Ans. Oral history is a brand of historiography which focus on the study of historical information about individuals and families, local areas and communities, important events and on ordinary people and groups by means of planned interviews, audiotapes, videotapes or by other oral modes; and it is generally ignored by the mainstream historiography. Oral history can be seen as the earliest form of historical inquiry; it predates even the written word. It employ methodologies with roots both in the pre-modern and modern historiographies. By concentrating on the small scale and on the ordinary people, it contest the dominant historical discourses of both pre-modern and modern periods.
The boundaries of oral history are extremely porous. It crosses the lines between the pre-modern and the modern periods; between the pre-literate and literate cultures; between individual and collective, and between the subject and the writer. Ronald J. Grele, in his entry on 'Oral History' writes, "when oral historians or those who use the term oral history in their writing, describe what it is they do, they mix genres with abandon. Sometimes what is being described is oral tradition; at others life history, life review, or life course. For some oral historians the practice is the collection of interviews for archival purposes, to provide a record for the future. For others it is the conduct of interviews for particular publications or public history projects, and for still others it is a pathway to community empowerment. In recent years oral history has become a noun, the thing itself is the thing being collected, rather than the activity for interviewing for historical purposes. Indeed there is even debate over whether oral historians simply collect oral histories or create them".
Jan Vansina, great oral historian who has worked in Africa, writes, "oral traditions have a part to play in the reconstruction of the past. The importance of this part varies according to place and time. It is a part similar to that played by written sources because both are message from the past to present, and messages are key elements in historical reconstruction. But the relationship is not one of the diva and her understudy in the opera; when the star cannot sing the understudy appears; when writing fails, tradition comes on stage. This is wrong. Whenever oral traditions are extant they remain an indispensable source for reconstruction. They correct other perspectives just as much as other perspectives correct it".
It is clear that the lines are drawn between the mainstream history which relies almost exclusively on written sources and the oral history which accords great significance to the oral sources for reconstruction of the past. It should, however, be recognised that oral history now is not simply concerned with enriching the archives by collecting interviews. Instead, it has matured into a branch of historiography which seeks to understand forms of subjective experiences, popular beliefs, memory, myth, perceptions and consciousness have all become legitimate grounds for exploration by oral historians
Despite disparagement from the mainstream historians, the oral historians have broken new grounds and produced many works of great quality. Paul Thompson's, "The Voice of the Past: Oral History (1978)", joins issue with positivist and empiricist orientation of much of historiography and seeks to correct it. It is, moreover, concerned about the presentation of history of those who have been neglected not only by the professional historiography but also in the written sources. The death of Luigi Trastulli, and other Stories (1991), Alessandra Portell's insightful study of the Italian workers and of people of several Appalachian communities in United States, is a great contribution to oral history. There are several formal and informal oral history associations in many other countries. There have been several international level seminars and conferences on oral history. From these developments it is clear that oral history has arrived on the international scene as an important historiographical practice. However, there is a creative tension which oral history faces in its efforts to produce history which can equal the document based history in richness. Even those advocating the use of oral sources concede that there are certain problems involved in it. Thus Eric Hobsbawm writes that, "most oral history today is personal memory, which is a remarkably slippery medium for preserving facts. The point is that memory is not so much a recording as a selective mechanism, and the selection is, within limits, constantly changing". He argues that the importance of such history is not just to record facts but to understand the mentalities of peoples.
Conclusion
Oral history has matured into a branch of historiography which seeks to understand all forms of subjective experiences. Now, it hold great promise for being a new kind of historiographical effort which is involved in not just the creation of documents of the heretofore ignored populations but the ways in which those in the community become their own historians and present their history. It attempt to capture the lives of little people and neglected communities; and help communities to develop an identity and reconstitute themselves.
Reference:
- IGNOU MHI textbooks
DISCLAIMER: This platform is intended to guide students how to write/study their respective subjects. This is a sample text, you can make it more valuable in your own words. All the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment