100 Questions/ 32
Is it possible to critique popular narratives through oral history? How?Translated by Mandana Karimi
2026-06-01
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 that are also accepted.
The experts are asked to submit their answers by Sunday night so that all answers can be published on Tuesday.
From the interweaving of these responses, using AI, we have arrived at theories about oral history that will be published in the near future.
Question 32
Is it possible to critique popular narratives through oral history? How?
***
Answers to question 32:
Gholamreza Azari Khakestar
Most of the criticism and the most serious criticisms are directed at famous narratives in oral history. Famous narratives are subject to criticism and scrutiny because when an important narrative is published, new dimensions and hidden angles of that narrative can be recorded through oral history interviews through witnesses. In particular, the publication of a narrative by people in power faces numerous criticisms from political currents due to the presentation of a famous narrative. In the narratives related to the victory of the 1979 Revolution or the Iran-Iraq War, a number of famous narratives are subject to criticism by oral history narrators. Because these narratives do not take a comprehensive look at all aspects and sometimes political expediency has caused the narrative to be criticized by critics. Oral history interviews are the most important platform for critiquing popular narratives, meaning that through conversation, different dimensions of a narrative can be examined and significant results can be reached.
Ja'far Golshan Roghani
If the interviewee is of sufficient age and has enough personal knowledge and memories, it is easy to benefit from their comments based on their memories, recollections, and hearsay, and to hear a different, perhaps contradictory, and critical statement from them about the famous narratives that were contemporary with them. Naturally, the closer the interviewee is to the subject of the famous narrative in terms of time and place, the more interesting, engaging, and credible their critical or contradictory narrative will be. For example, Dr. Seyyed Mahmoud Kashani, son of Ayatollah Seyyed Abolghasem Kashani, in an interview with me, in contradiction to the famous narrative of the “coup of 18 Mordad 1332” denied it and believes that it was the desire of the Iranian people to overthrow the government of Dr. Mossadegh and that using the term coup for this event is wrong. To prove his claim, he presented numerous arguments based on his unique memories.
Hassan Beheshtipour
It is sometimes thought that oral history is inherently shaped by opposition to dominant narratives and has no function other than to criticize them. However, the main function of oral history is to record the accounts of eyewitnesses, not to criticize the accounts of others – both dominant and non-dominant. Oral history attempts to pass on to posterity the voices of ordinary people who are often not seen in official documents, without having a prior intention to refute or confirm a particular narrative. However, this “other narrative” can naturally and indirectly reveal hidden layers of reality. If there is a contradiction between the official narrative of a government and the experience gained by ordinary people of a particular event, oral history portrays that contradiction without trying to criticize it. The researcher is then a critic who uses these oral documents, along with other evidence, to discover the truth. So oral history is not a "critic", it is an "other narrator"; but for precisely this reason, it is an important tool in the hands of those who seek the untold narratives of history.
Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh
Criticism of popular narratives is not only possible, but also necessary. Some popular narratives may have been narrated from a specific angle or with a specific purpose or based on weak evidence, so they must be tested to see how close they are to reality. When we go to eyewitnesses, ordinary people, and disadvantaged classes in oral history, the narratives of these people, despite the shortcomings they may have, but due to their plurality and lived experience, can help to show blind spots, weaknesses, distortions, exaggerations, and omissions in comparison with the popular narrative in that field, and help to complete or correct the popular narratives.
Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz
Think beyond criticism. You can speak both positively and negatively; but with due regard to the conditions, including the necessary citations, which should be broad, comprehensive, and compelling in relation to the importance of the subject. It goes without saying that an interview for oral history is different from oral history, and in the latter case, documentation such as quotes, written documents, photographs, maps, etc. should be attached as appropriate to the subject. In this case, we will arrive at a new and different narrative from the original narrative that can both criticize and answer it.
Abolfat'h Mo'men
The outcome of an oral history interview is a collection of raw data and narratives that, like other historical data, require refinement and evaluation, because no narrative reflects the whole truth and factors such as forgetfulness, expediency, and negligence affect it. After the interview, the researcher also faces diverse and sometimes incorrect or confused data, and may be influenced by the personality and positions of the narrator. Therefore, all oral history narratives, even famous ones, require verification and validation. For this purpose, one can examine the time and place of the event, evaluate the personality and honesty of the narrator, compare similar narratives, match them with documents and images, hold group review sessions, pay attention to the coherence of the narrator's speech in different parts of the interview, and also analyze their body language and gestures in the interview film.
Shafigheh Niknafs
Yes. In oral history, people who have a direct relationship with the research subject and at the same time their position is not in line with the dominant discourse express different narratives. Sometimes, the popular and famous narrative may be influenced by the dominant discourse and hide the way it happened from view. For example, the death of the world champion Gholamreza Takhti is interpreted as suicide under the influence of the dominant discourse. While another discourse, influenced by the intellectual atmosphere of the fighting forces, speculates that it was a murder by SAVAK agents. In the meantime, if one of Takhti's friends or close relatives, in his narrative, provides solid evidence and votes for the correctness of one of these two opposing narratives, their information will definitely be considered. Here, by applying the method of historiographical criticism, such as considering who the interviewee is and their motivation for telling this narrative and using other methods, their statement can be tested
Hamid Ghazvini
Oral history provides a basis for criticizing popular narratives in two ways:
- When the researcher, while observing scientific and professional aspects, tries to create a reliable and accurate narrative alongside other narratives, and during or after the work, it becomes clear that the new narrative contains elements and components that differ from the popular narrative. From this stage onwards, historians and other researchers are able to criticize the popular narrative by citing this narrative.
- 2- When the oral history researcher has doubts about the popular narrative and organizes their interviews with the aim of verifying or intersecting narratives and criticizing the popular ones, and what they produce is within this framework.
Gholamreza Azizi
In the study of contemporary history, there are at least two ways to critique popular narratives. First, by referring to documents that are not the focus of this question, and second, to assess or correct individual narratives through oral history interviews with the main actors of the event, other people involved in the issue or witnesses to it, and to critique and examine the narrative from other angles to achieve consistency.
It should not be forgotten that in addition to critiquing popular narratives, oral history interviews with people who were themselves involved in those cases can provide a clearer picture of the event, its causes, and its results, while deepening the information and clarifying the angles of the event.
Abolfazl Hassanabadi
One of the most important capacities of oral history is its ability to be criticized and critiqued through continuous oral data. This is possible if oral history projects are defined in accordance with the subject under criticism and complementary historical sources are also used. Criticizing famous narratives is more difficult due to their general acceptance. Therefore, sufficient care must be taken in the selection of narrators and the type of criticism expressed, so that one can act with a solid argument to cast doubt on that famous narrative and also respond to possible questions.
AI
Yes, oral history has a great potential for critiquing popular historical narratives. Popular narratives are usually based on official documents, the media, or dominant viewpoints, and sometimes ignore part of the reality. By recording the memories, experiences, and direct observations of individuals, oral history provides access to alternative and less frequently seen narratives. By comparing different narratives, matching them with documents, and analyzing the political, social, and cultural contexts, the researcher can reveal weaknesses, exaggerations, or silences in popular narratives. Of course, the goal of oral history is not simply to refute popular narratives, but rather to present a multi-layered and more realistic picture of the past. For this reason, oral history is considered an effective tool in the critical rereading of history.
Number of Visits: 16
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=13312