Oral history has been useful in informing my research. As Sugiman shows in his article article “Life is Sweet: Vulnerability and Composure in the Wartime narratives of Japanese Canadians,” which discusses the shared memories of previously interned Japanese Canadians, what is recorded in oral history depends on an interaction between the oral historian and the subject. Because the nature of how this form of historical evidence is collected may cause the subject to distort truth to avoid embarrassment, subjects may not share the entirety of their stories, and historical researcher may probe the subject to focus on aspects of their story which they may not have otherwise in order to support the narrative that they are trying to tell, thus partially creating the evidence which supports specific stories with specific conclusions and themes. This perspective highlights the potential bias of storytelling, and of oral history.
The concept of storytelling as a vehicle for self-construction is also reflected in Freund’s work, which emphasises storytelling in modern American society as not only a reflection of or an attempt to accurately capture the world around us, but is also a way to enable social change and individual empowerment. In this way, Freund argues that oral history is important as a form of mass therapy, commemorating the traumas of the past to make them more palatable and aid in psychological healing in the present.
Alexander, S., “‘Do Grandmas Have Husbands?’ Generational Memory and Twentieth Century Women’s Lives,” The Oral History Review, 36, 2 (2009): 159-176.
Freund, A., “Under Storytelling’s Spell? Oral History in a Neoliberal Age,” Oral History Review, 42, 1 (2015): 96-132.