Oral History School-2

Similarities of Memoriography and Oral History; Cause of Confusion

Adjusted by Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by Ruhollah Golmoradi

2024-8-15

According to Iranian Oral History Website, the second online session of “Oral History School” was held by Iranian History Association on Sunday evening, July 7, 2024. In this session, Dr. Mehdi Abolhasani Taraghi gave a lecture focused on “Boundary of Oral History and Getting Memories”.

 At the beginning of his speech, Dr. Abolhasani stated, “Unfortunately, until now, we have noticed a misunderstanding about oral history. We consider everything that exists as an oral document from the past to be a part of oral history. We should know the difference between oral history and memory-telling and memoriography. Of course, they have similar mechanisms and similarities that deceive us and cause to confuse the issue. Oral history is a complex of historical narratives from actors, observers and directors of history that come together and express an event or a collective experience of a land. Oral history is the mechanism by which we generate new historical data. At the same time, it is also a school of thinking. Because it deals with lesser-known issues, unknown or silent classes and strata of society, and innovative and new issues, and creates new areas and domains. Oral history is based on interviews, but oral history interviews are different from other types of interviews. Oral history interviews are about history; it means it is about near or far past events.

He further explained the oral tradition as follows, “The oral tradition is a prehistoric heritage, a distant history and a history beyond history that has been passed down by words of mouth, and it is also the platform and channel of transmitting this heritage. In oral tradition, we have several thousand-year-old myths and long-lasting values ​​of society, norms and customs, religious and non-religious beliefs, and part of literature, and all these are part of oral tradition, but they have nothing to do with oral history. So the belief that we have had oral history since the beginning of history is completely wrong. Traditions and customs that have been shared among different ethnic groups for millennia are not oral history. All nations and societies have had this oral tradition, and there are still people in our land who pass on by words of mouth stories, popular literature, and ethnic values ​​to the next generations, quoting from their predecessors. Jews are the oldest people adhering to the oral tradition, and they transmit their religious teachings and instructions by words of mouth. In addition to the Torah, there is an unwritten history and literature of the Jews called the Oral Torah, which is an oral collection of Jewish religious beliefs and rituals that later became written. Oral culture has been dominant among Iranians since ancient times and this oral culture has been used especially for their religious history. Therefore, oral tradition has existed among the tribes and we should not consider any of these as oral history.

Dr. Abolhasani introduced oral history as the result and direct production of individual or group interview and added, “Time and place are the two main pillars of oral history. Western historiography has become so detailed and accurate that it even provides hours and minutes about some events. Subjects in oral tradition may be incited to a specific individual, whereas the subject of oral history is linked to different individuals at the time we understand it and that individual was the observer or agent. However, the oral tradition is the experience of several generations, without a specific time and place, but in oral history, the time and place of the actors of that event is clear. One of the main objections to oral history in Iran is that oral history is an opportunity for marginalized groups and neglected issues, but some have gone to the field of politics and sat down and talked with those who always have an opportunity to talk. It is true that issues are raised in these discussions that have not been mentioned, but areas other than politics and narrators other than politicians should be prioritized. What oral history produces must be original and new. If we are to repeat the previous words in the documents, oral history has not done anything and many issues in the field of history remain hidden. Therefore, oral history is the contemporary time period at hand or the active history in which we live and its actors and narrators are available and can be talked to, or the issues recounted in previous written documents are interpreted with the help of oral history from a new angle. Many issues are among the axioms of contemporary history, but when we use the tools and mechanism of oral history, we get data that questions those axioms. Therefore, oral history uncovers new evidence that can be interpreted and analyzed, and this is one of the advantages and functions of oral history. Oral history data simply along with other data, multiple narrations, repetition of narration, verification of narrative, confirmation and correction and supplementing of narrations with other written documents bring an event closer to reality. Many times oral history criticizes written documents and this has happened. For example, in the events of the labor movement in Isfahan—as one of the main bases of the working class during the Pahlavi era, where tens of thousands of people were employed in the spinning and weaving industries, and the Tudeh Party were active there—conflicts occurred in the 1940s and even some were also killed, which is mentioned in the documents and even mentioned in the forensic medical documents and newspapers; but recently, through an oral history interview, one of these dead people was found who is still alive! And this is one of the results of oral history. Therefore, the written document is not a revelation, and we live in an era where it can be challenged."

