History is rich with bias. These biases exist against class, race, geography, gender, and level of literacy. Elites and western educated minorities value the written word over oral history. This is not hard to understand, as written words are the foundation of laws and societies, as we know it. If you do not have the skills of literacy, you are not included in the history of culture. This ability to read and write is a limited concept when evaluating how well a person can understand and negotiate his or her world. Many brilliant people, in their own context, have rich powerful lives without so much as walk near a library, though it may be true that since they are not in power they may be vulnerable to abuse by dominant powers. Had the west been dominated by oral traditions as the highest form of literacy, the situation could be reversed. In fact, if dance were considered the only valid form of record, one would have to be a dancer in order to be included in the telling or the subject matter.
I like the fact that in more recent times there has been an effort to record the lives of those not in the landscape of the typical historian’s gaze. The use of oral histories particularly in relation to pre-colonial African history is exciting. Also, the use of oral history as a way to include those whose lives can provide valuable insight into historical events and the psychosocial motivations of change seems like a way to democratize history. I think this is a crucial concept. In fact, if one has a commitment to the truth of history one has to be able to accept different ways of validating and interpreting the complicated and interconnected lives of many different kinds of people. I am personally more inclined to trust the essence of oral history as it is told to me than I am to believe a series of books penned by armchair philosophers living in ivory towers. It is also dangerous to take as gospel truths the stories related through common conversation.
The distinction made between oral histories that survive time and that which are invented to serve specific, sometimes menacing purposes is uncomfortably grey. As a historian there needs to be a level of engagement with the subject matter or subject, but also a critical eye, and in this case, ear, to be able to qualify facts and impressions. Human interaction changes the nature of the historical record, meaning when subject and researcher interact, it shapes the nature of the narrative.
I agree that the method one uses to collect oral histories has to be well practiced before implementation. The fact that the method is new can understandably cause unease by more traditionalist historians, but I believe this will be overcome as long as oral historians do not polarize themselves in reaction. It is natural that as history progresses, the approach to studying it has to evolve as well. If non western histories are going to be considered valuable they must be approached with differing methods, which in turn will cycle back and enhance the discipline in general. I would point to the omitted history of women in the west, and how the inclusion of women in the historical narrative over the last 100 years has impacted the way we think about historical causality and personal agency of minority groups. We all know that women have been essential in history, yet without reconstructing what was obscured from view there would still be no written record to build upon. My point is that it must start somewhere. Also, those who are victims of genocide or terror who do not exist in a historical record, or who have been “cleaned” from the pictures of history, are owed an opportunity posthumously to be heard. Who will write the about the lives lost to HIV when more are dying than can be recorded? I think about the NAMES project and the many quilts within it. Like the women of the past that told their life stories in the sewn panels which their men wrapped themselves with, keeping warm, yet unaware of the women’s messages surrounding them. This is like oral history for me. The title of the book, Listen for a Change, really highlights this for me. If we want change to happen we must be willing to listen to each other and honor the individual histories as well as that of the society and the nation.
In this way, history as a field is in a new place of birth. Perhaps each generation thinks this, or just one section of liberal philosophers, but maybe it is true this time. Or maybe it is not. Historians are human rights activists if they provide a truly inclusive vision of history where every voice is heard and valued. If this is not so, a historian could be compared to a cultural perpetuator, or even worse a fascist. When those who validate history are in positions of authority and rewarded for their conclusions, they are likely to abuse their positions or be manipulated in telling only selective histories. Teachers of history need to encourage complete inclusion and look at their own biases in the classroom before they colonize others with their academic opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment