(insert institution)
In recent decades, the study of oral history has gained increased significance in the study of history of the common person. The Oral History Reader highlights the potential of oral history to reshape historical understanding as well as its value in cultures all over the world while also recognizing the limitations of the form as a source of the people.
Oral history shows the greatest promise in its ability to include information from the marginalized across many cultures into the historical narrative. Until recently, the historical narrative focused on the concerns of the elite because historians “had developed no interest in the point of view of the labourer, unless he was specifically troublesome, nor—being men—would they have wished to inquire into the changing life experiences of women,” (Thompson, 1988, pp. 26-27). This central focus vastly undercuts the written information available from these classes, which made up a significant majority of the population. Therefore, in order to gain information on the daily lives of the common person, one must turn to a source that is not the property of the elite. Fortunately, every culture possesses a custom of oral history, whether it be the painstakingly maintained training of the griots of Africa or merely the conversations and reminisces of the working class family in Europe or America. Each of these sources serves not only to preserve history in places where writing is unavailable but also to document the feelings about and meanings of events to the common man (Portelli, 1979). These very discoveries are often the meat of historical debate among primary written sources. It only seems valid that this information is just as legitimate when culled from oral sources.
However, the mass study and analysis of oral sources may not represent the people as completely as some might hope. As discussed by Portelli (1979), in order to gain a complete picture of the experiences of the common man, one must extract every bit of information from every possible source, a task which is impossible. While this task is impossible for one person or even a team of people, it becomes inefficient if pursued by every single person hoping to get a more accurate interpretation about just one event. Fortunately for the sake of convenience, a researcher often distributes their findings, which are still incomplete, through writing. However, step only serves to separate the story and witness from the subject and place it in the hands of the historian, who edits and twists the evidence to fit his presented findings (Portelli, 1979). The translation curiously places the experience of the common man at the service of the elite, which incidentally led to simplification of recorded history hundreds of years ago. Even with the increased importance of considering all sources to bring about new understandings of the past, one must consider that all sources still maintain their own bias. Consequently, while oral source offer an invigorating look at the past, they still fall prey to issues present in any form of historical interpretation.
References
Thompson, P. (1988). The voice of the past: Oral history. In R. Perks and A. Thompson (Eds.), The oral history reader. (2nd ed.). (pp. 25-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Portelli, A. (1979). What makes oral history different. In R. Perks and A. Thompson (Eds.), The oral history reader. (2nd ed.). (pp. 25-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
