Oral Sources and Contemporary History: Dispelling Old Assumptions

Abstract

Over the past decade or so, debates about the merits of contemporary history and oral history have given way to controversies surrounding what one critic was tempted to term the history.1 Yet if writing about contemporary topics and using oral interviews as sources are no longer new practices, both are still treated with probationary restraint. Historians have accommodated in varying measure to such changes as the loss of historical objectivity as an ideal, the fragmentation of disciplinary unity, and the proliferation of subspecialities. But we still tend to believe in the superiority of chronologically distant, document-driven history, preferring our sources, like our wine, properly aged and stored. Our craft is best practiced, according to the traditionalists among us, when we stay off the streets, out of legislative corridors, and away from the tape recorder. Both territory and tool belong to journalists until contemporary passions cool and events can be seen in proper perspective. I share the preference for a well-stocked manuscript room with its ease of access and aura of quiet detachment. My experience, however, is that contemporary topics, even those embedded in intense controversy, and the research techniques that contemporaneity makes possible pose far fewer problems of perspective, sources, and evidence than is generally assumed. The issues faced in securing and analyzing evidence are remarkably similar to those encountered in working on more distant topics with more traditional methods. What is different is the way such research highlights the problematics of evidence and the complexity of historical construction. Indeed, both are inescapable -and having to confront that inescapability is itself a significant benefit that I neither anticipated when I began my foray into contemporary history nor fully appreciated until some years later. I hope to clarify the