Collecting Women's Oral History

From OHA Wiki

Collecting Women’s Oral History

Oral history is a study which gives a voice to those who normally are voiceless.¹⁵ This is also the case for women’s oral history. In its beginnings, oral history was an andocentric study. Women’s perspectives were suppressed and almost completely left out of history.¹⁶ Also, women’s studies were not a legitimate discipline until the late 20th century, so there were few opportunities to collect oral histories. Sherna Berger Gluck, a historian, archivist, and feminist, states that the early stage of collecting women’s oral history was a “recovery” effort. The focus was the women’s liberation and social history movement of the 1960s and 1970s, but many of the suffragist oral histories were collected as well. Personal questions were left unasked, and an idea of the “personal is political” began developing among interviewers, including Gluck.¹⁷ Personal questions of everyday life are an important aspect of women’s lives, including those of activists. The answers to these sorts of questions create a broader picture of the individual and the movement as a whole.

Gluck comments “women’s oral history is a feminist encounter, even if the interviewee is not herself a feminist.”¹⁸ This statement exemplifies the idea of connectivity among all women and the need to obtain and document the history of women. By conducting oral histories, women are given a place in history; not just their struggles with oppression are identified, but women are given advocacy.¹⁹ Gluck is clear to reject the “for, by, and about women” mentality to conducting oral history, as it is exclusive and leaves out those not traditionally doing women’s oral history, such as men interviewers who utilize the “feminist methodology”.²⁰

During the next stage of women’s oral history, a new way of interpreting and analyzing the narratives was introduced. Gluck states, “a very different lens was being used to analyze the oral history narrative, and the literature moved from characterizing the narrative as a transparent reproduction of real experience to discussing it as a more complex representation of that experience.”²¹ There was a charge to all feminist oral historians to engage in interpretation and contextualization of the narratives and not just “let them speak for themselves.”

Gluck also claims oral history is not in the strict domain of scholars. It can, and should, be collected by anyone who can listen. But this is not an open invitation to go down to “the nearest senior citizens center.”²² There are proper techniques and methodologies she believes must be in practice before an interview should commence. Also practice and knowledge of these techniques are necessary to conducting oral histories. Gluck goes on to discuss the issue of cultural likeness. There are pros and cons to being and “insider” or “outsider.” For an interviewee, there may be topics that are easier to discuss with an outsider, because outsider might ask for clarification on ideas or things they are less familiar within the culture. She states that having an insider perform interviews promotes trust and openness. Gluck’s own experience with interviewing illustrates this point, as does the work of her oral history students. One example she gives is of a very light-skinned black student who interviewed two black women. The interviewees were very polite, but were more responsive and open once they learned the interviewer was black, or as they said, “one of us.”²³ One way is not always better than the other, but it is important to realize this can be an issue when interviewing. Gluck demonstrates gender likeness does not always promote an open and trustful situation and the interviewer should take that into account when performing interviews.

References

(15) Sherna Gluck and Daphne Patai, Women’s Words, (New York: Routledge, 1991), 2.

(16) Kathryn Anderson, Susan Armitage, Dana Jack, and Judith Wittner, “Beginning Where We Are: Feminist Methodology in Oral History,” Oral History Review 15 (spring 1987): 106.

(17) Sherna Berger Gluck, “Women’s Oral History: Is it So Special?” in Thinking About Oral History: Theories and Applications, ed. Thomas L. Charlton, Lois E. Myers, and Rebecca Sharpless (New York: AltaMira Press, 2008), 117.

(18) Sherna Berger Gluck, “What’s So Special about Women? Women’s Oral History,” in Women’s Oral History:The Frontiers Reader, ed. Susan H. Armitage, Patricia Hart, and Karen Weathermon (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 2002), 5.

(19) Gluck, “Women’s Oral History: Is it So Special,” 118.

(20) Gluck, “Women’s Oral History: Is it So Special,” 128.

(21) Gluck, “Women’s Oral History: Is it So Special,” 124-125.

(22) Gluck, “What’s So Special about Women? Women’s Oral History,” 7-8.

(23) Gluck, “What’s So Special about Women? Women’s Oral History,” 9.