Qasemipour:

Oral History Does Not Belong to the Realm of Literature

Interviewer: Maryam Asadi-Jafari
Translated by: Kianoush Borzouei

2024-11-18

Iranian Oral History Website – Over twenty years have passed since the advent and expansion of oral history in Iran, yet "the proper method for documenting oral history interviews" remains a pressing concern for practitioners in this field. In the following interview, we explore the most scientifically sound approach to compiling oral histories. Mohammad Qasemi-Pour answers our questions on this matter.

Most oral history projects in Iran are person-centered. What is your perspective on this approach among oral history practitioners?

Oral history, from its inception, has been a subject-centered methodology, addressing significant and impactful contemporary historical events by engaging with witnesses, narrators, and active participants. However, in our country, this method has largely been employed on a person-centered basis, capturing and preserving individuals' memories and life experiences independently and personally. Ideally, oral history should function like a mosaic, engaging comprehensively with all witnesses of an event, collectively shaping a subject-centered oral history project. But in practice, while there are some subject-centered projects, the vast majority conducted nationwide under the label of oral history are individual and person-centered.

This leads to a crucial question: When these recollections are published as books, will they achieve notable sales? Is there any guarantee of readership interest in these works? The significant challenges facing oral history projects begin after the interview phase, at the point of presentation. How will the work be presented, and in what literary form? Economic viability and financial utility often dictate the format chosen. Some projects, for various reasons, depart from pure oral history and are offered as other products—perhaps as a story, novel, or engaging narrative, which may even be commercially successful. However, we must remember that oral history is not a literary form. It does not belong to the literary domain; it is fundamentally a research tool and methodology within historical scholarship.

Even if books labeled as oral history—though perhaps inaccurately—still maintain a following, do you believe not all oral history projects should be published and widely circulated as books?

Literary genres like stories, novels, or memoirs, depending on their quality and mode of collection, can be compiled into books and may sell well. However, oral history is primarily conducted for archival purposes. An oral history project seeks to enhance the historical archive. It’s about seizing time to fully and precisely document witnesses’ observations of significant events and engaging in in-depth, serious dialogues to ensure these records endure. Labeling oral history as a literary genre is a misconception, as oral history’s intended audience is not the general public.

But in Western countries, works like Voices from the Titanic and Live in New York rank among the top-selling oral history books on Amazon. Doesn’t this trend in Western countries contradict your view?

I am not speaking from personal preference. By definition, oral history does not target a general audience; this principle is recognized wherever oral history is practiced globally. The audience for oral history is necessarily limited. Edited and compiled oral history texts cater specifically to a niche audience of scholars, historians, and specialists in various fields who design and plan cultural and social structures. If you examine these books, they utilize oral history methodology for research and production but are often crafted within a recognized literary genre—mainly narrative storytelling—to compile and compose. Thus, the final product of an oral history project is transformed into a readable account using storytelling techniques.

Is this approach similar to what is being practiced in Iran?

Yes, but with the transparency to acknowledge it. Yet, raw oral history, in its initial form, lacks accessibility for a general audience. Most books labeled as oral history strive to adhere to oral history standards, leading to modest sales due to a specialized readership.

But, certain oral history books, like Mahtab Khian, organized in a Q&A format, achieved remarkable sales in its time.

All popular, high-selling books undergo a literary process during publication. They are written with storytelling techniques and robust narrative structures, often enriched by the writer’s creativity and imagination.

Do you believe books arranged in a Q&A format attract fewer readers?

Certainly, readers often lack patience for question formats. The specialized audience for these books comprises historians, social scientists, and sociologists who value these works for research. My assertion that oral history lacks general appeal stems from its specialized nature. Oral history’s core concern is archiving, documenting, and preserving oral records. This principle must be communicated to novice oral history researchers. We must transition to subject-centered projects with a focus on significant contemporary issues. However, some with strong writing skills wish to use oral history techniques to document personal memories. This is fine until they reach the documentation phase, at which point they must choose the format and manner of presentation for their product. As oral history is used as a research tool, it should become a subject of academic discussion. Universities must establish theoretical platforms and encourage critical discussions on oral history.

Some universities have recently used oral history to document their institutional histories.

Indeed. Ideally, they should also engage with individuals who may not readily speak, such as former students or even those on academic probation. Oral history allows overlooked voices and lower strata of society to speak, unearthing untold stories and responses to previously unasked questions.

Most of the theoretical and academic activities in the field of oral history are centered at the University of Isfahan, with far less prominent involvement from other major universities in this domain. What do you think accounts for this gap?"

Part of the issue lies in the ingrained preference for traditional, documented history. The prioritization of classical knowledge and a lack of specialized familiarity with oral history have compounded this problem. I know historians who are not skilled in communication, even though oral history is fundamentally rooted in communication. As a result, these professors resist introducing oral history into the university setting. Others hold the view that history consists solely of documented evidence—credible records and structures like historical buildings. For them, the thoughts and experiences of society's lower strata hold little relevance. This group does not believe that the minor participants in contemporary social events have anything meaningful to contribute. However, I am confident that this resistance to oral history within academia will soon dissolve. Already, some interdisciplinary departments have recognized the value of oral history and are beginning to embrace it.