Examining the Differences in the Oral History Method of the Revolution and the War

Hassan Beheshtipour*
Machine Translation edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-7-14

*The Author has used DeepSeek artificial intelligence in the introduction of sources and editing this article.

Introduction

The oral history of the Islamic Revolution and the oral history of the imposed war on Iran by Iraq are both fundamental pillars of recording unofficial narratives from two critical periods in Iran’s contemporary history. However, are the methods of collection, interviewing, and editing the same in these two fields?

Although many researchers and editors use similar methodological models in both fields in appearance and sometimes in practice, in practice there are deep and fundamental differences between the two, and generalizing one method to both fields is not only inaccurate, but can also lead to distortion of the narrative or the omission of important voices. The main issue here is that the oral history of the revolution deals mainly with “accessible” narrators and “victorious” narratives, while the oral history of the war is faced with “hidden narrators,” “damaged memory,” and “multiplicity of sub-narratives.” This difference affects not only the level of access, but also the level of lived experience, narrative structure, the role of the interviewer, and the ethics of recording memories.

This note examines the transformation of method in the oral history of the revolution and war; from differences in “access to the narrator” to “narrative structure,” from “active agency” to “imposed reaction,” from “centralized national memory” to “multiple local memories,” and from “close-to-event recording” to “post-traumatic delayed narrative.”

These distinctions do not intend to be an absolute separation of the two fields, but rather to point to the dominant methodological tendencies in each of them. Understanding these distinctions not only refines the researcher’s method, but also transforms the ethics of narrative.

1. The narrator’s position: from “hosting” to “searching”

The victory of the revolution created an atmosphere of public acceptance for recording memories. Many political activists and even ordinary people were proudly ready to narrate their narratives to oral history compilers. Therefore, compared to the oral history of the war, access to a significant part of the narrators of the revolution was easier; although some groups remained marginalized or silent.

However, those who were involved in the imposed war, such as combatants, families, aid workers, and residents of war zones, are often unavailable for various reasons, such as the difficulty of expressing memories, the feeling of ineffectiveness of their narratives, or the lack of an official space for expression, and are less willing to share their narratives with oral history compilers and interviewers. As a result, the interviewer of the oral history of the war has to patiently build trust and go on a “search for the narrator.” This difference in “access” is the first and most fundamental methodological distinction.[1]

2. Narrative structure: “triumphant process” versus “fluctuating phenomenon”

Oral histories of revolution often have a linear and ascending plot (storyline); from protests to victory. Narrators, even if they have hesitated in the middle of the way, define their narrative along a successful whole. This gives the memories a flavor of “historical determinism.” Of course, there are exceptions; there may also be narratives of defeat, hesitation, exclusion, and disillusionment among defeated political groups or minorities.

In contrast, in war narratives we face with difficulties without a single ending, because each war narrator has only one piece of a larger puzzle. A fighter in special operations, a doctor in a field hospital, or a martyr’s mother, each defines “victory” and war differently. Some narratives are bitter, some are proud, and some are full of questions. Oral history of war has produced more diverse sub-narratives than the revolution, at the level of life experiences during the war; that is, we are dealing with a collection of sub-narratives that are difficult to summarize.[2]

In the revolution (the narrative of a political activist):

The book “Ezzat Shahi,” which narrates the memories of Ezzatollah Motahari, known as Ezzat Shahi, is an example of an oral history of the revolution in which the narrator looks at events from the perspective of a political activist. In the text on the back cover, we read:

“Room number 22 was slightly sloping and the floor was wet. They made me sit on the floor, naked from birth, and said: Write. I knelt down, covered my private parts with one hand, and held the pen with the other. My teeth were chattering from the cold. Steam was rising from my nose and mouth. My hands and body were shaking. I could not write anything. The cold had penetrated my body and reached my bone marrow. I said, trembling and cutting, “I cannot write.”[3]

3. The Root of Collective Action: “Conscious Spontaneity” versus “Unwanted Imposition”

In the revolution, selective activism is clearly felt. The participation of a large part of the people in the revolutionary process was largely based on choice and political awareness. The oral history of this period is a narrative of “standing up” to the tyrants and their foreign supporters; people who decided to change the system of government in protest of the oppression, discrimination, and inefficiency of the government. Therefore, the spirit that governs the memories is “agency” and “activity. “In contrast, in Saddam’s imposed war on Iran, we face an imposed reality. The war began as an imposed event, but society’s response to it encompassed a spectrum of conscious choice, duty, patriotic defense, and voluntary participation. Whether those who went directly to the front to defend the country, those who spared no effort behind the front to support the fighters, or those who were unwillingly exposed to the consequences of war, such as bombing and rocket fire on defenseless cities.

