portelli, a. the peculiarities of oral history. (history workshop)

7/23/2019 Portelli, A. the Peculiarities of Oral History. (History Workshop)

1/13

The Peculiarities of Oral HistoryAuthor(s): Alessandro PortelliSource: History Workshop, No. 12 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 96-107Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288379 .

Accessed: 04/04/2013 23:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory

Workshop.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:07:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4288379?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4288379?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/13

The Peculiaritiesof OralHistory*by Alessandro Portelli

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fA- ;-_ s .. . ~~~~~7 A- s{- - --v ,t_-


3/13

Peculiarities f OralHistory 97subservientto 'foreign discoveries') - and even more waryof those who suggestgoingoutside - has hastened to cut oral history down to size before even trying tounderstandwhat it is and how to use it. The method usedhas been that of chargingoralhistory with pretensions it does not have, in order to set the academicians' minds atease by refuting them. For instance La Repubblica, the most intellectually and inter-nationally oriented of Italiandailiesrushes to dismiss 'descriptions"from below" andthe artificialpackagesof "oral history" wherethingsaresupposedto move and talk bythemselves', without even stopping to notice that it is not things, but people, that areexpected to move and talk in oral history (albeit people normally considered as nomore than 'things').

Thereseems to be a fear that once the floodgates of oralityareopened, writing (andrationality along with it) may be swept out as if by a spontaneous uncontrollable massof fluid, irrational material. But this attitude blinds us to the fact that our awe ofwriting has distorted our perception of language and communication to the pointwhere we no longer understand either orality or the nature of writing itself.2 As amatter of fact, writtenand oral sources are not mutuallyexclusive. Theyhave commoncharacteristicsas well as autonomous and specific functions which only either one canfill (or which one set of sources fills better than the other); therefore, they requiredifferent and specific interpretativeinstruments. But the undervaluingand the over-valuing of oral sources end up by cancellingout specific qualities, turningthem eitherinto mere supports for traditional written sources or into an illusory cure for all ills.These notes will attempt to suggest some of the ways in which oral history is intrin-sically different.

* * *

Oralsources are oral sources. Scholars arewillingto admit that the actual document isthe recorded tape; but almost all go on to work on the transcripts, and it is onlytranscripts that are published. (One Italian exception is the Istituto Ernesto DeMartino, a Milan-based militant research organisation, which has been publishing'sound archives' on records for at least 12 years, without anyone in the culturalestablishment noticing.)3 Occasionally - as seems to be the case with the ColumbiaUniversity Oral History Program, in New York -tapes are actually destroyed: asymbolic case of the destructionof the spoken word. The transcriptturnsaural objectsinto visual ones, which inevitably implies reduction and manipulation. The differingefficacy of recordingsascomparedto transcriptsfor classroompurposes, for instance,can only be appreciatedby directexperience. More important is the fact that expectingthe transcript to replace the tape for scientific purposes is equivalent to doing artcriticismon reproductions, or literarycriticism on translations. (Thisis why Ibelieve itis unnecessary to give excessive attention to the quest for new and closer methods oftranscription.The most literaltranslation is hardly everthe best; a truly faithful trans-lation always implies a certainamount of invention, and the same may be true for thetranscriptionof oral sources.)The disregard of the orality of oral sources has a direct bearing on interpretativetheory. The first aspect which is usually stressed is the origin of oral sources - in thatthey give us information about illiteratepeoples or social groupswhose history is eitherabsent or distorted in the written record. Another aspect concerns content: the dailylife and materialcultureof these peoples or groups. However, these are not specific tooral sources:emigrants'letters, for instance, have the same originand content, but areInthe searchfor a distinguishing factor we must therefore turn to form. We hardly

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/13

98 HistoryWorkshopournalneed repeat here that writingreduces anguage o segmentary raits only-letters,syllables,words,phrases.But anguagesalsocomposed f another etof traits,whichcannot be reducedwithin a singlesegment,but are also bearersof meaning.Forinstance,thasbeenshown hatthe tonalrange,volumerange,andrhythm f popularspeechcarrymanyclassconnotationswhicharenotreproduciblenwriting unless tbe, inadequately nd partially,n the formof musicalnotation).5The samestatementmayhavequitecontradictorymeanings, ccordingo thespeaker'sntonation,whichcannotbe detectednthe transcript ut canonlybedescribed, pproximately.Inorder o make hetranscripteadablet isusuallynecessaryo insertpunctuationmarks, which are always the more or less arbitrary ddition of the transcriber.Punctuation ndicatespausesdistributed ccordingo grammatical ules:eachmarkhas a conventionalplace, meaningandlength.Thesehardlyever coincidewiththerhythms ndpausesof the speakingubject,andtherefore ndup by confining peechwithingrammatical nd logicalruleswhich t doesnot necessarilyollow.The exactlengthandpositionof the pausehasanimportant unctionntheunderstandingf themeaning f speech: egular rammatical auses end'o organisewhat s saidaroundabasicallyexpositoryandreferential attern,whereaspausesof irregularengthandpositionaccentuate he emotional ontent;veryheavyrhythmic auses often nearlymetric)recall he styleof epic narratives.6Most interviews witchfrom one typeofrhythmo another, husexpressingariationsnthe narrator'sttitudeowardshisorhermaterial.Of course, his can only be perceived y listening,notby reading.