In the final part of the second session of the “Oral History School”, Dr. Mehdi Abolhasani Taraghi explained the similarities and differences between oral tradition and oral history as follows, “Both oral tradition and oral history tell about the past; one from the recent and known past and the other from the unknown past. The basis and mechanism of both is narration. Language is a tool to express these data and both of them are interesting. Oral traditions are more attractive and oral history may be less attractive in some areas such as politics. Now, what are the differences between oral tradition and oral history? Oral tradition has an infinite time range, but oral history is limited to our current period. Oral history is not myth-making and epic-writing, but oral tradition has these items. Oral history is not listening and hearing reception of events and culture. It carries the cultural elements of societies and common experiences, and is based on historical data not cultural data. Oral history extracts the facts, but in the oral transmission of the past, obscure history, culture, beliefs, and customs occur. In oral history, the narrator is either directly connected with that history or has reliable intermediaries, but the one who tells the lullabies and epics of the myths of the ethnics has not been directly connected with that past. Much of the published work is a form of memories not oral history; in the sense that daily autobiography or one-time diaries (memoirs) and other diaries only have a form of oral history interviews, but its content is not oral history. It means that the interview is only conducted at the extent of an initial introduction, and then until the end of the meeting, the narrator only tells memories. This is also a kind of memory-telling and memoriography. It is true that the memories of people are hidden in the text of oral history, but in oral history, we do not just record memories. Memoriography is a kind of monologue. Oral history is a dialogue between the interviewer and one or more people, the narrator or the interviewee. Unfortunately, most of the works produced in the field of the history of the revolution and the 8-year war between Iraq and Iran are memoriography. If you use the mechanism of oral history, dialogue and conversation are formed, there are purposeful questions and in the form of a network, and even compilation is conducted, takes a work towards oral history. The primary mission of Hozeh Honari (art field) has been the literature of the revolution and the holy defense, and friends like Mr. Dr. Mohsen Kazemi, Mr. Kamari, and Mr. Fakhrzadeh have a mastery of this field. So when we read the memories of Ezzatshahi or Ahmad Ahmad, we face a series of criticisms. For example, in 2010, in one of the oral history conferences, I reviewed the Ezzatshahi's memoirs. To criticize an oral history work, we need its questions and answers. Like what the Harvard [Iranian Oral History Project] did, in which the form and structure is exactly oral history. Because it presents the questions and answers and considers them. I'm not talking about the content here, because I've also reviewed Harvard's Oral History [Project]. Some works of Hozeh Honari, such as the Ezzatshahi's memories, include questions and answers, and in some works, there are none, and they are compiled in a uniform, narrative and fictional way to attract the audience. Basically, history is rough and literature is delicate and elegant. Therefore, in order to make the history elegant, delicate and sweet, they take it towards literature so that it will be favored by everyone, but it may lose its historical value. For example, the book “Da (mother)” was also the result of an interview, but we do not know what questions and answers were exchanged in this interview, and today, many criticisms have been given to this book. So when the interview turns to memoriography and literary genre, it is no longer history. We even have historical novels—such as the works of Zabihullah Mansouri—but we do not use them as documents or sources. Therefore, in the field of history of the revolution and the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, we still have the problem that the productions of oral history must be published in the same form in order to able to be criticized, analyzed, interpreted and reviewed, but these works are published in the form of stories or sweet memories, but far from historical reality. Memory is an individual story of a personal experience, but oral history is a collective experience; that is, one person tells his personal experience and we must verify and complete it with the experiences of others. Memory is a part of the reserves of the human mind, which has a special prominence and characteristic—such as observations, deeds, sayings, and hearings, and it is the result of participation and practical life. We are faced with the memory of eyewitnesses, both in oral history interviews and in memory-telling, but memory is considered a part of the literature of every period and is also used in poetry, screenplays, and stories. In fact, memory is a kind of reading from the past, and sometimes the narrator uses it to justify himself, to deny a narrative. This method is mostly used by politicians. In memories, you can find out the causes, agents, why and how of the events. The fact that memory and oral history are considered the same is because of the similarities between memoriography and oral history. For example, both are products of the retrieval of detailed information from the memory of eyewitnesses, but one is a monologue and the other is a dialogue. There is narration in both, but in oral history, we also have explanation, analysis, and causality. In memoriography, a person tells his/her memory and moves on. In both, we have one or more narrators. Criticism or narration of the incident is included in the memory and this memory itself is the primary core and basis of oral history, but when we make it temporal and spatial and raise it in the form of questions, it is no longer a narration and becomes a report in oral history.”

To be continued...