The subject you cover here is hugely complex, and you've highlighted some very important elements. Let me offer some thoughts on a couple.
One of the problems we face in writing (regardless of what form that takes) history is that the business invariably involves generalizing. Beyond fidelity to individual bits of data, we finally arrive at a point where we have to decide what best describes the situation/people/phenomenon overall. At that point, despite our best intentions, we're going to have some degree of error. The key is to calibrate our tolerance for the breadth of whatever our point is.
Having done oral history for many years, I'd offer a note of caution. Memory is an active process, and many things can influence both the original perception and the recall, which can change significantly over time. When I taught a course on oral history at the Army War College, I used Elizabeth Loftus' book, "Eyewitness Testimony," as a required reading. She did an excellent job of identifying an array of things that affect what we think we see and then recall. Sometimes/often the person involved has no idea that their perception and recall was inaccurate. I had a shocking experience of my own that brought this home after I'd been studying and teaching this for more than a decade. I was the historian for multinational forces conducting military operatons in Bosnia. I wanted to see what was happening on convoys and to get out to see areas that I otherwise wouldn't have access to. So I rode in a British convoy from Zagreb to Sarajevo and used a video recorder along the way, starting with when we pulled out of the compound. As I recalled this experience, which I did quite a few times for one reason or another, the image in my mind was that it was still dark when we started out. Several months later, as I was writing a final report on the operation, I pulled out the videotape I'd made to check some details about things I'd seen along the way. To my amazement, when I started running the tape, there was absolutely no room for doubt that it was broad daylight when we left the compound. Most disturbing to me about this experience was that, of all the people who should've been aware of factors influencing perception and recall, it seemed logical that I should've been least susceptible to some distortion like that. There was no obvious interest or incentive for me to alter the perception and memory, but it happened.
One other consideration of oral history is also related to the active nature of memory. Especially with the passage of time and the retelling of stories -- and especially sharing with others -- bits and pieces of the memory become 'codified' in the teller's mind. A person may also incorporate bits of other people's story or a narrative without any intention to embellish or lie. I've had people describe in vivid detail events and experiences that they never were present to. There was no reason for me to think that these people were deliberately making something up, but the established facts about them simply wouldn't allow what they fervently believed to be true about their experience. This was one reason that WW2 historian/journalist S.L.A. Marshall developed a technique of group interviewing of soldiers in combat -- with the idea that others could correct something that was in error or could add missing details. The downside of this technique can be the kind of codification and incorporation of inaccuracies I've mentioned above.
There's a very interesting literature about transmission of information through nonliterate societies and across generations. Rather than memorizing word for word and repeating exactly the same each time, there seems to be a pattern of having a core set of ideas/elements of the story, which the reciter then selectively adapts to the specific audience. That may considerably alter the content of what gets transmitted, and the written-down version may omit important parts. So we're always working in a realm with a greater/lesser degree of uncertainty.
Overall, it's a fascinating and complex set of issues.
You bring up very valid points that we all have to generalize aspects of our research based on the whole picture. I usually research areas that have been hijacked, for lack of a better word to describe it, by generalizations that for the most part became the absolute historical tradition. I specialized in Early Modern European Social History and sadly the history was often written from the viewpoint of the upper echelons of the social demographics and we have lost segments of the history of other elements of that society. Granted that is often digging down into the lives and perspectives of those overlooked classes or individuals that gives us a new perspective. I believe that happens in the study of war as well. It is such a massive undertaking with so many moving parts that it would be overwhelming to encompass them all but overtime there is a tendency for other elements within the same sphere to become a very limited part of the history, however, they may have been an integral part of the whole. Let me jump back to the 17th or 18th centuries as way of example. History was written primarily within a limited lens. The movers and drivers of a society and the results of their actions have come to characterize the society at that time but the smaller individuals who were not the policy makers or the wealthy, the inventors, the writers but were the majority of the population were rarely focused on and sadly much of the information about them was lost. Especially if they were not literate. I believe that is where, if we are not careful, generalizations over time can become the absolute history that is told. This is especially true since we would have to rely on sources or documents from such a time for our research materials. That would be my bigger caution - that we double check the sources we use so that we don't perpetuate a generalization that may not be entirely accurate. Which goes to your second point - oral history and memory.
