The Ins and Outs of Oral History... Week 4

This week was all about oral history. We read When Community Comes Home to Roost: The Southern Milltown as Lost Cause by Leon Fink, the introduction to A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History by Michael Frisch, the chapter "When Subject Don't Come Out" in Sherrie Tucker's book Queer Episode in Music and Modern Identity, and The Oral History Manual by Sommer and Quinlan. Something interesting that stood out to me as a bridge between all of the works is the idea that historians sometimes have to tread lightly when it comes to their "sources". When creating an oral history, the subject of the interview is literally the historian's "source" at that moment. There seems to be tension when it comes to actually dealing with the narrator of the history, rather than just reading books or dodging poor reviews.

Fink found tension between the classifications of heritage and history. He defined heritage as aiming for wholeness and absoluteness, while accentuating only the positive aspects of the past. He defined history as upholding a different standard: one which emphasizes distance from bias and continual peer review. Heritage is much more of a human reaction to the past; taking stories and relating them back to oneself or one's family history. Heritage creates a story which people feel connected to in multiple ways. The human element to this type of understanding of the past seems to be what makes historians the most leery of it. I disagree with Fink when he describes heritage as a "syndrome" which leans away from the problematic aspects of history. There are many heritage sites and narratives which specifically focus on problematic events of history. Though I believe there are many places which choose to tell a positive story of community's heritage rather than the harsher realities of the time (aka: southern plantation tours), I do not think it is fair to label heritage in such a negative way. This brings to mind the problem of authority within history. Who get to decide which stories are told, or which aspects of heritage are shared with the nation? Both Tucker and Frisch discuss the question of authority while conducting oral histories. Tucker's piece on navigating the difficulties of sexuality with subjects who "don't come out" was extremely insightful. Besides creating an unafraid conversation about sexuality, it also questions why we care so much about pinning our subjects into a sexual dichotomy in the first place. Tucker's piece opens the door to more conversations about how to approach more sensitive topics in an interview. Does the historian lead the conversation, or does the narrator (or subject?) have the power? I haven't quite found an answer to this yet, but I look forward to diving into this more in our class discussion.

The Oral History Manual was a great introduction to the art of oral history. I always sort of equated oral histories to journalism, and I never knew that they had a true methodology behind them. Oral history uses strict techniques, draws from law and ethics, and even has a systematic planning process. This book sparked a light bulb in my head. Oral history strives for balance, which I love. It is systematic and uses a process of research and interview design that takes the skills of a trained historian, but you also get the human connection of a conversation about relevant and important moments in history. Oral history is inclusive, and aims to tell the stories of all people, rather than the wealthy "elite". I have a feeling this guide will prove to be a constant source of help for me in the upcoming years.

In other Public History news, I went on an outing this week with some of my classmates. The girls and I trekked through Philadelphia in the pouring rain to visit the Betsy Ross house, and Carpenter's Hall. To me, one of the most visited tourist & historic sites in Philadelphia sort of fell flat. The Betsy Ross house had limited information, and little to no context for the house or the items in the house. Were they original? Who owned this house after Betsy lived there? Why are there bronze cats on a fountain outside of her house? The only interaction visitors have with the house was one actress playing the role of Betsy in her shop. I would love to investigate the Betsy Ross house more and really dive into a reinterpretation project there one day..

Carpenter's Hall was actually pretty great. The Hall was home to the First Continental Congress in 1774, and looks as magnificent today as I am sure it did then. The building is in pristine condition. The employees (or volunteers?) were very helpful in interpreting the building, and I definitely needed help. Some of the artifacts on display were missing plaques or any explanation at all. If a visitor were to come into the building with no prior knowledge, I am not sure how much they would actually learn from the plaques, but the staff are an amazing resource. We also found Samuel Powel's name on the register of Carpenters, which was neat! Speaking of Powels, I also visited the Historical Society of Pennsylvania this week! I was looking for letters written by Elizabeth Wiling Powel and the experience was out of this world. I previously worked at a historical society throughout college and there was no comparison. One interesting thing to note was that while working with historical original documents (like hand-written letters from the 1700s) researchers are encouraged not to use cotton gloves. *GASP*. I just do not understand. The information packet I received explained that the oils on our hands are not proven to damage documents... the hand-out even compared our clean hands to the dirty hands of the authors and document handlers of the 17th & 18th centuries. ummmmmm I feel like the general public should not be given that much trust with documents, including myself. Is that bad? I'm just a nervous history geek..