Professor of History Interviews with Jamaran-2

In the open sphere based on freedom of speech, historical anecdotes of government and public draw closer (II)

Seyed Mohammad Yousef Sani
Translated by: Natali Haghverdian

Part 1

Jamaran information and news agency-Tehran;

As you know, efforts have been made to record memories regarding contemporary history of Iran especially the Islamic Revolution, pertaining that last decades of Pahlavi and beginning of Revolution. These include oral history projects at academic level to the documentations during Pahlavi in media and some documents provided by cable networks. In your opinion as an expert and researcher, how should we interpret and perceive these various and sometimes contradictory accounts? Especially, what is the status of the history of revolution?

In fact, subject shall not compromise validity and importance of oral history. When an events becomes a political issue at national level it is natural that writing memories about it is more difficult that accounting personal memoirs. When our memories are tied to the governing political institution then it is of higher sensitivity, which prevents some realities to be told.

If we want to interview someone after 4 decades regarding the events of Revolution we should acknowledge that during this long time the revolution has experienced many processes and has become a political regime which has many trend. There have been many politicians and presidents with various schools of thoughts. We don’t expect the individual to account the memories based on his interpretations of today and interest but we want them to recount exactly what they have seen and heard. There are hardly individuals who are brave and honest enough to be critical and to confess their support of various movements or their involvement in some events which are currently a matter of national security.

In such circumstances, oral history might be a tool; a tool for political settlement; a tool to position some people in the center of political events; a tool to undermine resistance and to marginalize them. Hence it is natural if people tend to falsify events in an effort which intends to respond to the concerns of the new generation. Formal and traditional historiography and the tools and inputs and media today are unable to provide a wise and satisfactory response to the critical generation; hence under such circumstances individuals tend to use the situation to their own benefit.

It is to consider that many trends try to justify the status quo to respond to failures and satisfy the audience. Eventually many of the stories might be true but not the whole truth.

Based on what you said building on the raw inputs of oral history is not wise if we are to take position and judge a historical event and it is better to base our argument on the products of researchers.

It is true. When there are more documents and evidence to support historical inputs regarding an event the more valid it is. However raw inputs are not reliable. Two people might have two different accounts of one incident and depending on the influence and respect of each individual one account might be accepted and one might be rejected.

I believe that researchers shall not be deceived by appearances. He has to be critical and have his doubts which will drive his for further review to find the truth.

Often the target of this raw inputs and memories and documentations are not researchers’ community. It usually targets those who don’t have complete information and through unreliable inputs they are trying to reach conclusions. If one is not a researcher and wants to learn about a historical event while they are many contradictory inputs available, what is the solution? The young generation that is not a researcher is in the wind of raw inputs, what shall they do?

Unfortunately this is a dilemma that our society is dealing with. The more the society is politicized, anxious, and irrational and emotions the more the inputs might vary and contradict. There are different movements with their account of events. Under such circumstances it is difficult for an ordinary individual to find the truth. Even experts might not succeed. Such effort requires hearing various accounts and dominance on social and political movements with a critical approach.

Naturally in a close political environment there is a specific historical story. Under ideological governance there is a different one. Our historiography is formal which advocates stories as acceptable. Naturally the institutions in the government have their own stories based on their political point of view and there are many other dialogues formed in between. Media and academic community have their own accounts. Researchers abroad have a different one.

It is not possible to say which one is the truth. A researcher should listen to all and the more contradictory and various they are the researcher has to be more critical. Individuals who don’t specialize in the field are exposed to information especially in social networks and create fluid and incomplete understating.

I think more democratic political systems where there is freedom of speech,it provides the opportunity of a productive dialogue between the government and the nation which brings the accounts of both closer. However, in our country, in the past and present, except in short periods, there is the gap and lack of trust.

Such situation provides the opportunity for various groups to use it to their own benefit and offer stories contradicting the one of the government to compromise trust.

Various stories shall persuade the researcher that each individual is telling part of the truth. Those speaking from abroad provide part of the truth and the government as well is telling another aspect of a story which might be true but it is not the whole truth.

It is to say that if our young generation is unable to obtain expertise in this regard they better hear various accounts and value all but have a critical approach?

Yes, this might be the best and wisest way. However, if proper opportunities are provided it is possible to tell more reliable and wiser stories based on various inputs and stories. I don’t think this opportunity exists in our country. Under such circumstances, other governments and those residing abroad tell their own story which is impossible for us to have a concrete judgment.

Doesn’t this mean that the research community outside Iran is more reliable? Historical researchers who are independent and outside Iran do not encounter the same political and social barriers.

No. It is true that those outside Iran might not encounter many considerations and barriers and censorship which might affect their research product, but it does not mean that their product is necessarily reliable and accurate. They haven’t seen and experienced many events. They might have freedom of speech but this is not the only requisite.

Hence I believe that if we have the opportunity of telling various stories about one concept and agree that each story is part of the truth this is more acceptable. In history there is no final and comprehensive product. Every generation responds to its specific concerns. So we need to constantly review, reevaluate, rewrite and reinterpret history.