For this reason, in the oral history of the war, we often witness a narrative of “reaction”; not simply premeditated action. Of course, this does not mean denying agency in war; many narratives are full of field choices, tactical initiatives, and individual decisions. However, overcoming is a narrative of reaction. This difference makes the language of the war narrative more of “survival,” “unwanted resistance,” and “duty” than of “unrestrained revolutionary fervor.”[4]

4. The scope of subjects: “a part of the people” versus “all the people”

Although the revolution was popular, it did not encompass all the people. A vanguard group led by the clergy, led by Imam Khomeini, began the movement and gradually increased in number, so that in the final months of the revolution’s victory, the presence of people in the streets reached millions. However, their oral narratives often focus on political groups, the clergy, intellectuals, and market traders. Sectors such as remote villagers were less present in this history.

In contrast, the war encompassed all classes, ages, regions, and even genders. From the child of Abadan to the old men of Isfahan, from the refinery worker to the nomads of the west of the country. Therefore, the oral history of war is inherently a field for the diversity of voices; if the researcher goes to them. This breadth is both an opportunity and a challenge. In addition, in the oral history of war, due to the strong presence of memory-making and cultural institutions, Michael Frisch’s concept of “shared authority” becomes more important; because the final narrative is the result of the interaction between the narrator, the interviewer, the editor and the project sponsoring institution.[5]

5. The centrality of content: “elite politics” versus “lived sociology”

The oral history of the revolution revolves more around political decision-making, struggles, coalitions and ruptures. The main narrators are usually political activists and their memories are of the nature of the narrative of power and the struggle over it. Mohsen Kazemi, one of the pioneers of the oral history of the revolution, in compiling the book “Khaterat-e Ahmad Ahmad (Memories of Ahmad Ahmad)”, used the study of hundreds of different documents and oral sources so that “nothing is hidden”. This extensive effort to collect scattered narratives shows that even in a revolution - where narrators are supposedly readily available - the oral history researcher is forced to search and explore. However, the difference is that in a revolution, narrators like Ahmad Ahmad themselves take the lead in telling the story, while in a war, the researcher must search for hidden narrators for years.

In oral history of war, in addition to examining the military and political developments on the war front and foreign relations during the war, the focus is more on the daily lives of people in crisis: how did they bake bread? How did they go to school? How did they care for the wounded? How did they manage fear and hope? How did they provide aid to the fronts? Here, oral history is closer to the “anthropology of resistance” than to the “political history of the elite.” Ashraf Sadat Montazeri, the mother of martyr Mohammad Me’marian, narrates the book “Tanha Geryeh kon (Cry Alone)”. This narrative is a picture of a woman’s daily life: from childhood and marriage to her activities supporting the front and finally, the martyrdom of her son. Here, the narrator is not a political activist but a mother; her narrative is of the type of “social life in crisis” rather than “political history of the elite.” The difference in the narrator’s “voice” and “presence” is quite evident.[6]

6. From national memory to local memories; from shared narrative to multiple narratives

One of the important differences between the oral history of the revolution and the oral history of the war is in the way collective memory is formed. Despite the diversity of the participating groups, the Islamic Revolution was shaped around a set of symbolic and shared events; events such as the Khordad 15 uprising (June 5, 1963), the repeated Chahloms (40^th days of Mourning ceremonies) from 7 January 1978 to the incident of 8 September 1978, the great Tasua and Ashura marches in November & December of 1978, Imam Khomeini’s return to Iran, and the victory of 22 Bahman (February 11, 1979). These turning points gradually created a relatively centralized national memory around which large parts of the oral narratives of the revolution are organized. For this reason, many narrators of the revolution, even despite individual differences, refer to a set of shared symbols, concepts, and memories in their retelling of the past.

