Lynn Abrams, in her work Oral History Theory, demonstrates what makes an oral history interview a unique historical document. The distinction lies in the practice, during the interview. Abrams describes the interview “is a communicative event,” where the worlds – or “subjectivities” – of the interviewer and subject/narrator collide. (p. 10). Analyzing oral history interviews requires not just reading what’s said, but also what’s unsaid. An array of variables – class, gender, age, ethnicity, cultural norms – constantly act upon both parties and impact the storytelling. Therefore, oral historians must “employ theories from other disciplines in order to interpret its significance to the narrator and within culture,” requiring them to be “more theoretically promiscuous than most in the historical profession.” (pgs. 16-7). Oral history is ripe for methodological experimentation, and Abrams provides researchers with approaches to adopt throughout the oral history process in a variety of situations.
As a professor, Abrams’ piece is a guide for students of oral history based on her curriculum at the University of Glasgow. Three themes pervade Abrams’ work. The first reframes the interview as a collaboration. Each interview is a “three-way conversation [among] the interviewee with him/herself, with the interviewer and with culture,” leaving both the “interviewer as well as the narrator [present] in the creation of the oral history.” (p. 54). The interviewer is not an objective observer – rather, they affect it – and so become part of the story told, or co-create it. The interviewer’s questions, tone, and background shape the story as much as the narrator’s memories do. Abrams transforms oral history from a method to a theory of human experience, and in this, reminds students to be reflexive of their involvement in the story creation. The second discusses how people make meaning through storytelling itself. “Memory is at the heart of this book,” she writes, “and at the core of this book.” (p. 78). Abrams expands the concept of memory, not just relegating it to personal recollection but expanding it to collective significance. “One person’s memory,” Abrams writes, “operates within a wider context that includes memory produced and maintained by family, community and public representations.” (p. 79). Memory is both individual and collective. Rather than evidence against oral history’s lack of veracity, Abrams advocates it evinces how the past continues to live in the present and encourages oral historians to adopt methodologies outside the history field to better understand memory so they can more effectively analyze it. The third emphasizes narrative and identity. As a way people make sense of – and communicate – their experiences to others, narrative “is not merely the content of the story, but the telling of it. (p. 106). It arranges and dramatizes the story, incorporating a sequence of events alongside emphasis, structure, and silences. Narrative construction underscores the performative aspect of the interview, as “an oral history narrative is first and foremost a performance of words.” (p. 130). The oral historian’s task is to listen for these cultural scripts while also attending to narrative or rhetorical moments – like hesitations, vocalizations, etc. – where individualism and culture shine.
Ultimately, Abrams illustrates listening is an interpretive act. To record a voice is to enter into a relationship with another person’s version of history. This practice needs to be carefully conducted with application of methodologies from other disciplines. Doing so will not only expand what we know about the past but also transform how we understand truth itself.
Bibliography:
Abrams, Lynn. Oral History Theory. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.