Post One:
From what I have learned so far, I understand Oral History to be a way in which information and history is passed down from generation to generation through stories spoken to one another either informally or through interview. Shopes (2002, p.g 3) describes it to be “at its heart, a dialogue… encouraging the narrator to remember details seeking to clarify that which is muddled, making connections…challenging contradictions”, yet Leavy (2011, Chapter 1, p.g 4) comments on the “confusion” between “oral traditions” and “oral history”: Oral Traditions refer to the passing down of stories through different generations of people, whereas Oral history is “a method of collecting narratives from individuals for the purpose of research”. (Leavy, 2011, p.g 4).
This implies that oral history is more focused on understanding the past as a whole, whereas oral tradition is the understanding of one’s ancestors and how they lived. There is not as much need for complete accuracy or filling in the blanks, it is more of a bonded retelling of history to keep alive through storytelling.
The research and finding of oral history is generally done through interview with people of whom were present in that moment in history. Leavy discusses the role of the researcher and how “(They) actively participate in the knowledge building process” (2011, Chapter 4, p.g 8). This not only highlights the influence on the interview the researcher can have but also how beneficial it can be to allow the interview to change and evolve as the more accurate tellings of history may be achieved this way. Leavy further implies at this, commenting that “research is viewed as fluid, adaptable and malleable…the goals of this research vary greatly, and might include exploration, description, explanation, theory building or social action.” (2011, Chapter 4, p.g 8).
Due to the inevitability that the retelling of history will be subjective in one way or another, if the researcher allows their interviewee to explain themselves and work through their memories and understandings of history, there is a better chance that the researcher will not affect the subjectivity of the account quite as much. This way there may be a more honest portrayal of the person being interviewed and their story as opposed to what the researcher wishes their story to appear as.
Post Two:
An example of Oral History that inspires me is the telling of Women’s involvement and their stories in the second world war. Although there are very general accounts and records of women’s involvement in the second World War, the oral histories of the actual experiences of being in war is something that inspires me because it is more honest and interesting, but one can also further deepen their understanding and awareness of life in that time in history. Lenart-Cheng reviews the writings of Svetlana Alexievich, a writer who was born three years after the World War II but was interested in interviewing women as they had not been as included in the war history she was taught in school. In Lenart Cheng’s review she recounds Alexievich having interviewed “more than 200 of these stories by women who served in the Soviet army as surgeons, nurses, pilots, snipers, mechanics, partisans and machine gunners.” (2018, p.g 2). The writer also highlights the honesty and accuracy of the horrors of what the women spoke about to Alexievich; “These women whispered, wept, and wailed, not in public, but among themselves, and their voices were telling a different story, about a different war. A war of smells, sounds, fears and laughs.” (2018, p.g 2). This not only inspires me to explore the powers of Oral History but to also acknowledge how it can tell untold stories and really add to a bigger picture of a historic event from more than one perspective. Oral history can prevent people’s voices and legacies from being forgotten regardless of how good or bad they were.
Post Three:
Having been to The Captiol Theatre I immediately decided that whatever project I decide to do, it has to include visuals. Even if that be photos of the building from decades before or simply the iphone videos we as a class took on the day we visited. The fact that this building is a cinema and has been dedicated to cinema for so long, it would only make sense to film a video based oral history around it so that the audience is able to visualize what stories they are hearing and can picture it more accurately. Having been to Screen Worlds (first) this exhibit was really helpful in showing me how engaging a multitude of media representations can be and that the more that can be incorporated into what I make (within reason), the better it could be (potentially). This could mean having just text on the screen with the audio of an interview, video/photo montages of the theatre and possibly archival footage, as well as the interviewee themselves along with music that suits the subject matter.
Personally, after thinking about it, I would like to make a video based project that interviews students from our class in the present day about what we knew of the theatre and our experiences visiting it, as well as exploring its history through interviewing people who were apart of it and could have more insight into its history and evolution, so that there is a link between that the Capitol was, became and is now for us as students and audiences. Having people tell their stories of how they lived through the Capitol would be an amazing part to add to our projects as although having old footage and photographs would engage the viewer, the telling of personal stories be it simple or complex in the subject matter would give the audience more context in what the building was really like to be in many years ago.
Reference List:
Shopes, L., 2002, “What is Oral History”, History Matters: The U.S. Survey Course on the Web, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/
Leavy, P., 2011, “Oral History”, Oxford University Press, New York
Lenart- Cheng, H., 2018, The unwomanly face of war: an oral history of women in World War II, Slavonica, 23:1,69-70, DOI: 10.1080/13617427.2018.1473102