I am in total agreement with you. Memory can be a wonderful and/or a treacherous thing. I read a book recently Evolve Your Brain and I found it unsettling that we can overwrite memories which is also tapped into our psychology. We can sometime change a memory and/or overwrite it by telling ourselves a version of it that now becomes the memory, in essence it replaced the original memory. The human brain will do that at times to produce a chemical reaction as well, like dopamine, that triggers and emotion we need for whatever reason. I believe that can produce a false memory or altered memory that may become part of oral history. In the case where we have no records to trace or at a loss of where to locate someone or something for example, oral history can be important because it is the only clue we have to start our search or fill in a detail when we find a record or document. To me that is the value of it - the oral history started from somewhere, some seed. I won't go as far as to say it started from a truth - it could have been propaganda or rumor - but, especially in genealogy or tracing a persons individual records is a start. Evaluation of it after we locate it is another element which is paramount.
Complicating the recall of those who have been involved in combat due to location, shock or injury raises some interesting aspects to me. More specifically, the "fog of war" and the sole perception that the individuals personal experiences in a heated battle in their recall was the experience of the event as whole, and the effects of the adrenaline shock and exhaustion on the memory of the individual perhaps complicated by and head injuries or concussive type injuries. I mention this because going through the glider pilots Interrogation Check Sheets I was struck by the high number of the glider occupants that were knocked out during the landing or sustained serious blows to the head and walking around dazed on the battlefield. Based on the numbers I saw alone I can absolutely see the value of the group interviewing of soldiers in combat. I was fortunately able to corroborate their recall because I had access to the reports of many who landed on the same landing zone but had to use caution to prevent their particular experience being the same experience for the collective whole on a mission. It was often the case that one LZ was free from any enemy while a short distance away the gliders were riddled before anyone could get out.
I really enjoyed your viewpoint - I believe you brought up very valid points!
The subject you cover here is hugely complex, and you've highlighted some very important elements. Let me offer some thoughts on a couple.
One of the problems we face in writing (regardless of what form that takes) history is that the business invariably involves generalizing. Beyond fidelity to individual bits of data, we finally arrive at a point where we have to decide what best describes the situation/people/phenomenon overall. At that point, despite our best intentions, we're going to have some degree of error. The key is to calibrate our tolerance for the breadth of whatever our point is.
Having done oral history for many years, I'd offer a note of caution. Memory is an active process, and many things can influence both the original perception and the recall, which can change significantly over time. When I taught a course on oral history at the Army War College, I used Elizabeth Loftus' book, "Eyewitness Testimony," as a required reading. She did an excellent job of identifying an array of things that affect what we think we see and then recall. Sometimes/often the person involved has no idea that their perception and recall was inaccurate. I had a shocking experience of my own that brought this home after I'd been studying and teaching this for more than a decade. I was the historian for multinational forces conducting military operatons in Bosnia. I wanted to see what was happening on convoys and to get out to see areas that I otherwise wouldn't have access to. So I rode in a British convoy from Zagreb to Sarajevo and used a video recorder along the way, starting with when we pulled out of the compound. As I recalled this experience, which I did quite a few times for one reason or another, the image in my mind was that it was still dark when we started out. Several months later, as I was writing a final report on the operation, I pulled out the videotape I'd made to check some details about things I'd seen along the way. To my amazement, when I started running the tape, there was absolutely no room for doubt that it was broad daylight when we left the compound. Most disturbing to me about this experience was that, of all the people who should've been aware of factors influencing perception and recall, it seemed logical that I should've been least susceptible to some distortion like that. There was no obvious interest or incentive for me to alter the perception and memory, but it happened.
