to begin with an open-ended approach rather than a predetermined set of questions. The data available rarely give us sufficient details regarding the narrators' career paths, let alone the nature of their relationships with other political figures and the extent of their participation in various events and decisions.
In phase II of the interviews, specific questions are posed which have been formulated in advance (taking into account the data presented by the narrators in phase I). These questions cover major events and decisions on which the narrators have participated, as well as possible omissions and ambiguities contained in the transcripts of phase 1. Moreover, in phase II, the interviewers ask the narrators to offer greater detail about the role, function, and mode of operation of the institutions with which they were most familiar -that is, the cabinet, the court, the Majles, the judiciary, the military, political parties, the media the clergy, and so on. In phase II, the interviewers attempt to clarify and complete information already obtained and to collect new data.

Single-Phase Interviews

Narrators with more limited experience in Iranian politics spend less time on recording their own biographies. These interviews, like those in phase II are more structured. The narrators are asked to focus on highlights of their careers that intersect the major events and decisions of the period.

Recollections about Others

The narrators are also asked to describe their experiences, if any, with the major political figures of the period, including monarchs, prime ministers, opposition leaders, and others. Here again we do not seek the opinion of the narrators regarding these individuals; rather our interest is focused on their recollections relating to specific meetings, events, and conversations. When an opinion is given, the narrators are asked to cite actual examples of incidents that they personally observed which lend support to their assertions. Consequently, those interested in biographies will not only find a vast amount of material concerning individuals who have been recorded, but also a great deal of information about a large number of other historical figures.

Role of the Interviewer

A few words should be said about the role of the interviewers. First, all our interviews are conducted by a small number of individuals who are immersed in contemporary Iranian history and who are familiar with the previously recorded testimonies. This arrangement is essential in building a collection that is interrelated -as each new interview builds on the vast collection of data presented by previous narrators.
The main task of our interviewers is to encourage the narrators to expand and contract their accounts depending on their historical significance and on whether they have been discussed in sufficient detail by previous narrators. Our interviewers try not to be interrogators, antagonists, or partisans. On the contrary, the interviewers' task is to listen sympathetically and to assist the narrators present their personal accounts as completely and coherently as possible. They are trained to refrain from the inclination to pressure the narrators into speaking about topics they would rather avoid. At the same time, our interviewers do not volunteer opinions, nor do they unnecessarily agree with the narrators’ statements. In order to keep the narrators' testimony as objective as possible, our interviewers inform the narrators, whenever appropriate, that others have presented a different version of the same issue. The interviewer then invites the narrator to clarify and reconcile possible differences.

We have learned the hard way to avoid interrupting the narrator’s train of thought, especially in the cage of the older individuals. Once the “senior” narrators are diverted from their "beaten tracks," they lose their orientation. During the time it takes them to regain their composure, they sometimes make statements of fact that are clearly erroneous. We try to leave until the latter part of the interview those questions that take the narrators chronologically backward or forward, as well as those introducing new topics. However do ask clarifying questions about the subject being presented, i.e., “When was that?” “What was his name?” “Why did that occur?”.
In the meantime, we have come to welcome, rather than to be apprehensive about, moments of silence. Some of the more valuable revelations recorded have come forth following a relatively long pause.

