Shared Authority and The Production of an Autobiography

From OHA Wiki

           Issues surrounding the subject of shared authority, a term describing the relationship between the editor and the narrator of autobiographical and life history projects in which both share authorship of the final narrative, have recently been debated in the oral history field as evidenced by the surge of recent articles written for the Oral History Review. Lorraine Sitzia’s article, “A Shared Authority: An Impossible Goal?”, discusses the development of an autobiographical project interviewing Arthur Thickett, a veteran of the Korean War, and her decision to make the production a collaborative effort. Michael Frisch’s book, Shared Authority, has provided a starting point for discussion and experimentation for future projects and Sitzia is no exception; she cites Frisch’s text as an inspiration on “shared authority and approaches to working with people and their life stories: ‘We need projects that will involve people in exploring what it means to remember, and what to do with memories to make them active and alive as opposed to mere objects of collection’”.¹  Since Sitzia's other projects were sponsored by universities or organizations and involved compiling a group of over thirty narrators which required signed consent forms from each narrator before Sitzia and her team could begin the editing process, she utilizes the same techniques for her own project with Thickett. Sitzia argues that collaboration enhanced the project by allowing her to work together with Thickett to “identify gaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the stories, or areas that needed further exploration,” as well as in the editing process where Sitzia shared both her editing structure as well as her interpretations of the interviews.² Sitzia also notes, “this constant dialogue between me and Arthur enriched the process of working on another’s life story. I quickly moved from being an interviewer to a facilitator in helping Arthur uncover his past. The development of the dialogue within the process was only possible through our relationship.”³  Through “A Shared Authority: An Impossible Goal?”, Sitzia shares some of the problems that arise with collaborative projects including Thickett’s attempt to monopolize authorship of their final product. However, Sitzia still maintains her positive opinion of shared authority: “Despite all the problems encountered I do feel our principle of shared authority led to an exciting, stimulating, and successful collaboration”. ⁴

            Linda Shopes weighs in on both Frisch’s and Sitzia’s articles on shared authority, arguing that “I think it is no accident that Sitzia…[has] drawn upon a rather expanded view of ‘shared authority’, reframing Frisch’s original concept to mean – as he puts it – ‘sharing authority’ through the entire oral history process, from project design to fieldwork protocols to the uses to which interviews are put.”⁵  Shopes also learns from Sitzia’s article that any collaborative oral history project should begin with a set of clearly outlined ground rules including “a mature recognition of one’s own boundaries; of the right to claim one’s own authority at certain times; and most especially of an understanding of ‘sharing authority’ as not so much a goal as a negotiated process that perhaps characterizes all historical inquiry”.⁶

---

Sources

1. Lorraine Sitzia, “ A Shared Authority: An Impossible Goal?”, The Oral History Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter - Spring, 2003), 90.
2. Ibid., 94.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 101.
5. Linda Shopes, “Commentary: Sharing Authority,” The Oral History Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter - Spring, 2003): 103.
6. Ibid., 106.