Oral history is a practice and a theory. In practice, oral history is an audio or video recording of historical information obtained through an interview that contributes to an understanding of the past. Often described as the oldest method of historical research, oral history was used, for example, by Herodotus, the Ancient Greek «father of history,» and his student Thucydides to collect oral testimonies and write their histories. But oral history is more than interviewing, «it is a field of study and a method of gathering, preserving and interpreting the voices and memories of people, communities, and participants in past events.»(1)
Oral history, as we know it today, emerged in the 1960s with the invention of the portable tape recorder and was galvanized by the social activism of the feminist, anti-war, and civil rights movements. Indeed, researchers from many disciplines (historians, anthropologists, sociologists, folklorists, etc.) took to the street to collect the everyday experiences of ordinary people, to record history from the bottom up, thus challenging traditional top-down historical narratives dominated by the «great men» and «great events» of the past. With its popular appeal and hands-on approach, oral history brought history down from its ivory tower to make a different kind of history based on dialogue and exchange.
What makes oral history different?
What also makes oral history different is its very orality, its subjectivity, its reliance on memory, and the relationships it fosters: between memory and history, past and present, and interviewer and narrator. Oral history’s dependence on memory as both subject and source, however, is what contributes to perceptions of its unreliability as a historical source. As History became established as a formal academic discipline in the late 19th century, scientific objectivity was determined by historical scholarship based on written archival sources. But even in the archives, documents are selected by archivists and translated from legal court (oral) records, and objectivity or pure historical truth is itself unattainable. Indeed, oral historian Alessandro Portelli argues that «what makes oral history different is that it tells us less about events than about their meaning.»(2) Oral history interviewing puts the question of subjectivity at the center of the interview and allows interviewers to ask not only «what happened», but also, «how do you feel about what happened?» The collection of interviews, subject to analysis and critical inquiry, provides a closer understanding of what the past means to those who lived through it, thereby making it more accessible, tangible, and relevant to people’s lives.
Oral history in Lebanon
While several important initiatives have been established with academic institutions such as the American University of Beirut, the University of Balamand, and the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, oral history remains an untapped resource in Lebanon. It has largely been civil society actors and NGOs, such as forumZFD, UMAM Documentation and Research, and Fighters for Peace who have experimented with oral history methods to take on the challenge of addressing Lebanon’s recent past, namely the civil war. In the absence of a unified national history curriculum, these organizations, in partnership with the Lebanese Association for History, have played vital roles in trying to bring teaching about the war into public and private school classrooms. While not the only post-conflict society with no revised national history curriculum, Lebanon cannot move forward as a society if its official history ends in 1943. History education is inarguably critical to building national identity and ensuring civil peace. When dealing with contested histories, incorporating an oral history approach into a history curriculum is one way of broaching sensitive issues.
How oral history can contribute to civil peace in Lebanon
Oral history is, above all, about listening and listening to a diversity of voices. If there is one feature that Lebanon prides itself on, in regional and global terms, it is its diversity. In this context, the logical step is to move away from stymied attempts to agree on a single narrative approach to Lebanon’s past and instead focus on building a multiple narrative approach that celebrates diversity and fosters understanding of the multiple perspectives of the past. Oral history gives students access to individual historical experiences, and in the case of the war, showcases the futility of violence as a means to conflict resolution. In this sense, oral history works not only to prevent «history repeating itself,» but also contests the reductive maxim that «history is told by the victor.» Moreover, the oral history learning experience empowers teachers and students to work together as partners and participants in the making of history. Based on mutual respect and understanding, oral history can make invaluable contributions to civil peace in Lebanon and act as a platform to encourage dialogue, acceptance, and a history of diversity.