A similarpointcan be madeconcerninghe velocityof speechand its changesduring heinterview.Thereareno basic nterpretativeules: lowingdownmaymeangreater mphasis swellas greater ifficulty,andaccelerationmayshowa wish oglideover certainpoints, as well as greater amiliarity nd ease. In all thesecases, theanalysisof changesnvelocitymustbe combinedwithrhythm nalysis.Changes re,however,the normin speech,while regularity s the 'presumed'norm in reading,wherevariations re ntroduced ythereader ather hanthetext itself.This is not a questionof philologicalpurity.Traitswhichcannotbe reduced osegments rethe site(not unique,butvery mportant) f essentialnarrativeunctions:the emotional unction,the narrator'sparticipationn the story,the way the storyaffectsthe narrator.Thisofteninvolvesattitudeswhich hespeakerwouldnotbeable(or willing) o expressotherwise,or elementswhich arenot fullywithinhis or hercontrol.By abolishinghese raits,we flatten heemotional ontentof speechdown othepresumed quanimity ndobjectivity f thewrittendocument.This is evenmoretruewhen folk informantsare involved: hey may be poor in vocabularybut aregenerally icherntherangeof tone, volume,and ntonation,ascomparedo middle-classspeakers7 hohave earned o imitate nspeech hedullness f writing.* * *

Oralsourcesarenarrative ources.Therefore he analysisof oralhistorymaterialsmustavail tselfof someof thegeneral ategories evelopednthe theoryof literature.(OfcoursehereI amdiscussing rimarilyhetestimony iven nfree nterviews,atherthan more formally organised materialssuch as songs or proverbs wherethequestionof form however s even more essential.)For example,some narrativescontain ubstantialhifts n the'velocity'of narration:hat ssubstantial ariationsnthe ratio betweenthe durationof the events describedand the durationof thenarration.8 n informantmayrecountna fewwordseventswhich asteda longtime,



5/13

Peculiarities f OralHistory 99or may dwellat lengthon briefepisodes.Theseoscillations resignificant, lthoughwe cannot establisha generalnorm of interpretation: narratormay dwell on anepisodewhichseems nnocuous o distractattention rommoredelicatepoints,or toattractattention o it. In all cases there s a relationship etween he velocityof thenarrativeand the meaningthe narratorhas in mind. The same applies to othercategories mong hose elaborated y GerardGenette see note 8), suchas 'distance'or 'perspective',whichdefinethepositionof the narrator owards hestory.Oralsources romnon-ruling lassesare inked o the tradition f the folknarra-tive. Inthis tradition,distinctionsbetweennarrative enresare perceived ifferentlythan nthe written radition f the educated lasses.9 incewritinghas absorbedmostof the functionsof certification,official testimonyand educationalprocess, oralnarrationn a literate ocietyfinds t less necessaryo establish rigorousdistinctionbetween factual'and 'artistic'narrative,between events'and feelingsandimagi-nation. The perception f an accountas 'true' is relevantas much to legendas topersonal xperiencendhistoricalmemory; ndastherearenooralforms pecificallydestined to transmithistorical nformation,'0historical,'poetical' and legendarynarrativeoften becomeinextricablymixed up. The resultis narrativeswheretheboundarybetweenwhat takesplaceoutsidethe narrator nd whathappens nside,betweenwhatconcernshimor herand whatconcerns hegroup,becomesquite hin,andpersonal truth'maycoincidewithcollective imagination'.Eachof these actors anberevealed yformalandstylistic actors.Thegreater rlesserpresence f formalisedmaterialsproverbs, ongs,formulaicanguage, tereo-types)can be a witness oa greater rlesserpresence f the collective iewpointwithinthe individualnarrator's ale. The shifts betweenstandard correct' anguageanddialectareoftena signof the kindof controlwhich hespeakerhas over hematerialsof the narrative. or nstance, typical ecurringtructures that n which he standardlanguages usedoverall,whiledialectcropsupin digressions r singleepisodes: hismayshow a morepersonalnvolvement f the narrator r (as is the casewhendialectcoincideswitha moreformulaic r standardised ccount) he intrusionof collectivememory.On the otherhand,standardanguagemayemergena dialectnarrativeortermsorthemesmoreclosely inkedwiththe public phere, uchas 'politics';and thismaymeana moreor less consciousdegreeof estrangement,Ias well as a processof'conquest'of a more'educated' ormof expressionbeginningwithparticipationnpolitics.Conversely,he dialectisation f technical ermsof political peechmaybeanimportant ignof thevitality f traditionalulture,andof theway nwhich hespeakerendeavourso enlargeheexpressiveangeof hisor hertradition.

