100 Questions/16
Translated by Mandana Karimi
2026-02-10
We asked several researchers and activists in the field of oral history to express their views on oral history questions. The names of each participant are listed at the beginning of their answers, and the text of all answers will be published on this portal by the end of the week. The goal of this project is to open new doors to an issue and promote scientific discussions in the field of oral history.
In this project, a question is asked every Saturday, and we ask experts to present their views in the form of a short text (about 100 words) by the end of the week. All answers will be published together so that the audience can compare and analyze the views.
The content is the opinions of the senders and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be based on about 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, answers longer than this are also accepted.
The experts are asked to submit their answers by Sunday night so that all answers can be published on Tuesday.
Question 16:
What is the relationship between oral history and the official narrative of historical events?
Hassan Beheshtipour
Oral history and official history are two complementary, yet sometimes critical, approaches to understanding the past. Official history relies primarily on written documents, government archives, and dominant narratives, attempting to present a coherent and structured picture of historical events, but may ignore lived experiences and marginal voices. In contrast, oral history, by focusing on individual memories and narratives, narrates history from the bottom up, revealing the human, emotional, and everyday dimensions of events. This approach can correct or balance the shortcomings and biases of the official narrative and, in some cases, challenge dominant narratives. The critical interaction between the two allows for a more multi-layered, complex, and enlightening understanding of the past.
Gholamreza Azari Khakestar
Oral history in Iran has been closely linked to historical events. In a way, events such as the Islamic Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, as two important events, constitute a significant part of oral history plans and projects in Iran. Naturally, the main part of the attention of researchers in this field is focused on historical events. In the meantime, official narratives can play a role in recording oral history as part of the primary data and information. However, the fundamental difference between oral history and official narrative is in addressing the details, experiences, and unwritten things that are extracted from the narrator's memory and mind, and it allows for a multi-layered look at historical events.
Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh
The goal of a historian is to reconstruct historical facts with accuracy, impartiality, and reliance on reliable evidence and documents. In the process of the development and growth of the science of history, some of the masters of this field, due to the necessity of more accurate, faster, and more universal recording of historical events, came to the conclusion that oral history should also be used more seriously and systematically; a method that was used before. Because history should not be sought only in written or old documents, but in addition to using old and written documents, one should go to people who were present at historical scenes or their creations or who witnessed the events. Therefore, the lower layers of society are also given the opportunity to participate in the construction of history. In this way, oral history can be an introduction to official historiography.
Gholamreza Azizi
In theory, it is said that oral history does not originate from the official narrative of historical events. In fact, one of the reasons for the importance and function of oral history is that the voices of individuals, groups, and communities are heard who, for whatever reason, do not have a place in the official narrative of history, or whose lived experiences and beliefs are not heard in their own words. However, in practice, the independent narrative of history in oral history varies depending on the level of freedom available in each country and the current political conditions and situation of the countries. This is why the entry of governments and states to carry out oral history projects anywhere in the world increases the suspicion of reading history with the official narrative.
Abolfat'h Mo'men
Oral history is a method of historical research that is formed from a structured conversation between two people about important aspects of the past and is recorded for permanence. This method tells the story of events from the perspective of the narrator and the actors, along with their linguistic habits, cultural assumptions, and personal feelings and emotions. Oral data must pass through the filter of reason and criticism to become a historical document. Although oral history sometimes has difficulty mentioning details of time, place, and names, unlike the official narrative that relies on written and administrative documents, it narrates the experiences of the lower classes and forgotten groups. Oral history complements historical data, official narrative, and interdisciplinary studies through confrontation and verification.
Shafigheh Niknafs
The official narrative is a narrative constructed by power institutions that produces a specific discourse that affects other discourses in society and can cause them to be eliminated or silenced. Oral history memories are sometimes presented as a narrative independent of the official narrative and even in conflict with it, sometimes in confirmation of the official narrative, and sometimes they are silenced and lose the ability to be remembered. The solution is to be aware of the impact of the official narrative on individual memory and not neglect the contexts in which memory is formed, to compare memory with other individual memories and documents, and to consider the space and environment in which memory is recreated, and to reach an analytical conclusion from all these factors by applying a critical perspective.
Hamid Ghazvini
Oral history can be close to or far from the official narrative. Basically, humans are unpredictable creatures, and everyone tells a story based on their own observations and lived experiences. This method of historiography attempts to present a reliable and independent narrative of the past. As a rule, no researcher knows before starting work which narrative the final product will be close to and how it relates to it? Sometimes the official narrative uses oral history to strengthen and further validate itself, but it is not clear which narrative oral history is closer to and how it is unrelated to it.
Abolfazl Hassanabadi
It is difficult to define official and unofficial narratives in oral history. One of the most important functions of oral history is to produce multiple narratives of a subject. Any ratio in which the content of oral micro-narratives is in conflict with the accepted official historical narrative is of greater importance for challenging, discovering, and improving different aspects of a historical event, and it allows future generations to verify and evaluate content that is appropriate to the thoughts and ideas of their time, regardless of the official narratives that are presented in the form of various programs and publications in each period.
Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz
The official narrative is written by historians based on official and unofficial documents of governments and individuals associated with the ruling regimes, with or without bias, and they do not pay much attention to the narratives of other people, including social interest groups and different classes of society; while oral history happens to go to those who were present in the battles and played a role; but they have received less attention and no trace of them is seen in official narratives. In a way, they shape unofficial history and may find an independent place in future historiography and be given special attention.
AI
Oral history and the official narrative of historical events have a complex and often complementary relationship. The official narrative is usually based on written documents, government reports, and grandiose views, and attempts to present a general and accepted framework of events. Oral history, in contrast, records the lived experiences, feelings, memories, and personal details of individuals that may be overlooked in official documents. These narratives can fill in gaps in the official narrative, highlight marginal perspectives, or even challenge it. On the other hand, the official narrative can provide additional context and credibility to oral history. Ultimately, the combination of both approaches provides a more comprehensive and multifaceted picture of the past.
Number of Visits: 21
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=13063