Professor of History Interviews with Jamaran-1

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

Jamaran information and news agency-Tehran;
I walk into the building of Institute of Humanities and its sad ambiance depresses me. The institute is mourning death of Professor Sadegh Ayeenevand and his pictures are everywhere along with black clothes. I entered the office of Dr. Alireza Molayi, professor of history and scholars of Imam Khomeini Institute. He welcomes me with a serious but kind face. He’s busy but he agrees to do the interview.

Please define oral history and its status.
This is very important both in the possibility of comparing oral history with other types of history available and to have an accurate perspective towards it. Oral history is either modern status or traditions. In modern status it is perceived as a science and away to produce scientific input. This approach to oral history does not go back past the World War II. After the war there were many people with interesting accounts and memories of war which were not reflected in any historical document or such. It was the idea of recording such memories that created the cornerstone of oral history. It was then that oral history became a non-academic custom at the beginning and then academic. At the beginning the methods of research in oral history were unknown but after the war various methods were developed and data gathering evolved. Technology had its effective share and provided tools to gather data and record these valuable and untold inputs and new methods were developed in knowledge production and analysis and epistemology of oral history enhanced.

It is to be said that oral history has had an evolving trend since the war and now we can talk about its fields and trends.

What was said pertains the traditional oral history; however, one shall not perceive that oral inputs and memories are merely contemporary. It has been used in the past especially when humans couldn’t write and it existed in many nations and tribes where news and historical stories were accounted orally and those interested to know the history of the world and events before their time would go to the elderly. I consider this as the transitional state of oral history.

However, this does not mean that all that has happened in the past and ancient world is now available to us. Based on analytical capacity of individuals and importance of events these memories are modified and usually have big historical gaps and we don’t have a set of interconnected oral accounts regarding historical events as an end product available to us.

When scribe line was invented and oral history evolved as a knowledge and recording history prevailed, many historians and researchers while referring to the past they had to build on the oral histories to fill the gaps. Hence they would interview many competent people who knew the historical news and events and record them. The example of which is Beyhaghi and his book: “Tarikh-e Tabari”.

Hence the basis of using oral history has been a common trend in the history however it has neither been systematic nor epistemological and wasn’t considered as an independent science. This changed in modern times and use of oral inputs and memories of people evolved to become a coherent science. Those researching various aspects of human life in the past, conducted interactive interviews with the elderly and extracted many inputs and memories. When the skills and experiences of interviewers developed and became more systematic, these oral history inputs developed higher importance. Hence in our modern time the tools and methods of oral history became more important and an independent field of science in producing inputs for researchers and historians.

My perception based on the definition you provided is that memoirs are not oral history. Is it that once a memory is recorded it is no more an oral history?

There is a difference in what I said and what you are saying now. Oral history is a faculty of history and a method of using memories of individuals who have been in many historical events that we are studying about and for many reasons are not interested in writing their experiences and memoirs. Or they don’t have the proper incentive or are busy and many other reasons prevent such efforts. A competent researcher or historian has to track down these individuals and record their memoirs. It doesn’t mean that if a memory is written or recorded it is no longer an oral history. Oral history is the result of a critical, systematic and interactive dialogue between the expert interviewer and the competent individuals as the efforts of the interviewer to resolve historical issues or tell the untold or to know the unknown. So, there is a set of actions and reactions between the interviewers and the interviewee where the end product contains inputs and oral history which is written later to form the literature of oral history. So, oral history is an interactive interview where what is in the mind of the individuals is what interests us and through systematic and accurate methods we extract them. When we talk about modern oral history we mean the methods and interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee. These interviews might be written or recorded and videoed. Anyway, all these products are called oral history.

This is a face to face interview and an oral history. Sometimes we are looking for chain of events, which might be the subject of oral history interviews. For instance, consider events that there are many unknowns about them and there are some people who have information while their accounts might not be compatible. There might be differences; which is common in history and memory writings today.

If we talk to many people about one subject this is a kind of oral history which far more developed than its primary stage. In the primary stages we talk to one person but in the second stage the subject is discussed with more than one person and various accounts and collected and this is where contradictions and differences arise. This is where oral history evolves. This is subject based oral history or complex oral history versus individual based oral history.

It is to conclude that the key components of oral history are interaction and dialogue. Unlike historiography which is the sole activity of the historian, oral history is the results of interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee.

Precisely! The more competent the interviewer is with regards to the subject and the more experience and knowledge he has on the subject and on methods of oral history the end product will be far better.

How are the products of oral history being assessed? What is the status of oral history versus historiography?

These are two questions and I’ll respond to the first.

This is a very elaborate issued. The fact that to what extend is it possible to perceive the products of oral history to be accurate and credible and to be trusted and how to use them in historical studies is a matter of methodology and epistemology which apply to many historical inputs. The fact of what is the origin of the story? How credible the interviewee is? Is it because of frequency? Is it because the story is closer to historical events? Or else?

All critical analyses of historical resources are applicable here. In fact, in oral history we are dealing with a series of accounts by people that we have to verify their credibility.

Naturally every human being is full of emotions, belongings, attitudes and concerns. These are important factors affecting their account of events. It is to say that we have assumptions which form part of our identity and judgment. There are other factors that form our competence and knowledge; which collectively affect our story.

There are other factors. The time gap between the research and the actual event. When the gap is not far too big it is possible to remember memories to illuminate various aspects of the event. However it is possible that our emotions and political concerns and other factors cloud our judgment. When time passes, concerns fade away but it might be difficult to remember the events.

Also, people being interviewed usually judge the circumstances in the past based on their status today. It means that they pursue their political interest and perceive the events in the past. Hence they might falsify events since the interests today might contradict the events in the past where the individual might have had a critical role. The mental ability of people is also important. The fact that the individual is capable to remember the events.

However, these inputs and findings are controversial and the historian is to criticize them not to believe them. Historians have to be competent enough to verify credibility of the story based on available other sources to be able to provide a wise defense.

We cannot conclude that since the story teller has been close to the event hence the story is valid. There is the possibility of falsification and the researcher is in charge of analyzing it.

Regarding the second question that we have oral history writing or not, it is something of debate. I don’t think it is possible to compare them. Using the word history along with oral create the assumption of some inputs and observations and documents in history rather than class of historical knowledge. While considering historiography three different concepts are taken into consideration:
1. The historian and his active presence in analysis of historical inputs and their interpretation.
2. Various historical events that the historian has to talk about; the continuous dialogue of modern and contemporary eras. It means that when talking about an event in the past, historian has to have a critical approach to the content and many of such contents might fall short.
3. Historians that their inputs and documents are being studied today.

A mix of all the above is to bring into life a new historical study which is the result of synthesis and actions and reactions and interactions between the researcher with the past and future knowledge.

In oral history we don’t have the same process. In oral history, the interviewer might actively be involved and recognize many distortions and falsifications by the interviewee but eventually it is the interviewee who creates the story and historical account and produces it. The product might be made available to the historians while its accuracy and validity is of question.

The problem with accounting memories is that the individual sees himself in the center of events and considers himself to be an effective component in the process and then accounts it. So, it is not to be concluded that “history” in oral history is parallel to historiography and is of the same class. Oral history is merely a source for research and study of history.

Is it at memory writing class?

Precisely! It is a memoir or logbook and even weaker. Those recording memories and events in trips usually record their observations directly and accurately on a daily basis. This also is affected by the personality of the writer and the fact that it is written on the spot or years after.

To be continued…
Seyed Mohammad Yousef Sani
Translated by: Natali Haghverdian

Persian Source: Jamaran Website