Oral history is not only an historiographic approach but also a methodology in which

in-depth interviews with open-ended questions are widely used. Thanks to the methodology

used in oral history, interviewees are able to shape their own personal pasts. While interpreting

what is told, it is crucial to take cultural practices and symbolic references into consideration

as personal narratives and experiences are constructed by them.

“More history” and “anti-history” are two concepts which are coined by Michael Frisch

focus on different aspects of the past. While “more history” is much about opening a new gate

to contemplate the past, “anti-history” questions existing understandings of it. In addition, oral

history can be a way to make the voices of marginalized or subordinated people loud just like

as feminist oral historians do. Unpaid domestic labour, industrial, abortion and sexuality can be

the areas for feminist oral history researches to investigate the past with its power relations in

light of stories, experiences and knowledge of women.

Personal testimonies and subjectivities give oral history a chance to make the archaic

past a personalized, contemporary and transforming past, as Portelli states. That is to say,

memories can totally differ from each other and draw distinctive pictures regarding past even

though there are many things shared. Another issue regarding methodology of oral history

which also leads to subjectivities is about interpretation and appreciation of information

collected from what is told. The relation between interviewer and interviewee to be detailed in

terms of divisions based on class, race, generation and culture, for instance, is much to do with

the core understanding of research as well as appreciating of personal history. According to

Katherine Borland too, such divisions require active reproduction in the course of

interpretation. She thinks of the possible dangers of respect for and equality with subjects in the

basis of female identity which can mask a hidden, deeper form of exploitation. As opposed to

her, there are also some scholars like Daphne Patai who refuses such differences between
female interviewer and interviewee for the purpose of consolidating solidarity of female

identity.

Active reproduction of individual memories poses some threats when it becomes

deconstruction of them in the sake of efforts to deduct social patterns from personal histories.

A Canadian feminist and oral historian Joan Sangster underlines ‘dangers of emphasising form

over context’ claiming that the thing that historians should do is to analyse and interpret the

personal stories by looking at them with a critical eye considering underlying reasons which

shapes the subjects’ way of thinking. Existing power relations, formation of society and

dominant power structures are all key determinants in the construction of personal memories.

To conclude, it can be said that oral history with its methodology and practices is mainly

about subjective narratives of past with their interpretations and appreciation. In the processes

of interpretation, emphasis on interpersonal characteristic of oral history and multidisciplinary

perspective to be able to reveal the hidden are at core importance.

Ozan Polat

2012209045