Consequences of misusing the title of oral history

Hamid Qazvini
Translated by M. B. Khoshnevisan

2023-6-21

Using the title of oral history for any memoir text or autobiographical book is one of the harms that can be seen in the works published by many small and large cultural publishers and organizations in recent years.

These centers, which sometimes have government budgets, ignore the nuances and details of such projects, and generously use the title of oral history for any memoir or biography, and consider themselves to have a high record and a high possibility of activity in this field.

The purpose of this note is not to discuss the differences between memory and oral history or biography, which has been addressed more or less before; The issue of the note is why, after years of activity and the publication of thousands of works in this field, we are still using the title of oral history with a kind of irregularity and indiscipline?

Should the cultural and publishing centers also act like some social classes in giving titles dauntlessly? If in a part of the society, a title is applied to people without scientific and professional qualifications, should publishing centers that have a higher level of science, culture and knowledge and have the principles of professional manners be treated like them?

That the memories and materials about a martyr or a specific person is published in the form of a book and is called "Oral History of a Martyr...", although it is a respectable and praiseworthy thing, it is not the oral history of that person. Basically, even if a book has a rich content and a good professional status, it cannot be considered as the oral history of that person alone.

In fact, oral history is a title that refers to a collection of works about a main topic, and different books should be seen under the same title. For instance, the oral history of the sacred defense is the main topic, and the memories of different narrators should be categorized in the framework of this topic.

Even the oral history of prominent figures such as Imam Khomeini or some sources of emulation cannot be categorized under their name. Rather, they should also be divided into the oral history of the Islamic Revolution or the seminary.

Regarding the reason for the insistence of these centers in using the title of oral history, several possibilities can be proposed:

1- The interest of the audience in oral history works

2- Efforts to submit reports to higher institutions

3-Competing with other centers in publishing oral history works

4-The interest of narrators or the individuals' family or relatives in releasing a work under this title

Perhaps other examples can be added to these cases, all of which result in harm. Harms such as: presenting a false image of oral history and intensifying skepticism from independent researchers towards this section, creating false expectations among narrators in using this title for their works, confusing the audience and oral history enthusiasts, and finally fueling the improper expectations of some writers who consider themselves the owner of the work in this field.

It is expected that various publishing centers will look at this issue with more feeling of responsibility and prevent the aggravation of damages in this sector.