Oral History and Public Memories was another excellent introduction to a subfield of public history. I liked the editor’s premise that oral history and the academic discipline of memory studies ought to collaborate more since their communities of practice are very similar. Of the individual chapters, my favorite was probably the very first one by David Neufeld. Not only does it bring out the special dynamics of oral history as opposed to the more traditional textual historical approach favored by the Canadian Park Service, it also gets to some of the core difficulties of the modern movement towards including the perspective of marginalized groups in historical accounts. What should be done when the perspective of these groups is so radically different from one’s own that it cannot be integrated within the same framework, in this case western science? The idea of presenting “two cultures side by side” is better than letting the dominant culture to continue to dominate the historical narrative, but this approach also raises questions about how cultural reconciliation can take place in a context of separation.
Another overriding theme of the book is the importance of oral history as unmitigated source material. Nothing is more effective in combating stereotypes than listening to the direct experiences of actual, complex human beings, irrespective of how trustworthy such contributions are as objective facts. Riki Van Boeschoten exemplified this in his fantastic observations about student interactions with Albanian immigrants in Greece. The parallels with our own country are starkly obvious. The same observation occurred to me when I listened to my Studs Terkel interview. I heard a 1968 interview with Jimmy White, a former Chicago gang leader and high school dropout. However, the majority of the interview related to White’s observations on the education system, his appreciation of poetry, and beliefs about society, not areas of interest traditionally associated with street gangs. Studs Terkel is amazing.
The focus on oral histories as verified sources of historical knowledge was interesting. Basically these accounts can bring a great deal of the subjectivity of historical accounts actually plays into the historical record. Just because someone took the time to write something doesn't mean that it more true than something that was formulated off the cuff in response to a series of questioning. At very least its a form of phenomenological account of what was happening in the interviewee's mind at the time of the recording, but I may be waxing philosophical.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about Studs Terkel :) I also enjoyed the chapter about Parks Canada and the difficulties they face as they try to present different versions of history. It's important that the narratives of the native people of Canada have their stories heard, breaking out of the Laurentian thesis. I really like your point about the side by side method of presentation; how indeed can reconciliation occur if narratives are kept separate? Is there a way to combine the stories to tell the history of Canada?
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see how oral history can be used to combat stereotypes and as a tool in activism. Before reading Oral History and Public Memories, I knew that oral history provides common people with a voice. The text brought the point home about the role of oral history in historical research and society. I thoroughly enjoyed Riki Van Boeschoten's chapter for the reasons you pointed out. She used oral history to challenge these evasive stereotypes in Greek culture. You raised an interesting idea about oral history combating stereotypes in America, but I wonder how possible this truly is. We have learned that age, gender, race affect the information shared during interviews and the relationship between interviewer and interviewee.
ReplyDelete