Word of Mouth

No assigned books to read for now. This week is a review of Oral History, or more precisely, the best practices of an Oral Historian.



We were given quite a few sources to read over. The main one being an excerpt from Public History: Essays from the Field titled Oral Historians: Community Oral History and the Cooperative Ideal (I'm starting to think in academia the length of the title is in direct relation to the number of letters that follow the name of the writer. Of course, that could just be me.)



The main points of this week are not only the importance of Oral History, but the importance of collecting narratives in an appropriate manner. One of the best points mentioned was that the interviewer may not agree or like what the interviewee is saying. However, it is the job of the historian to create an honest record.



That really resonates: an honest record. What does that mean? And if we're to interview people, how are we to get an honest record? To find that out, ask any lawyer, psych, or writer: the truth is subjective. The truth is what we see or perceive. Whether it is witnessed from differing angles or distances, that is still the truth as we know it to be. Therefore, our account of it would be honest, to us at least. Unfiltered, undiluted from another party.



Our job as historians is to produce that honest record. Whether the subject presents a slant that is offensive, sexist, or prejudiced. That is their truth and it is our duty to record it. Now we don't have to be ridiculous and maintain a tunnel vision in this pursuit. An individuals' truth may be discredited by historical evidence. Then it is our duty to present that, as well. Not to call out anyone as a “liar,” but to show that while others truths state one thing, fact and record show another.

Oral Historian's play an important part, though. Text cannot convey tone. That's a statement I have made countless times over the years (usually in regards to someone disliking the "tone" of my text... That's a story for another time.) With oral history we are able to not only record the account, but do so in a way that maintains that person's language, syntax, and emotions. With electronic devices so readily available now, we are able to record the sound of a person's voice. Their deep baritone, their gentle laugh, accents and unique pronunciations. These qualities in and of themselves can give so much insight into the circumstances the subject is telling about. And it is a vital piece.


Overall what I've learned this week is that Oral Historians have to play a balancing act. Present the facts, as unbiased as possible. Conduct an interview that allows the subject to give their account freely and un-coerced, but still keeping them on track of the overall goal. Maintain sound equipment, but set in a way that doesn't distract from the process. Be certain to have all forms are signed appropriately, but make the subject feel more as if you are having a chat than a legal brief.



Turns out an Oral Historian is psychologist, sociologist, historian, mediator, legal clerk,  writer, and confidant. Quite a few hats to be wearing all at once. I can't help but wonder what the response would be to someone like that in my hometown. Where I come from, people will talk. It's about all there is to do there. Everybody knows everybody's story way back into their great-granddaddy and beyond. You get one of us started and eventually you will be talking to half the town before sunset. I suppose in some ways we could be considered a dream for an Oral Historian. Yet, considering all that paperwork, details, planning, researching, recording, and writing that goes into what's an everyday occurrence for them... Well, I can't help but wonder what someone like my Granny would say about all of it. "Lot of effort, yer puttin' in fer somethin' that's just word of mouth."













Gardner, James B., and Peter S. LaPaglia. "Oral Historians: Community Oral History and the Cooperative Ideal." In Public History: Essays from the Field. Malabar, FL: Krieger Pub., 1999.