What is Oral History, an insightful article exploring the “maddeningly imprecise term” (1) of Oral History, provides a compelling set of guidelines with which to compare Oral History to my own journal writing. In the process, I found riveting parallels and stark contrasts in the areas of motivation and style. To start, there is a similarity between the shift toward the story of the everyday person and the fact that I am just an average girl who is sincerely attempting to tell my version of the truth (2). Are the topics covered in my journal necessarily life altering? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, yet they usually address some form of “social experience” and provide me, the “historically—silent,” (2) a voice. The divergence enters in three major concepts: point of view, purpose, and publicity. While Oral History is meant to provide multiple perspectives, my journal consists of one narrator. At the same time, Oral History attempts to “democratize the record,” (2) whereas my journal is solely under my jurisdiction. Furthermore, Oral History is noted for its “dialogue” (3) and “self-conscious, disciplined conversation” (2-3); however, I can argue that my journal holds internal dialogue that can be calculated and confrontational. The differences are that this dialogue is fashioned out of two different roles within myself and is written as opposed to being spoken. Certainly, my journal writing lacks the interview process required to make it susceptible to outside influences, but technically even that which I believe is original or solely mine was crafted with the help of my environment that includes people and events that have shaped and possibly manipulated my thinking. Having said this, my journal embodies qualities found within Oral History that help to preserve honest accounts:
[This includes a] thinking-out-loud quality, as perceptive questions work and rework a particular topic, encouraging the narrator to remember the details, seeking to clarify that which is muddled, making connections among seemingly disconnected recollections, challenging contradictions, evoking assessments of what it all meant then and what it means now (3).
This excerpt in particular struck me as a critical and intriguing lens with which to compare Oral History to my journal writing. Admittedly, my journal contains elements of each characteristic mentioned above. The differences lie within style. The thought process has merely shifted from the subconscious to ink. The line of questioning has merely shifted from an interviewer to an inner-self; nevertheless, the questions are still critical, challenging, and require a great deal of courage to ask. Inevitably, details are provided in the manner and to the degree that I can conjure up an image simply by revisiting my writing in order. This allows me to readdress my perspective from then to now. I often attempt this process to illustrate my maturity over time. Luckily, in doing so, my eyes have been opened to things I was once blind. More importantly the connection between Oral History and my journal writing is based upon the fact that not only does everyone have a story to be told, but also a desire for it to be told in his or her own words; essentially, when you take the text out of the context, you are left with a con which interestingly is the argument behind the importance of Oral History.
[This includes a] thinking-out-loud quality, as perceptive questions work and rework a particular topic, encouraging the narrator to remember the details, seeking to clarify that which is muddled, making connections among seemingly disconnected recollections, challenging contradictions, evoking assessments of what it all meant then and what it means now (3).
This excerpt in particular struck me as a critical and intriguing lens with which to compare Oral History to my journal writing. Admittedly, my journal contains elements of each characteristic mentioned above. The differences lie within style. The thought process has merely shifted from the subconscious to ink. The line of questioning has merely shifted from an interviewer to an inner-self; nevertheless, the questions are still critical, challenging, and require a great deal of courage to ask. Inevitably, details are provided in the manner and to the degree that I can conjure up an image simply by revisiting my writing in order. This allows me to readdress my perspective from then to now. I often attempt this process to illustrate my maturity over time. Luckily, in doing so, my eyes have been opened to things I was once blind. More importantly the connection between Oral History and my journal writing is based upon the fact that not only does everyone have a story to be told, but also a desire for it to be told in his or her own words; essentially, when you take the text out of the context, you are left with a con which interestingly is the argument behind the importance of Oral History.