Writing history can be a complicated endeavor. One would say that the most complicated parts of writing history are making sure your thesis is crystal clear with a sound argument, and sources that resonate harder than any other peer-reviewed study. Yes those are the hard parts but when delving deep into sociological, cultural, and political questions they tend to revolve around a key part about sources, are they dead or are they alive? This is truly where things get complicated.
A dead source tends to be a little easier to work with. Their arguments, however they are recorded, tend to be set in stone and they can’t exactly rise up and argue the contrary. Their arguments however much they flexed and evolved during their lifetime are now set in stone because well, they’re dead and they can no longer change what they said. They can’t oppose your writings, give you support, or even condemn you. Their place is fixed in stone (as long as we truly have everything they wrote and created).
But this brings us to the other question, what about sources that are alive? Sherri Tucker, in her writings on gender, race, and sexuality in When Subjects Don’t Come Out faces a complication when using sources that are very much alive. When talking to the sources she interviewed she wanted them to talk about sexuality, but the cast majority of them simply would not. Her writings about sexuality in gender in the 1940s is exactly what makes those sources difficult to dissect. The 40’s to today and all throughout the history of human society were bound by socio-political and cultural expectations that surrounded everyone during their lives. Tucker was trying to get an answer from her subjects about a topic that was extremely controversial and it’s pretty hard to respect privacy when you’re writing a historical paper meant to be reviewed and shared. The issue with her subjects was precisely that they were bound by the aforementioned societal expectations, while dead people aren’t. People’s behaviors in their life whether right or wrong can be deemed controversial and have the ability to significantly impact their life based on the reaction of people under the influence of societal expectations. The point i’m trying to make is that a dead source and an alive source are completely different and therefore, should be treated as such.
Ultimately as I write my piece about wealth and income disparities due to COVID-19 I have to respect the sources I talk about. Most of whom are alive. Even though my question is distanced from the individual and focused more on the nature of economic situations I have to respect a conflict of duality. As I conduct my research I have to make sure I respect the dignity of the people who have been condemned to poverty, without placing blame on them, while also respecting their individuality and agency.
Sherrie Tucker, “When Subjects Don’t Come Out,” in Queer Episodes in Music and Modern Identity, ed. Sophie Fuller and Lloyd Whitesell (University of Illinois Press,2002), 305.