One other consideration of oral history is also related to the active nature of memory. Especially with the passage of time and the retelling of stories -- and especially sharing with others -- bits and pieces of the memory become 'codified' in the teller's mind. A person may also incorporate bits of other people's story or a narrative without any intention to embellish or lie. I've had people describe in vivid detail events and experiences that they never were present to. There was no reason for me to think that these people were deliberately making something up, but the established facts about them simply wouldn't allow what they fervently believed to be true about their experience. This was one reason that WW2 historian/journalist S.L.A. Marshall developed a technique of group interviewing of soldiers in combat -- with the idea that others could correct something that was in error or could add missing details. The downside of this technique can be the kind of codification and incorporation of inaccuracies I've mentioned above.
There's a very interesting literature about transmission of information through nonliterate societies and across generations. Rather than memorizing word for word and repeating exactly the same each time, there seems to be a pattern of having a core set of ideas/elements of the story, which the reciter then selectively adapts to the specific audience. That may considerably alter the content of what gets transmitted, and the written-down version may omit important parts. So we're always working in a realm with a greater/lesser degree of uncertainty.
Overall, it's a fascinating and complex set of issues.
You bring up very valid points that we all have to generalize aspects of our research based on the whole picture. I usually research areas that have been hijacked, for lack of a better word to describe it, by generalizations that for the most part became the absolute historical tradition. I specialized in Early Modern European Social History and sadly the history was often written from the viewpoint of the upper echelons of the social demographics and we have lost segments of the history of other elements of that society. Granted that is often digging down into the lives and perspectives of those overlooked classes or individuals that gives us a new perspective. I believe that happens in the study of war as well. It is such a massive undertaking with so many moving parts that it would be overwhelming to encompass them all but overtime there is a tendency for other elements within the same sphere to become a very limited part of the history, however, they may have been an integral part of the whole. Let me jump back to the 17th or 18th centuries as way of example. History was written primarily within a limited lens. The movers and drivers of a society and the results of their actions have come to characterize the society at that time but the smaller individuals who were not the policy makers or the wealthy, the inventors, the writers but were the majority of the population were rarely focused on and sadly much of the information about them was lost. Especially if they were not literate. I believe that is where, if we are not careful, generalizations over time can become the absolute history that is told. This is especially true since we would have to rely on sources or documents from such a time for our research materials. That would be my bigger caution - that we double check the sources we use so that we don't perpetuate a generalization that may not be entirely accurate. Which goes to your second point - oral history and memory.
I am in total agreement with you. Memory can be a wonderful and/or a treacherous thing. I read a book recently Evolve Your Brain and I found it unsettling that we can overwrite memories which is also tapped into our psychology. We can sometime change a memory and/or overwrite it by telling ourselves a version of it that now becomes the memory, in essence it replaced the original memory. The human brain will do that at times to produce a chemical reaction as well, like dopamine, that triggers and emotion we need for whatever reason. I believe that can produce a false memory or altered memory that may become part of oral history. In the case where we have no records to trace or at a loss of where to locate someone or something for example, oral history can be important because it is the only clue we have to start our search or fill in a detail when we find a record or document. To me that is the value of it - the oral history started from somewhere, some seed. I won't go as far as to say it started from a truth - it could have been propaganda or rumor - but, especially in genealogy or tracing a persons individual records is a start. Evaluation of it after we locate it is another element which is paramount.
Complicating the recall of those who have been involved in combat due to location, shock or injury raises some interesting aspects to me. More specifically, the "fog of war" and the sole perception that the individuals personal experiences in a heated battle in their recall was the experience of the event as whole, and the effects of the adrenaline shock and exhaustion on the memory of the individual perhaps complicated by and head injuries or concussive type injuries. I mention this because going through the glider pilots Interrogation Check Sheets I was struck by the high number of the glider occupants that were knocked out during the landing or sustained serious blows to the head and walking around dazed on the battlefield. Based on the numbers I saw alone I can absolutely see the value of the group interviewing of soldiers in combat. I was fortunately able to corroborate their recall because I had access to the reports of many who landed on the same landing zone but had to use caution to prevent their particular experience being the same experience for the collective whole on a mission. It was often the case that one LZ was free from any enemy while a short distance away the gliders were riddled before anyone could get out.
I really enjoyed your viewpoint - I believe you brought up very valid points!