Knowledge and Cooperation

We have found a wide variation among our narrators in two respects: the quality of new historical data they are able to offer and the level of their motivation to present it. On one end of the spectrum are those who are able to present a great deal of information about major unrecorded historical events, and on the other end are those who have retained little of what they had once observed and experienced. This is truer of the older narrators who seem to recall earlier events more vividly than those that have taken place more recently.
Ability to recall the details of important historical events is one factor in the equation. The other factor, affecting the quality and utility of oral memoirs is the degree to which the narrators are willing to place their recollections on tape. Looking at those two factors as a matrix, we find four general groups of potential narrators. The first and most valuable group are those who have abundant historical information and high motivation. It is truly exhilarating to interview narrators in this group.
In direct contrast to the first group are narrators with little information and low motivation. Improved pre-interview research by the interviewer together with a preliminary meeting can obviously reduce the number of narrators in this category, but such errors cannot be totally avoided.
Needless to say, things are never so simple as these generalizations imply. Although low motivation can be recognized by curt--sometimes evasive--answers early in the interview, it takes more time to judge whether the narrator's level of motivation can be raised sufficiently so that one can determine how much the narrator actually remembers. The task of evaluating the narrator's level of knowledge is even more troublesome. The problem often stems from the fact that what some narrators are willing to say is at odds with what the interviewers have come to hear.
This brings us to the other two groups of narrators: those with an abundance of historical information and low motivation and those with little information and high motivation. Let me dispose of the latter category first. The challenge of narrators who have little information and high motivation is to abort the interview diplomatically as soon as the evaluation has been made. Because we rarely schedule more than three hours of interview for the initial session, the worst possible outcome is to record three hours of data of little historical value. Later, we have to decide whether it is worthwhile to transcribe such tapes or to leave them in audio form for future use.
Our greatest challenge among the four groups of potential narrators lies with those with a great deal of historical information but low motivation. After encountering a narrator of this category, we try to determine the reason for an apparent reluctance to be recorded. The number of reasons we have encountered are as great as the number of narrators they represent. To try to make sense of this complex question we have found it useful to analyze the problem within a cost-benefit framework. “What will I possibly gain out of this interview compared to its possible risks for me,” is a thought that runs through the mind of the reluctant narrator.
On the question of risk, some potential narrators worry about accusations of disloyalty to the regime they once served. Others are con erl1ed about hurting their chances for a place in a future government in Iran. Still others fear for their relatives and possessions left in Iran. A few feel so uncertain about their own past actions that the) do not want to expose themselves to further criticism. Some old-timers refuse on ethical grounds. They feel that what transpired between them and others must be buried with them. There are a1so those who have lost their confidence and are fearful of appearing less than the image hey had presented in the past. Finally, more than a few find the literal transcription of their oral statements to lack sufficient dignity.
To counter these sometimes formidable obstacles, one can talk about the individual's obligation to the history of Iran. One can also appeal to a sense of self-interest to the promise of a place in history--a kind of historical immortality. Most controversial political figures are aware of critical comments made agai.nst them. Participation in the project gives them a chance to respond to those charges. The most persuasive argument, however, is to point out that their recollections can remain closed for as long as they wish. Prospective narrators are told that Trotsky's papers were under Harvard's lock and key for many decades and that theirs will also be safe. These arguments often work, but there are potential narrators who have still to be persuaded.

Increasing Objectivity

It is not unlikely that some narrators will attempt to use the opportunity provided by this project to give a self-serving version of their past actions. A number of precautions are being taken to deal with this possibility. First, a major criterion used to prepare and revise the list of potential narrator: is a diversity of political viewpoint and position. Among the individuals we have recorded one can find every shade of political opinion imaginable: staunch royalist, National Fronters, Mojaheds, Fada'is, Tudeh'is, Savakis, and religious zealots.
Secondly, as the project is explained to narrators during the initial session, they are informed that a diverse group of political figures are being interviewed—giving names of one or two individuals who share their views and one or two who do not. Experience indicates that when narrators realize that they are not speaking in a vacuum and that their statements will be compared with others', they are more forthright.
Two examples of recent interviews may illustrate this point. A former deputy head of Savak, later in charge of its European operations, was interviewed a few days before a former leftist student leader who had been active in Europe in the '60s and had later taken charge of the Persian Service of Radio Peking. The two men obviously knew each other very well. They were both told of the interview with the other. In these interviews certain questions raised by one narrator were also asked of the other.
Another case in point is a series of interviews conducted with two former ministers who were bitter rivals in the same government. Both individuals were told that the other would be (or already had been) interviewed. An interesting side light to our interviews is that we often find ourselves talking to people who would never talk to each other.

Processing and Preservation

Now a few words about the steps taken to process the tapes. The recorded interviews are transcribed, verified, retyped, and indexed, in English. The general index, which at present contains over 1,200 items, enables the researchers o locate the material they seek quickly and efficiently.
Tapes and transcripts of memoirs without restriction and those no longer restricted will be made available to scholars as soon as all of the interviews are completed -in the summer of 1986.

*Habib Lajdevardi is Research Associate at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University

Source: Iranian Studies, Volume XVIII, No. 1, Winter 1985, pp: 95-104