* * *

Thefirstthing hat makesoralhistorydifferent, herefore,s that t tellsus lessabouteventsas suchthanabouttheirmeaning.Thisdoesnot imply hatoralhistoryhasnofactualnterest;nterviews ften revealunknown ventsorunknown spects f knownevents,andtheyalways ast new ighton unexploredidesof thedaily ife of the non-hegemonic lasses.From his pointof view, the only problemposedbyoralsources sthat of theircredibility to whichIwillreturnbelow).But theuniqueand precious lementwhichoral sources orceuponthe historianand whichno othersourcespossess nequalmeasureunlesst beliterary nes)is thespeaker's ubjectivity:ndtherefore,f theresearchs broadandarticulatednough,across-section f thesubjectivity f a socialgrouporclass.Theytellusnotjustwhat



6/13

100 HistoryWorkshopournalpeopledid,butwhat heywanted o do, what heybelievedheyweredoing,what heynowthink heydid. Oral ourcesmaynot addmuch o whatwe knowof, forinstance,thematerial ost of a givenstrike o theworkersnvolved;buttheytellusagooddealabout its psychologicalosts. Borrowing literary ategory romthe Russian orm-alists,wemightsay that oral sources aboveall,oral sources rom henon-hegemonicclasses) are a very useful integrationof other sources as far as the fabula-orstory goes: thatis, thelogicalandcausalsequence f events;butwhatmakes hemuniqueandnecessarystheirplot theway nwhich henarratorrrangesmaterialsnorder o tellthe story. 2The organisation f the narrativesubjecto ruleswhicharemostly the resultof collectiveelaboration) evealsa greatdealof the speakers' e-lationship o theirownhistory.Subjectivitys as much hebusiness f historyas the morevisible facts'. What heinformantbelieves s indeeda historicalfact that s, thefactthathe orshe believest)justas muchas what'really'happened.Forinstance,overhalfof the workers nter-viewedntheindustrialown of Terni ell thestoryof theirpostwar trikesplacinghekillingof aworkerbythepolice n 1953 atherhan,as itreallyhappened,n 1949;heyalso shift it fromone contextto another froma peacedemonstrationo the urbanguerilla trugglewhichfollowedmass ayoffs at thelocalsteelworks).Thisobviouslydoes not cast doubton the actualchronology;but it does forceus to rearrange urinterpretationf events norder o recognise hecollectiveprocesses f symbolisationand myth-making n the Terni workingclass which sees those years as oneuninterruptedtrugglexpressed yaunifying ymbol thedeadcomrade), ather hanas a successionof separateevents. Or again:an ageingformer eaderof Terni'sCommunist arty, iredand ll,recounts s historicalruthadaydreamf his,inwhichhe sees himself on the vergeof overturninghe CP's postwarpolicyof workingtowardsa 'progressive emocracy' n alliancewith bourgeoisforcesratherthanpushingon fromanti-fascistesistanceo socialism.Ofcourse,he neverdidplaysucha role, although t doessymbolisehe resistancewhich he so-called Salernopolicy'metwith nside heparty.Whathistestimonymakesus feel sthe psychological ost ofthispolicyformanymilitantworkers,how it caused heirneed anddesire or revo-lutionto beburiedwithin he collectiveunconscious.13Whenwe find the samestorytoldbyadifferentperson na differentpartof thecountry,weunderstandhat heoldcomrade's antasy n Terniis not just a chanceoccurrence. t is ratherpartof aburgeoningegendary omplex, nwhichare oldas trueevents hatatleastpartof theworking lasswisheshad happened.The 'senileramblings' f a sickold worker hencanrevealas muchabouthis classandpartyas thelengthyand ucidwrittenmemoirsof some of themorerespected ndofficialleaders.4

* * *

The credibility f oral sources s a differentcredibility.Theexamples havegivenaboveshowhow theimportancef oral estimonymayoften lie not inits adherenceofacts but rather n its divergenceromthem,where magination, ymbolism,desirebreak n. Therefore here are no 'false' oral sources. Once we have checkedtheirfactualcredibilitywith all the established riteriaof historicalphilological riticismthatapplyto everydocument, he diversityof oralhistoryconsists n the fact that'untrue'statementsare still psychologicallytrue',and thattheseprevious errors'sometimes evealmorethanfactually ccurate ccounts.Of course, the does not implyacceptance f the dominantprejudicewhichsees



7/13

Peculiarities f OralHistory 101factual credibility as a monopoly of written sources. The official police report on thedeath of the Terni worker discussed above begins with theserevealingwords: 'Accord-ing to verbal information taken. . . 'This is a typical opening formula (in the technicalsense) of such official documents, and it shows how many writtensources areonly anuncontrolled transmission of lost oral sources. A large part of the written documentswhich are granted an automatic certificate of credibility by historians are the resultofsimilar processes, carried out with nothing resembling scientific criteria and nearlyalways with a heavy class bias. For example, this manipulation is inherent in thetranscriptionof trial records (in Italian procedure at least, which accordsno legalvalueto the tape recorderor even to shorthand): what goes on record is not the words of thewitnesses, but a version of their testimony translatedinto legal jargon literally dictatedby the judge to the clerk. (The judiciary's fear of the tape recorder s equalled only bythe similar prejudiceof many historians.) The distortion inherentin such a procedureis beyond assessment, especially when the speakersarenot membersof the hegemonicclass and express themselves in a language twice removed from that of court records.And yet, many historians who turn up their noses at oral sources accept these legaltranscriptswithout blinking. Ina lesser measure (thanksto the lesser classdistanceandthe frequent use of shorthand) this applies to parliamentary records, newspaperinterviews, minutes of meetings and conventions, which together form the chiefsources for much traditional history, including labour history.

A strange by-productof this prejudiceis the insistencethat oral sources aredistantfrom events and therefore undergo distortions derivingfrom faulty memory. Now, bydefinition, the only act contemporarywith the act of writingis writing itself. There isalwaysa greateror lesserlapseof time between the event and the writtenrecord, if onlythe time necessary to put it down in writing (unless of course we are talking aboutcontracts, wills, treaties, etc, where the writing is the event). In fact, historians haveoften used written sources which were written long after the actual events. And indeedif lack of distance is a requisite, this ought to include physical distance as well - that is,only a directparticipant ought to be consideredreliable,and only at the moment of theevent. But it so happens that such evidence can only be taken with a tape recorder, ashappened with interviews recorded duringthe housing strugglesin Rome in the 1970s,where the words of squatters and police were recorded at the time of the evictions. 5

It is truehoweverthat most oral testimony refersto more or lessdistantevents. It isneverthelessnot clear why a worker's account of a sit-in strikeor a partisan account ofan episode of the anti-fascist resistance should be less credible than the accounts byeminent political leaders of the postwar period or even of the fascist era which areenjoying a remarkablepublishing success in Italy. This is not so much the consequenceof direct class prejudice, as of the 'holiness' of the written word. An excellentAmerican historian, for instance, was ironical about the usefulness of collecting EarlBrowder's oral memories of the fifties; but he admitted that if Browder (who was aSecretary of the U.S. Communist Party in the 30s and 40s) had written memoirsconcerningthe same period, he would have had to consider them reliableuntil provedotherwise. Yet the time span between the events and the narration would be the same.Writinghides its dependence on time by presenting us with an immutable text (as theLatin tag has it, 'scriptamanent' - writings endure), thus giving the illusion that sinceno modifications arepossible in the future of the text, no modifications can have takenplace in its past history or in its prehistory. But what is written is first experienced orseen, and is subject to distortions even before it is set down on paper. Therefore thereservations applying to oral sources ought to be extended to written material as well.



8/13

102 HistoryWorkshop ournalThe originally ralinterviewswithpolitical eadersandintellectualswhichare n-creasingly eing urnedout in book formby theItalianpublishingndustry reusuallyrevisedbeforeprinting ndcheckedwithnotes and documents.Theoral narrators f

the non-hegemoniclassesoften resort osimilar ids.On theonehand heybelong oa traditionwhichhas beenforced,becauseof its lackof access o writing, o developtechniquesor memorywhichhavein largepartatrophiedn thosewhogive greaterimportance o writingand reading.'6For instance hey may still used formalisednarration nd meter; dentifyand characterise eopleby meansof nicknames ndkinship;dateevents nrelationo agriculturalycles; etain he veryhabitof repeatingand isteningo oralnarrations.) olk nformants ften speak romwithinacollectivetraditionwhichpasseson detaileddescriptions f events precedingheir birth,butwhich remainremarkablyompactfrom one source o another.'7These storiesarepartof a collective raditionwhichpreserveshememory f thegroup'shistorybeyondthe rangeof the livesof individualmembers.On the otherhand,we oughtnot toconsiderour sourcesas entirely nnocentof writing.Perhaps he case of the oldGenzanofarmworkers'eagueleader,who in addition to remembering is ownexperiences ery clearly had done researchon his own in local archives,may beatypical.But the majorityof informantsknowhow to read,readnewspapers, avereadbooks,listenregularlyo radioandTV(whichboth belong o the sameculture sproduceshewrittenword).Theyhave istenedo speechesby peoplewhoread poli-ticians, trade unionists,priests.They keep diaries, letters, old newspapersanddocuments.Forseveral enturiesnow, in spiteof mass lliteracy,writingand oralityhavenotexistedn separateworlds.Whilea greatdealof writtenmemorysbuta thinveneer on an underlying rality, even illiteratepersonsare saturatedwith writtenculture.Themostcommon ultural ondition orpeople nthenon-hegemoniclassesin a country ike Italyis somewheren between, n a fluid stateof transition romorality o writing nd sometimesback.The fact remains oweverhattoday'snarratorsnot thesamepersonas tookpartin thedistanteventswhichhe or she is nowrelating.Nor is agethe onlydifference.Theremayhavebeenchangesnpersonal ubjective onsciousness swellasinsocialstanding nd economic ondition,whichmay nducemodifications, ffectingatleastthejudgement f eventsandthe 'colouring' f thestory.For nstance, everalpeoplearereticentwhen tcomes o describingormsof struggle pproachingabotage.Thisdoesnotmean hattheydon'trememberhemclearly,butthattherehasbeenachangein their politicalopinionsor in the line of their party, wherebyactionsconsideredlegitimate nd evennormalornecessarynthe pastaretodayviewedas unacceptableandare iterallyastoutof thetradition. n thesecases,themostpreciousnformationmaylie in whatthe informants ide(and n the factthatthey hideit), rather han nwhatthey tell.However, nformants re usuallyquite capableof reconstructingheir pastatti-tudeseven whentheyno longercoincidewithpresentones. This is thecasewith theTerni actoryworkerswhoadmit hatviolentpersonal eprisals gainst heexecutivesresponsibleor the 1953masslayoffsmayhave been counterproductive,ut yet re-constructwithgreat uciditywhytheyseemedusefuland sensible tthetime.It is alsothe case with one of the most importantoral testimoniesof our time, TheAutobiography f MalcolmX. Herethe narratordescribeshow his mindworkedbeforehereached newawareness, nd thenjudgeshisownpastselfwithhispresentpoliticaland religiousconsciousness. f the interviews conducted kilfullyanditspurposesareclearto the informant, t is not impossible or him or herto make a



9/13

Peculiarities f OralHistory 103distinction between present self and past self, and to objectify the past self as otherthan the presentone, other than now. In these cases (Malcolm X again is typical) ironyis the major narrativetechnique used: two different ethical (or political) and narrativestandards interfereand overlap, and their tension shapes the narrative.'8We may however come across narrators whose consciousness seems to have beenarrested at the climactic moment of their personal experience-certain resistancefighters for example, or many World War I veterans, perhapssome student militantsof 1968. Often they arewholly absorbedby the totality of the historicalevent of whichthey were part, and their account takes on the cadencesand the wording of epic. Thusan ironical style or an epic one impliesa differing historicalperspectivewhich ought tobe considered in our interpretationof the testimony.

* * *

Oral sources are not objective. This of course applies to every source, although theholiness of writing sometimes leads us to forget it. But the inherentnon-objectivity oforal sources lies in specific intrinsiccharacteristics,the most importantbeingthat theyareartificial,variable, artial.

Alex Haley's introduction to The Autobiography of Malcolm X shows that theshift in Malcolm's narrative approach did not happen spontaneously but wasstimulated by the interviewer,who led the dialogue away from the exclusively public,official image that Malcolm was trying to project of himself and of the Nation ofIslam.'9 This illustrates how oral sources are always the result of a relationship, acommon project in which both the informant and the researcherare involved, to-gether. (This is one reason why I think the historianought to conduct most interviewsin person, rather than throughprofessional interviewers;and why oral research s bestcarried out in teamwork.) Written documents are fixed; they exist whether we areaware of them or not. Oral testimony is only a potential resource until the researchercalls it into existence. The condition for the existence of the written source is itsemission; for oral sources it is theirtransmission. These differences aresimilarto thosedescribed by Jakobson and Bogatyrevbetween the creativeprocesses of folklore andliterature.20

The content of the oral source depends largelyon what the interviewerputs into itin terms of questions, stimuli, dialogue, personal relationship of mutual trust or de-tachment. It is the researcherwho decides that there will be an interview. Researchersoften introduce specific distortions: informants tell them what they believe they wantto be told (it is interesting to see what the informantsthink is wanted and expected, thatis what the informants think the historian is). On the other hand, rigidly structuredinterviewsexclude elements whose existence and relevancewere previously unknownto the researcher and are not contemplated in the question schedule; therefore suchinterviews tend to confirm the historian's previous frame of reference.The first requirement,therefore, is that the researcher'accept' the informant andgive priorityto what he or she wishes to tell, ratherthan what the researcherwishes tohear. (Any questions lurking unanswered may be reserved for a later interview.)Communication always works both ways, the interviewee is always - though perhapsquietly - studying the intervieweras well as being studied. The historian might as wellrecognise this fact and work with it, ratherthan try to eliminate it for the sake of animpossible (and perhapsundesirable)neutrality.Thus, the resultis the product of boththe informant and the researcher;therefore when (as is often the case) oral interviews



10/13

104 HistoryWorkshop ournalinbookformarearrangedn sucha wayasto exclude heresearcher'soice,a subtledistortion takes place:the transcriptgives the informant'sanswers,but not thequestions hey are answering, nd therefore ives heimpressionhata givenspeakerwouldalways aythe same hings,nomatterwhat hecircumstancesin otherwords,the impression hat a speakingperson s as fixedas a writtendocument.Whentheresearcher's oice is cut out, the informant's oice is distorted.In fact, oral testimonywillneverbe thesametwice. This is a characteristicf alloral communication: ot eventhe most expert olk singerwilldeliver hesamesongtwicein exactly he same fashion. This is even more trueof relatively nstructuredforms, such as autobiographicalr historical tatementsduringan interview. t isthereforeoftenworththe trouble nterviewinghe same nformantmorethan once.Therelationship etween esearchernd informant hangesasthey getto knowandtrust each other better.Attitudeschangetoo: what has been called'revolutionaryvigilance' keeping ertain hings roman interviewer ho comesfromanotherclassandmaymakeuncontrolled seof them) s attenuated; nd theoppositeattitude,aconsequence f class subordinationtellingonlywhat the informant hinksmayberelevant rom the researcher's oint of view rather han hisorherown)giveswaytomore ndependent ehaviour.Thefactthatinterviewswiththesame nformantmaybeusefullycontinued eadsus to the problemof the inherentncompletenessf oral sources.It is impossibleoexhausthe entirehistoricalmemory f asingle nformant;o the dataextractedromthe interviewswill always be the resultof a selection producedby the mutualrelationship.Oralhistorical esearch herefore lwayshasthe unfinishednatureof awork in progress. This makes it different from historical researchas we areaccustomedo conceive t, withits idealgoalof reading hroughallexisting ources,documents,archives,and pertinent iterature.norder o go throughallthepossibleoralsources ortheTerni trikesof 1949-53,he researcher ouldhave o interview tleast 100,000people. Any samplewouldonlybeas reliableas thesamplingmethodsused;andon the otherhandcouldneverguaranteeus against eavingout 'quality'informantswhose estimony lonemightbe worthmore hantenstatisticallyelectedones.But the unfinishedness,he partialityof oral sources nfects all othersources.Given hatno research anbeconsideredompleteany longerunless t includesoralsources(whereavailableof course),and that oral sourcesare inexhaustible, ralhistorypasseson its ownpartial, ncompletequality o allhistorical esearch.

* * *

Oralhistory s not thepoint where he working lassspeaks or itself.Thecontrarystatement f course s not without oundation;herecounting f a strike hrough hewordsand memoriesof workersrather han those of the police and thecompany-dominated ressobviouslyhelps thoughnotautomatically)ocorrect distortionm-plicit in the traditionalsources. Oral sources therefore are a necessary if notsufficient)condition or a historyof the non-hegemonic lasses,whiletheyare lessnecessary or the historyof the rulingclasswho have hadcontrolover writingandtherefore ntrustedmostof theircollectivememoryo written ecords.Nevertheless,he controlof the historical iscourse emainsirmlyn thehandsofthe historian:t is the historianwhoselects he peoplewhoareto speak;whoasksthequestionsand thus contributes o the shapingof the testimony;who gives the



11/13

Peculiarities f OralHistory 105testimony ts finalpublished orm(if only in termsof montageandtranscription).Evenacceptinghat theworking lassspeaks hroughoralhistory, t is clear hattheclassdoes notspeak ntheabstract,butspeaks othehistorian, nd with hehistorian(and, nasmuch sthematerialspublished, hroughhehistorian).Thingsmay ndeedbe more he otherwayround: he historian peakinghrough he workers'estimony,ventriloquising discoursewhich is not theirs. So far from disappearingn theobjectivity f thesources, hehistorian emainsmportant t leastasa partnernthedialogue,often as a 'stagedirector'of the interview,as an 'organiser' f the testi-mony- andorganisation, s theoldradical ayinggoes,is nottechnical,t ispolitical.Insteadof findingsources, he historianat leastpartly makes' hem;thoughotherpeople'swordsmaybe used t is still his or herdiscourse.Farfrombecominga meremouthpiece f theworking lassthehistorianmayamplifya personal ontribution.2'