However, in the oral history of the war, the situation is different. Although the defense against Iraqi aggression has also become part of the national memory of Iranians, the experience of the war has not been the same among different groups in society. Frontline fighters, freedmen, veterans, families of martyrs, residents of border cities, victims of chemical attacks, aid workers, and support forces each have a different memory of the war. The memory of Khorramshahr is not the same as the memory of Sardasht; the experience of a prisoner of war is different from the experience of a martyr’s mother; and the narrative of life in missile-stricken cities is not reducible to the narrative of being on the front lines.

Therefore, the oral history of the war is faced with a greater variety of memories and sub-narratives than the oral history of the revolution, and the researcher is forced to put these different voices together to achieve a more comprehensive picture.[7]

7. Damaged Memory and Delayed Narrative; The Effect of Time on Reconstructing Memories

The factor of time also plays a different role in the oral history of the revolution and the war. A significant portion of the memories of the revolution were recorded in the years leading up to the events, when the gap between experience and narrative was not yet so great, and many details remained in the memories of living and active narrators. As a result, although phenomena such as amnesia or mental reconstruction of memories also exist in this area, they are usually less intense.

In contrast, a large part of the oral history of the war has been recorded a long time after the events occurred. Many fighters, freedmen, veterans, and families of martyrs have come forward to talk about their experiences after two or three decades. This time gap presents the interviewer with new challenges; including forgetting some details, mixing personal memories with official narratives, mental reconstruction of events, and sometimes unconscious suppression or concealment of parts of the past, serious challenges for any researcher of the oral history of the war.

Furthermore, the experience of war has in many cases been accompanied by psychological and emotional trauma, which affects the way memories are remembered and recounted. Therefore, the oral history of war requires more attention to the concept of “damaged memory,” meaningful silences, and delayed narratives than the oral history of revolution, because what the narrator does not say is sometimes as important for understanding the past as what he or she narrates.[8]

8. The challenge of “access” and “concealment”

In revolution, the narrator may conceal parts of the memories for political or expedient reasons. In war, the researcher must build trust in order to reach the narrator. However, even after reaching, the narrator may refrain from expressing some events due to the difficulty of the memories and the imposition of restrictions. This “unwanted concealment” is itself a great ethical challenge.

Furthermore, distortion and concealment of reality exist in both types of revolutionary and war narrative history, but the two are not the same. In the oral history of the revolution, we mostly witness the neglect of others or the narratives of the zero and hundred years without considering the strengths and weaknesses of the past regime. However, in the oral history of the imposed war, we mostly witness the exaggeration of the success of the Islamic warriors and commanders, and less mention of the strengths and initiatives of the Baathist enemy, and more of the support of other countries for the Iraqi Baathist regime is highlighted. For example, in specialized oral history conferences, it has been emphasized “distorted memories in the oral history of the war are more dangerous than a minefield.” This harsh statement shows the moral sensitivity of recording the correct narrative; because a false memory can lead to the distortion of historical truth instead of enlightenment.[9]

Conclusion

It seems that the oral history of the revolution is more of a history of victory; a narrative in which the narrator is the hero of his own story. However, oral history of war is a history of living; a narrative in which the narrator is sometimes a victim, sometimes a hero, and sometimes just a human being lost in the fire. Understanding this difference not only guides our research methods but also reminds us that each period demands its own narrative ethics.

If oral history of revolution is the narrative of “heroes” who are eager to tell of their victory, oral history of war is the narrative of “human beings” to be sought after; human beings whose narrative is not a single victory but a collection of living, losing, hoping, and continuing. Perhaps, the great lesson of the oral history of the war for rereading the revolution is that every narrative, regardless of the political position of the narrator, contains a corner of the truth of a “lived experience,” and in order to reach a more comprehensive picture, we are forced to listen to all these voices; voices that have sometimes remained silent for years.

Finally, the difference between the oral history of the revolution and the war is not simply a difference in subject matter, but also a difference in the type of narrator, the method of accessing him, the structure of memory, the relationship of the individual to the event, the degree of memory damage, and the diversity of lived experiences. Therefore, the methods of compiling the oral history of the revolution cannot be generalized to the field of war without adjustment and revision. Oral history of war requires a more sensitive approach to memory, silence, trauma, micro-narratives, and everyday experiences; whereas oral history of revolution is more concerned with the reconstruction of political action and the formation of the collective memory of a social movement.

References: