Telling Europe’s history

 

Introduction

Literally translated, “oral history” means “spoken history”. In English, however, the term has a broader meaning: it refers to the past as recalled by a person during a conversation or interview and recounted verbally by that person. Oral history is therefore fundamentally a research method. Oral history is fundamentally a retrospective research method. It is therefore not—as is the case, for example, in empirical surveys—concerned with current views or interpretations of past events or occurrences, but rather with past views and interpretations, corresponding to the time when the events took place. The problem here is that, of course, the current recollection of a past event is shaped by all the experiences that have taken place in the meantime (the time of recollection – the time of the event being recalled).

History of Oral History

As far back as antiquity, historians such as Herodotus made use of eyewitness accounts. In the 1930s, Allan Nevins at Columbia University in New York launched the modern project of systematically recording interviews with eyewitnesses on tape. The initial goal was to preserve the memories of prominent politicians and business leaders for posterity. In the 1960s, left-leaning and social-history-oriented historians turned away from the purely “great men’s history” approach. They sought to understand the realities of life, everyday existence, and the suffering of the general population (e.g., workers, minorities, or women). In German-speaking countries, researchers such as Lutz Niethammer made extensive use of this method in the 1970s and 1980s to study the memories of workers and survivors of National Socialism. In the past, oral history was often misunderstood as “pure truth.” Today, historians know that memories are subjective and change over the years. The narrative interview and accurate transcription have become established scholarly standards.

Methodology

Oral history fundamentally serves historians in their scholarly work to understand the past as a present that was once current. This, of course, involves possibilities not offered by other research methods or source materials. However, the interviewee always remains the focus, and they alone have the right to remember—or to remember it this way and not another, or not to remember it at all! An oral history interview can never—and must never—be an interrogation or a “grilling,” etc., on the part of the interviewer, nor should it involve “know-it-alls” correcting the interviewee! However, one can certainly pursue various objectives: • Recording events, particularly those from the individual’s personal sphere • Verifying other sources (even written sources can be “incorrect” or incomplete) • Recording events in terms of their significance to the interviewee • Recording a life story, or at least a characteristic part of it, within its systemic context • “history from below,” to give “ordinary” people the opportunity to comment on “grand” history. If one wishes to record facts (when, where, and what happened through or with whom?), one follows the model of a retrievable memory, as it were, like a mine in which one can find nuggets of gold (namely, the facts). In this case, one will also conduct highly question-driven interviews and may even consider it beneficial for the interviewee to prepare in advance—possibly by providing written materials. However, one can also aim to encourage a person to engage in the work of remembering in the first place. In that case, one follows the model that memory is not something fixed and readily retrievable, but rather that recollection comes about through the work of remembering. Both models have merit. Of course, people store certain images that remain fundamentally accessible. On the other hand, however, these images must be retrieved just as a record or a CD must be played in order to hear something.

So if one favors the model of memory work and wishes to record life stories—or parts thereof—as systemic units, then one will conduct very open-ended interviews characterized by few follow-up questions and a greater degree of spontaneity. Oral history can, of course, have specific research focuses. These are precisely the questions addressed in oral history interviews—for example, the role of women in Austria’s post-1945 reconstruction.

Oral History in the context of archives and museums

Oral history has become indispensable in many fields today: Archives are creating oral history collections to provide alternative perspectives on the past. Historians use them as an important source for their research and teaching. Oral history has become an enormously important source for radio and television. In museums, galleries, and historical centers, it deepens our understanding of the objects on display and brings the exhibits to life. This makes our understanding of the past more multifaceted, more vivid, and also more accurate. Last but not least, oral history adds new dimensions to regional, family, and even religious history

The Example of Klostertal Museum

At the Klostertal Museum in Wald am Arlberg, we have been engaged in oral history for 25 years. One of the first events organized by the association, founded in 2001, was a public discussion with two men from the village, both of whom were born in 1917 during World War I. The positive experiences gained from this event laid the foundation for the creation of an archive of oral histories as the “memory of the region.”
This archive consists of life story interviews conducted at regular intervals. Most of these are available in video format. Over time, it has become clear that, in addition to the historical component, the emotional value must also be highly valued, as many of the interviewees have since passed away. In addition, we frequently conduct event-specific interviews for the museum on topics related to special exhibitions and other projects.

The Example of the Two World Wars

Oral history can be of great value in presenting European history—including from a regional perspective. The generation of people who lived through World War II has now almost disappeared. However, it is still possible to interview people about their memories of childhood and youth. In some isolated cases, this even applies to Holocaust survivors.
The generation that consciously experienced the beginning of European unification around 1950 is now also at an advanced age. It is worthwhile to listen to their perspectives and compare their experiences with those of today’s young people. Many topics—such as the Cold War, EU enlargements, the introduction of the European currency, the Schengen Area, and so on—are history to today’s young people. These events were experienced differently by different people and can therefore be the focus of interesting oral history projects.
Conclusion

Oral history is more than just storytelling. It is a conscious and reflective engagement with personally experienced history. However, oral history need not be limited to the field of history. As a form of public history, it can make many valuable contributions to cultural and educational work. The examples of projects carried out by the Klostertal Museum Association are intended to provide inspiration in this regard.#

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash