Nikki Glinski
Oral History and Memory
May 3, 2007
Problem of Memory in Oral History
Oral histories offer a very valuable resource to historians and society. Without
them, there would be many gaps in the history that people know today. Oral histories
offer a voice to the voiceless and enable society to know the stories of many people and
groups who would otherwise be left out. Despite its value, oral history has come under
scrutiny in the past over the reliability of memory. It is impossible for someone to
accurately remember everything that they have experienced perfectly and the problem of
people forgetting and “misremembering” has caused many to question the reliability of
oral testimonies.
Memory is a complicated phenomenon. With the passage of time, events and
moments that were once vivid become increasingly difficult to recall. No one can
remember every detailed aspect of their life. Whether or not this problem renders oral
histories to be less valuable has been a question posed by some members of the historical
community. Oral historians have participated in numerous debates over the “reliability of
memory,” the interview relationship, and the relationship between memory and history.1
One of the main criticisms debated by historians in the early 1970’s was that memory
was distorted by “physical deterioration and nostalgia in old age”, personal bias, and the
influence of collective versions of the past.2
1
Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson eds, The Oral History Reader. (New York: Routledge, 2006), p. x.
Alistair Thomson, “Making the Most of Memories: he Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral History.”
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 9, 1999. p. 291.
2
In old age, it can be difficult for a person to remember events they experienced
years before. Ms. Allegra Westbrooks needed to ask her sister the names of people and
locations of schools during her interview since she could not remember everything
accurately herself.3 It is just a part of being human. People forget little details and can
end up giving inaccurate information. Sometimes there are bigger problems than just
names, dates, and locations. Regardless, it is important for oral historians to doublecheck information after the interview.
Oral historians also have to be careful with interviewees’ personal biases. Just like
in autobiographies, sometimes interviewees have a specific version of the past they want
to tell. They express an event the way they want to remember it, which is not always
accurate. Perhaps they fabricate the story in order to change their own self image, or
perhaps to protect themselves or someone else. Sandy Polishuk encountered a situation
in which her interviewee, Julia Ruuttila, would change different facts about her life
throughout their interviews. When Polishuk confronted Ruuttila about these
inconsistencies, Ruuttila explained that some of the errors were intentional.4 Oral
historians have to be aware of the possibility that the interviewee may have some
personal intentions for the interview.
Collective versions of the past also effect the reliability of oral history.
Communities sometime come up with a collective vision of how an event occurred.
After a community experiences an important event it often becomes dramatized on the
news and through word of mouth. This repeat coverage often causes people to begin to
infuse the new information with their own memory of the event. When confronted with
3
Interview with Allegra Westbrooks
Sandy Polishrontiers: “Secrets, Lies and Misremembering: The Perils of Oral History Interviewing,”
Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 19, 1998. p. 21.
4
these situations, it can be difficult to get to the heart of the experience. September 11th,
for example, was an experience shared by the entire nation. Although Americans
experienced it differently, many people remember it a certain way because they read the
same articles, watched the same news stations, and have seen the same pictures. After a
while, everyone begins to remember it a similar fashion.
If a person can not accurately recount events they have experienced, should their
word count for anything? Accuracy is an important aspect of history. No one wants to
believe lies about the past, but then again could the fact that these people remember an
event a certain way actually enrich history? It is possible for the discrepancies that arise
from inconsistencies in memory to reveal new facts about history and the people that
experienced the events.5 The fact that a person remembers an event a certain way can
shed light on the values, self-image, or atmosphere of the event or culture.6 These
inconsistencies can be considered a strength rather than a weakness. Some historians
argue that these inconsistencies could provide historians with hints about the meanings of
life experiences, and the relationship between the past and the present, memory and
personal identity, and the individual and the collective memory.7 Memory is an active
process of creating meanings.8 Therefore, after a person experiences an event, their
memory constantly evolves and creates a meaning of the event. Historians can then study
and understand the meaning of the historical event and what it means to the person in the
present.
5
Perks, The Oral History Reader, p. 4.
Polishuk, “Secrets, Lies, and Misremembering,” p.14.
7
Perks, The Oral History Reader, P. 3.
8
Thomson, “Making the Most of Memories,” p. 292-293.
6
In response to the insistent criticisms over the reliability of memory, early oral
historians established guidelines to ensure the reliability of memory in oral histories.
Using social psychology and anthropology, they established a way to determine the bias
of memory and the impact of the interviewer upon the interviewee. They adopted
“methods of representative sampling” from sociology. They even established some
guidelines for checking the reliability and internal consistency from documentary history.
These guidelines made it easier for oral historians to read the oral histories and combine
them with other historical sources to piece reliable history together.9
Oral histories are not perfect. Then again, is anything ever perfect when dealing
with humans? People have their own feelings, agendas, memories, and experiences. It is
not possible for a person to accurately recall everything they experienced perfectly
because time changes the way they view things. There is still value in the way someone
remembers something years later. As long as oral historians are aware of the possibilities
of error and know how to deal with them skillfully, there is a great value in the study of
oral history.
9
Thomson, “Making the Most of Memories,” p. 292.