‘Oral History Methodologies Have Enabled Historians to Write History More Inclusively'

It is of limited debate that oral history methodologies have enabled historians to write the history of a wider range of populations, but the extent in which it has accompliced such inclusivity is disputed. The ways in which oral historians capture the unique experiences and emotions of individuals forms a significant part of history from below, subsequently broadening scope and enhancing empirical research (as opposed to replacing it). This has enabled the perspectives of those traditionally marginalised and hidden from history, whether this be through social barriers or literacy capability, to be of value to historians when researching the past. However, many historians have criticised the method for its reliance on the individual’s memory, which will be inevitably tainted by nostalgia, personal prejudices and selectivity. This would suggest oral history methodologies have not enabled historians to write the history of a wider range of populations as recollections used to form these histories are too unreliable to be of any significant value. Nonetheless, this essay will attempt to substantiate the hypothesis by investigating the impact of oral history on two traditionally marginalised population groups, in addition to debunking criticisms of the methodology.

When studying victims of tragedies, such as genocide and war, it is evident oral methodologies have not only enabled historians to write the history of a wider range of populations, but also aided victims of trauma in overcoming past experiences. When reviewing projects heavily comprised of 1st person recollections of genocide, such as Traces of the Holocaust: Journeying in and out of the Ghettos, it is evident the Jewish survivors revisiting Auschwitz-Birkenau relive their experiences differently, rendering them no longer tourists but instead guides through history. Author, Tim Cole, expresses that returning to a place of trauma for many is an invaluable product of oral history as, by listening to the memories and philosophies of the enslaved, historians can assess the psychological costs of tragic events. The hypothesis is thus valid as, during times of genocide when written documentation produced by victims is scarce, oral methodology reveals personal truths of a ruthlessly subordinated population, and subsequently a coherent historical theory can be constructed.

Likewise, the unheard voices of those impacted by war can also be captured through oral history, which further suggests historians are able to write the history of a wider range of populations. This is evident in the expansive material collected by The Bureau of Military History, which contains 1700 interviews with veterans of the First World War and 47,000 interviews of those on the homefront in the Second World War, therefore making it one of the largest memory projects in existence. Greater inclusivity is thus prevalent as many of those interviewed, particularly working-class men and women on the homefront, would have been less likely to officially document their experiences at the time, presumably as a result of socio-economic constraints. Oral history thus enables historians to investigate the perspectives of more than just high-ranking officials and powerful wartime individuals as it accounts for the thousands of citizens who were consumed by the wartime machine. Additionally, it is worth noting that oral history not only enables historians to write the history of a wider range of populations, but can also be practiced by a wider range of populations. This has been summarised by historian Donald Ritchie; “Oral history has room for both the academic and the layperson. With reasonable training… anyone can conduct a useable oral history.” Consequently small-scale projects, particularly on World War Two as many survivors are still present, further expand the quantity of researchers and those who can be researched which, in turn, enriches empirical evidence and aids in the formation of a coherent theory.

Furthermore, not only has oral history succeed in capturing the histories of those who have endured tragedy, but it can also aid in constructing the histories of women, ethnic minorities, LGBT communities and the working-classes; all of whom have been historically marginalised in varying degrees. Historians such as Gilda O’Neill have alluded to the issues in Rankean history writing, as she states “I began to worry. Were the women’s, and my, memories true or were they just stories? I realised that I had no ‘innocent’ sources of evidence – facts. I had, instead, the stories and their tellers’ reasons for remembering in their own particular wars.” Furthermore, female oral historians have been notably guided by history from below, with feminist theory making a valuable contribution to the ways in which oral historians conduct their studies and analyse each individual’s personal truth. It is thus clear that only through using oral methodologies can a lack of factual evidence in cases of oppression be negated, which further supports the hypothesis as it is evident this approach is imperative in writing the history of wider, hegemonized populations.

This is reiterated in the impacts of the History Workshop movement, which was sustained through the use of oral history and sought to capture the voices of less powerful individuals throughout feminist and labour history. To do so, labour historians such as Asa Briggs, Raphael Samuel and John Saville collected memories from a variety of individuals and groups who were yet to be featured in history journals at the time. As a result, when investigating labour history oral historians were also more likely to be able to reach beyond trade union organisers and into the less influential, once inferior working-classes. Similarly, projects carried out by the Heritage Lottery Fund on the black and ethnic minority experience and OurStory, which is comprised of queer oral history, further countered traditions of Great Man theory by representing the experiences of those outside of a white, heterosexual male category. It is consequently evident that, oral history prompts historians to draw on a more eclectic mix of sources, which allows for more comprehensive writing of a subjugated group’s past. Oral methodologies are thus inherently more considerate of wider populations.

However, it is important claims against the inclusivity of oral history are addressed as polemicists such as Patrick O’Farrell raise a set of concerns pertaining to the unreliable nature of oral history. It has been argued that a lack of validity should be attached to oral testimonies as a ‘historical reconstruction’, due to the inconsistency nostalgia, selectivity and self-perception evokes. In turn, many believe that spoken history serves better as a myth, than as a factual historical narrative with empirical value. Such arguments would consequently disprove the hypothesis as it would not be possible for historians to write the history of wider populations if the means employed to do so are not historically legitimate.

Furthermore, oral history methodologies have also been accused of homogenising the experience of the oppressed and embedding subordinates within the tradition of the oppressor which indicates that, whilst it may succeed in capturing the experiences of wider populations, it does not achieve this effectively thus making the methodology redundant. An example of this was seen in the Menchú-controversy, where historian David Stoll criticised Menchú’s claim that she had produced a story of the universal Guatemalan experience in I, Rigoberta Menchú (1983). Stoll claimed details in Menchú’s testimony were inconsistent with his own fieldwork carried out on the Maya civilisation, which prompted critic Arturo Arias to address the tensions in oral history this controversy exposed. He argued that on one hand the methodology seeks to transform subordinates into a “speaking subject”, yet it also challenges historical tradition in verifying the “factuality of her mediated discourse” as “subaltern subjects are forced to use the discourse of the colonizer to express their subjectivity.” This would suggest oral history does not capture the experiences of a wider population as the risk of amalgamating experiences of the suppressed annuls what oral history initially set out to accomplish, by de-individualising experiences and continuing to deprive unheard voices of an authentic voice.

Proponents of oral history, such as Alessandro Portelli, respond to this criticism by claiming the method’s biggest weaknesses are, paradoxically, its biggest strength and that its value does not lie in accuracy or objectivity, but instead its ability to “tell us a good deal about psychological costs”. Likewise, he argued oral histories provide historians with a fresh way of understanding the past in terms of continuity, and why individuals recall their pasts in certain ways. Inconsistences in interviews also force historians to ponder why a collective body of people reflect on an event so differently. Criticisms of the hypothesis are subsequently negated as it is evident oral history methodologies are capable of capturing the experiences of wider populations as, particularly when used during recollections of tragedy, emotions displayed by interviewees evoke a new lease of information pertaining to psychological cost. Inconsistences between stories of those forgotten in history also prompt valuable questions, and provide historians (primarily in the social sector) with diverse information that can contribute towards the prevention of subordinate’s experiences being universalised.

To conclude, the hypothesis “oral history methodologies have enabled historians to write the history of a wider range of populations” is of great accuracy as this revisionist approach to history resolves the issues created by traditions of Great Man theory by encouraging greater participation from history’s unheard voices. The method succeeds in opening new areas of enquiry through shifting the focus from prominent politicians, military officers, diplomats and business leaders to victims of tragic events, such as genocide and war, as well as those from marginalised groups e.g. women, workers, ethnic minorities and LGBT groups. Whilst unreliability may be naturally embedded within its acquisition of information, historians can better grasp the complexity of issues, particularly issues which have not previously been at the forefront of history, and with the combination of both individual and community recollection, the creation of a consistent (not homogenised) historical narrative is made possible.