Memoirs and oral history: Opposition or interaction in historiography of war?

Abolfazl Hassan Abadi (PhD)
Translated by Mohammad Bagher Khoshnevisan

2016-5-23

Under the pretext of reviewing the book “Quest of Memory”, a meeting titled “Borders of Memory and Oral History” was held on 10^th of May 2016 in the 29^th Tehran’s International Book Fair. The meeting was attended by Mrs. Ramhormozi, Dr. Shahrezaee and the book’s author Mr. Kamari and me. The subject of memoirs and oral history and their interactions and distinctions was discussed during the meeting and questions and answers were given in this regard. It seems that more work should be done in this regard. In view of the significance of the subject, the elements from the distinctions, similarities and interactions of the two categories were reviewed.

Memory-writing has been one of the most important tools of retelling the war’s events and transferring of emotions, demands and discourse atmosphere ruling over expressing memoirs since 1980s. Reviewing of the books printed through using retelling memoirs shows that temporal and spatial context, the information needs of every period, social and political conditions, and the base of narrator, publisher and printing have had direct impact on the content in a way that it can be attached to the generations of the war memory-writing in Iran. Every period of these generations have their own requirements and according to Alireza Kamari, they have weathered different stages ranging from being unknown and an interest in not being seen to becoming famous and an interest in being seen, fading out or highlighting the role of institutions and organizations and being fluid in the proportion between official or unofficial historiography.

Concurrent with its emergence in Iran since 2000s, oral history extended increasingly as an important tool in registering the war’s historiography, in a way that it can be called oral-history-toxication and the name of oral history became a vitrine for piles of books published in various areas of the war’s history. Alongside this, however admirable activities with regard to oral history training to activists of the historiography of war were carried out. The involvement of oral history in the war’s historiography which can be called as an important event in collection and compilation provided the grounds for new area; but they were not paid attention properly and their principles were not recognized. Lack of attention to the elements of oral history of the war which have been used in the world for more than half a century caused bewilderment in how the historiography of the war should be used. Oral history workshops were carried out either for those who had little knowledge on oral history or no experience in its functions in the history of war in the world, trying to combine their mental record from memory-writing with oral history, or for the oral historians who had little knowledge on the history of war and its structural elements and were familiar with the concepts and functions of the oral history. This approach which has been highlighted in the recent five years has provided the grounds for a kind of disorder in content in production of oral history of war and its use, insofar as the most important question regarding the relation between oral history with memoirs is the identical borders between them and the advantage of each of them in the war’s historiography? Why?  Haven’t the relational foundations between them, the functions of each of them and their functional value been specified? Haven’t their structural conceptions and elements in interacting with a subject been specified and sometimes there are illogical demands from each of them? Or has the proportion between memoirs and oral history in specified goals in the issue of historiography of the war been calculated?

The following offers should be paid attention to regarding the relation between memoirs and oral history:

• The publishing of basic books in this field should be considered more often especially in the field of oral history of the war. The activists of this area can provide collections of articles which will be very useful.

• Insistence on improper using of words should be controlled. Memoir has its own function and oral history its own application. The proportion of importance in the elements of oral history with interview like interviewer and interviewee and the subject with the pillars of a memoir namely narrator and compiler is different and each of them has their own characteristics. Each of them has their own considerations. In any subject reviewed in the history war in view of its demands and different dimensions and range, oral history or memory-writing can be used separately or concurrently, but the aim and output should be specified from the very beginning so that the identical borders of each of them are not interfered.

• Documentation and structuring of the content in memoirs and oral history are different. The tightening in writing method in memoirs is based on the tightening of the content of the narration, and in oral history, the external documentation in the final compilation is considered more often although both can also be used; but if the main goal is specified in the beginning, it can be effective in selecting the type of documentation.

• Factors such as interaction of memoirs with poem and its influence and impact on the war, memoirs at the service of value, memoirs at the service of culture, memoirs at the service of history and the status of memoirs in history have an impact on the relation between memoirs and oral history.

• The audience in memoirs and oral history is important. The level of the audiences of each of them and the target society in the type of received information is of great importance. The audience in historiography of the war is considered a lost element to which is paid attention little. Main steps should be taken with regard to the definition of the audience and considering outputs according to the needs of the society.

• Archive is a necessity in order not to forget the historiography of the war. It is safe to say that paying attention to archive of memoirs is not proportion to the needs and many institutions involved in memoirs are thinking about the next generations. At the same time, the mechanism of performing oral history according to the defined standards has more conformity with archive. Incomplete copying from archiving methods has been carried out in the field of memoirs that should be reviewed again.

• Oral history seems to have more generational role than memoirs in the process of production. In memoirs, the compiler is after the information which has been registered in the mind of the narrator as a significant point and has the ability to narrate for the audience; while in oral history, he or she is after the information which may be forgotten in the mental cache of the audience wanted or unwanted. The output of oral history interviews can be dealt with the compilation of memoirs proportion to the need of every period and the compiled subjects; while in memoirs, the narrator’s intellectual potential should be used which may have different outputs in different conditions and at the same time, less verification is provided. However, it should be noted that the archive of memoirs is prevalent in the world without considering the subject and according to the general discussions. But looking at these sources is different with oral history interviews.

• Compilation and output in memoirs and oral history is different; due to difference in their reliance point, various uses can be carried out from the type of received information and the level of interview and the analysis used in them.

Finally, both memoirs and oral history are important in historiography of war! But in view of the defined goals and the mechanism considered for their function, it should be expected that it causes combination of identical borders and confusion of the users.