Various Narrations and Interpretations in Oral History

Compiled by: Mahia Hafizi
Translated by: Fazel Shirzad

2024-10-30

In order to learn more about the problems and challenges of producing oral history works or memoirs, the oral history website has conducted conversations with some experts and activists in this field, which will be presented to the audience in the form of short notes.

In oral history, sometimes the memories of a person are narrated and the topic of discussion is that person; but sometimes, oral history expresses an event or a topic. In this regard, if the focus of oral history is on the "subject", the more narratives we have, the better and more accurate results will be obtained, and the more we will understand the essence of the case.

One of the main differences between oral history and written history is that in oral history, the spirit that governs the event is narrated. In other words, oral history expresses the spirit of the event rather than the body of the event. In oral history, the details of the issue are discussed, and everyone expresses these details from their own perspective. Observing the event from different angles may be due to the way people think about an event.

Some people, because they do not have a correct understanding of this matter, consider the difference of narrations as a defect for oral history. If it is used correctly, it is not only a defect, but it will be a good thing for oral history.

It is a bonus for oral history when the narratives are different but not contradictory. The words of different people about the same event are not necessarily contradictory but different. The beauty of oral history is this difference; but because they do not pay attention to this issue and the work is not done correctly, the good turns into a bad.

In this regard, the correct interpretation of the event is also important. The difference in people's accounts of an event may be due to the time difference in observing that event. The narration of the person who observed the event before its beginning until the end is different from the narration of the person who started observing the event from the middle of the event. The more the oral history researcher asks about the same subject from different people, the better the result will follow. However, if several people talk about a topic, it will be more difficult to compile it, but the result will be more accurate. The editor in oral history is to put together an event narrated from the perspective of different people. It is often said that the basis of oral history is the interview, and we neglect editing; If the wrong editing, it ruins the right interview.

As it was said, the difference between the narrations is different from the contradiction. The contradiction occurs when the narrators of the same event tell two conflicting stories from the same point of view. Here, it is the responsibility of the oral history researcher to determine the correct action and narration with different methods for verifying the narrations. Of course, it should be noted that verification is not always necessary and not always possible!