While the writtendocument s usually nvoked to provethat the accountis areliabledescription f actualevents,oralsources nvolve he entireaccount n theirown subjectivity.Alongside he firstpersonnarration f the informant s the firstpersonof the historian,withoutwhomthere wouldbe no source. In fact both thediscourse f the informant ndthatof thehistorian re nnarrativeorm,whichbringsthem closer ogether han is the casewithmost otherfirst-hand ources.Informantsarehistorians, ftera fashion;andthehistorians, somehow,a partof the source.Thetraditionalwriter f historypresents imself or, lessoften,herself)n theroleof whatliterary heorywould call an 'omniscientnarrator': e givesa third-personaccountof eventsof whichhe was not a part,andwhichhe dominates ntirelyandfromabove, mpartial nddetached,neverappearing imself nthenarrativexcept ogive commentsaside on the developmentof events, after the mannerof somenineteenth-centuryovelists.Oralhistory hanges hemanner f writing istorymuchin the same way as the modernnoveltransformediterary iction; and the majorchange s that the narrator, romthe outside of the narration,s pulled nsideandbecomesa partof it.Thisis notjust a grammaticalhiftfromthe third o thefirstperson,but a wholenew narrative ttitude: he narratorsnowoneof thecharacters ndthetellingof thestoryis now partof the storybeingtold. This implicitly ndicatesa much deeperpolitical involvement han the traditionaldevelopmentof the externalnarrator.Radicalhistory-writings not a matterof ideology,of subjective ides-takingn thehistorians'part, or of what kind of sourcesthey use. It is rather nherent n thehistorian'spresencenthe storybeing old, in the assumption f responsibility hichinscribes imor her nthe accountandrevealshistoriographys anautonomous ctofnarration.Politicalchoicesbecome ess visibleand vocal,but morebasic.The myththat the historianas a subjectmight disappearoverwhelmed y the working-classsources,waspartof aviewof politicalmilitancy stheannihilation f subjective olesintotheall-encompassingne of the fulltimemilitant,asabsorption nto anabstractworkingclass. Thisresulted n an ironical imilarity o the traditional ttitudewhichsaw hehistorian snotsubjectivelynvolved nwhathe (orshe)waswriting.Ofcourseoralhistory eemed obecustom-madeorthisend,inthatoralhistoriansed others ospeakratherhanspeakinghemselves.Butwhatactuallyhappens s the opposite: hehistorianslessand essof ago-between rom heworking lass o thereader, ndmoreandmoreof a protagonist. f othersspeak nstead, t is still thehistorianwhomakesthemspeak;andthe 'floor',whether dmittedly r not, is still thehistorian's.Inthewriting f history,as in literature,he act of focussing n the functionof thenarrator ausesthe fragmentation f this function. In a novel likeJosephConrad's



12/13

106 HistoryWorkshop ournalLordJim, thecharacter/narrator arlow an recountonly whathehimselfhas seenand heard; n order to narrate the wholestory'he is forcedto takeseveralother'informants'nto his tale.The same hinghappens o the historianworkingwithoralsources: n entering he storyandexplicitly eclaringontrolover t,he or shemustonthat veryaccountallowthe sources o enter he tale withtheirautonomousdiscourse.Thus, oral history s told froma multitudeof 'circumscribed oints of view': theimpartiality laimed by traditionalhistorians s replacedby the partialityof thenarrator wherepartiality tandsboth for takingsides and for unfinishedness). hepartiality f oralhistory s bothpoliticaland narrative:t can neverbe told withouttakingsides, sincethe 'sides'exist nside he account.Of course,historian nd sourcesare not the same'side',whateverhehistorian'spersonal history may be. The confrontationof these two differentpartialities- confrontation sconflict,andconfrontations the search orunity isnotthe eastelementof interestn historicalworkbasedon oral sources.

1 La Repubblica, October,1978.2 EricA Havelock,Preface o Plato, HarvardUniversityPress 1963.3 See FrancoCoggiola, L'attivitadell'IstitutoErnestoDe Martino' n DiegoCarpitella(ed.), L'Etnomusicologian Italia, Palermo1975.4 Seefor instanceLuisaPasserini, Sull'utiliti e il dannodelle fonti oraliper a storia',intro. o Passerini ed.), StoriaOrale.Vitaquotidiana culturamaterialie elleclassisubalterne,Turin 1978.5 GiovannaMarini, 'Musicapopolaree parlatopopolareurbano', n Circolo GianniBosio (ed.), I GiorniCantati,Milan1978.Seealso Alan Lomax,Folk SongStylesand Culture,WashingtonD.C. 1968.6 SeeHavelock,Preface o Plato, alsoWalterJ Ong, 'AfricanTalkingDrumsandOralNoetics',NewLiteraryHistory,vol. 8 no. 3, Spring1977,pp 411-29;DennisTedlock, TowardsanOralPoetics', samevolume,pp 506-19.7 See WilliamLabov, TheLogicof non-standard nglish',nLouisKampf-Paul auter(ed.), ThePoliticsof Literature,NewYork1970,pp 194-239.8 Hereas elsewheren thispaper,I am using hesetermsas definedand usedby GerardGenette,Figures II, Paris 1972.9 DanBen-Amos, Categories nalytiquestGenresPopulaires', oetique,vol.19,1974,

pp 268-93.10 JanVansina,OralTradition,Penguin d. 1961,1973.11 For instance,a Communist artymilitant nterviewedn Romedescribed he situationof hiscommunity ndfamilymainly ndialect,but shiftedbriefly o standardtalianwheneverhe had to reaffirmhis fidelity o theparty ineandtheline's inevitability.The language hiftshowed hat thoughhe acceptedt as inevitablehe still saw the party ine as somethingquitedifferent romhis own experience nd tradition.Hisrecurringdiomwas'There'snothingyoucando about t'. Atranscriptf the nterviewspublishednCircoloGianniBosio(ed.),I GiorniCantati.12 BorisTomacevskij'sssayon plotconstruction,nTzveeanTodorov ed.), TheoriedelaLitterature, aris 1965.13 See AlessandroPortelli and ValentinoPaparelli,'Terni:materialiper una storiaoperaia' n GiorniCantati,bulletinof theCircoloGianniBosio,vol. 10,March1977,18-36.14 NathanWachtel howsa similarphenomenonor folk reconstructionsf theSpanishconquestn MexicoandPeru,whichhepartly xplainsbythe distancentime(whichdoes notapply oeventswithin he nformant'smemory, sinTerni):Are hesedistortions rbitraryndmere ruitsof fancy,or dotheyrather espondo a certainogic?And hen,what ogic s it?Whyone interpretationather han another?'La Visiondes Vaincus,Paris 1971.From he Italiantranslation,La Visionedei Vinti,Turin1977,p. 47.15 Onthe timespanbetween he eventand hewriting n theevent ee Genette sinnote 8.Thehousing truggle ecordings repartlypublishedn the recordRoma.Laborgata la lottaper la casaeditedbyAlessandroPortelli,Milan,IstitutoErnestoDe Martino,ArchiviSonoriSdL/AS/10.



13/13

Peculiaritiesf OralHistory 10716 PaulThompsonellsabout he members f a socialpsychology onvention,who, askedaftera fewdays, werenotableto rememberhetopicsdiscussed here.Scholars sed o readingandwritinghavea tendency o forgethow to listen. Passerini ed.), StoriaOrale,p 36.17 SeeAlfredoMartini-Antonello uzzaniti,II1898a Genzano', GiorniCantati, ol. 10,March1977,pp 3-16.18 See the definitionof irony n GeorgeLukacs,Theory f theNovel,ch. 519 Of course Haleywas only aimingto replacepoliticswith 'human nterest'. It wasMalcolmX's unrelenting olitical ensionwhichmadehis personal torythe mostpoliticallyrelevantpartof the book.20 RomanJakobsonand PiotrBogatyrev,Lefolklore,formespecifiquedecreation'nQuestions ePoetique,Paris1973,pp 59-72.21 To this all-important urpose,a historianworkingwithoraltestimony ollectedbysomeone lseisvirtuallyworkingwitha written ource:a sourcehe maynot ask questions f, asourcehe may not influenceand change,a source written' n the tape (the Italian inciso'orcarvedgives fully this senseof unchangeability).

journeymanThe General Strike byMargaretMorris

An absorbing and comprehensive analysis of this uniqueevent, drawingon TUCarchives.0 90452652 6 illustrated available ?2.95 paperA Handbook on Hanging by Charles Duff

'Being a short Introduction o the fine Artof Execution . . .' One of the finest satires thiscentury,yet fullofinformation bout the 'value' of capitalpunishment.0904526 593 available ?2.50 paperWith Light of Knowledge: A Hundred Years ofEducation in the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, 1877-1977by John Attfield

The first ull-length,detailed study of the educationalworkof a British o-operative society.0 904526 674 illustrated publicationeptember ?3.75 paper

The City of the Sun by BrotherThomas Campanella, translatedby A MElliottand R Millner,with an introductionby A LMortonThe first ranslation romthe original1611 Italianmanuscriptof thisoutstandingutopia.JourneymanChapbook No. 7.0 904526 16X available ?1.75 paper

The English Rebel by Charles PoulsenTracingthe many English rebellions fromthe earliest recordedstirrings n 1194 to the twentiethcentury.0 904526 65 8 illustrated publication ovember ?3.50 paperThe Joumeyman Press, 97 Ferne Park Road, Crouch End, London N8 9SA

portelli, a. the peculiarities of oral history. (history workshop)

Documents