The conference presents some contemporary debates about oral-history interviewing. It describes its origin and frames it within the context of History's new theory. It also deals with problems and peculiarities found in the interviewer- informant\'s relationship and with the cultural context surrounding the interview. Finally, it offers a definition which includes important elements for its methodological characterization.

Key words: Interview, oral history, qualitative research.

Once we have accepted the proposal that negates discourse as the mere formalization of knowledge because we no longer believe in an objective relationship with the world, and once we no longer separate the world of the symbolic from the reality it produces, then we can understand reality as proposed by the "linguistic turn”.3 Supported by this approach, oral historians will take a new look at interviews to distinguish how things are asked, as well as what is asked, how it is said, the meaning of what is said, and to whom it is said.4

From this perspective, Ronald Grele then defines the oral history interview as a “conversational narrative”. It is said to be conversational because of the relationship established between interviewee and interviewer, and narrative because of its form of exposition-which tells, relates, or narrates a story. But it should be clear that this conversational narrative is different from an autobiography, a biography or a memoir, because the conversations recorded by the oral history interview are the result of a joint activity, a negotiation between interviewee and interviewer, organized from the historical perspectives of both participants (Grele, 1998, 44).

The oral history interview has three main aspects: one internal and two external. The internal aspect has to do with the signs and their interrelations, i.e. the relationship of the word or sign to the other words-in other words, the linguistic structure, grammar and literature of the interview. The second aspect is that which follows from the interviewee-interviewer relationship. This interrelationship is said to imply a perfectly-structured form, that if studied closely, reveals exactly what kind of communication is occurring in the interview, and what kind of communication is being transmitted. This falls within the scope of performance, which refers to the circumstances and contexts in which the interview is taking place. We must remember that the oral history interview is not a literary production, and for that reason it can not be divorced from the context in which it occurs, the space in which a transmitter and a receiver are meeting face to face, and an audience for whom both parties are producing this history from their unique perspectives and cultural horizons.

The third aspect, more abstract, and for that reason more difficult to evaluate and less studied, has to do with who is directing the interviewee. The one who is telling his story is not speaking only for himself, or for the person who is asking, but is also speaking, through the interviewer, for a larger community on behalf of whom he is explaining their vision of the story. Here there are two relationships in one. One is between the informant and the historian (each point of view is a standard reference for the other, and both are distinguished by the questions answered, and by the questions not asked or not answered); the other exists between the informant and his or her own historical consciousness-more elusive because it involves the hidden levels of discourse which must be read as symptoms. This is more than a mere Weltanschauung (attitude), because it has to do with a well-structured field in which the people live their history, and which, at the same time, guides their practice and action. It is the field of the myths, the ideas of history, the ideologies. It is their attitude toward the past, with profound cultural consequences (Grele, 1998, pp. 44-46).

Now, defining the oral history interview as a conversational narrative also implies the recognition of it as a communicative act. As such, it represents a “controversial” act where there exists a margin or response that goes beyond the simple questions of “confirmation” and “clarification”.5 Eva MacMahan says it has to do with a “reciprocal act”, in which interviewer and interviewee are agreed to disagree (McMahan, 1989, en Grele, 1991). The idea is to achieve a hermeneutic conversation, which according to MacMahan, permits the modification of the cultural horizons of the interviewer and interviewee through an appropriation of each other’s texts (text understood as the ways in which the subjects structure their relationship with the world [see A. Schutz]), and not the simple questions of verification and proof that are made in the supposed interest of historical objectivity and/or rectification of the other side’s ideology-the dominant ideology. It means breaking the vicious circle that simply reinforces the ideological outlooks of interviewee and interviewer. It legitimizes the exercise of power and avoids the tension, the conflict, so as to provide the "political praxis of the interview” itself as reflexive communication. With the retrieval of its ability to respond, the oral history interview recaptures its reason for being, and that which defines its critical specificity. The problem lies in maintaining this conversational narrative without losing sight of the critical stance that orients the historian’s activity in investigating the past. Clearly, oral history is a narration, and also an analysis. The narrator conducts her analysis when she selects and imposes a gestalt (narrative structure) on what she tells, and the historian conducts an analysis when he introduces questions. Hence, the historical language used by the person interviewd is the narrative, and its form consists of the report which is interrupted when the historian breaks in with his historical language, whose form is the question. When these historical languages flow in the interview and conflict with each other, one can see how the participants vie for control of the interview and make clear the interview’s "political praxis" (p.125).

The difficulty for the historian, then, is to avoid breaking into the interviewee’s narrative with her questions. The narration has a gestalt, that is, a narrative structure consciously chosen both for its meaning in relation to the rest of the history, and for the way it fits into the context of the interview (Rosenthal, 1991, p.107). This has led other oral historians to argue over the relevance of the definition of the oral history interview as a “conversation”. For Dean Hammer and Aaron Wildavsky, the oral history interview is, instead, a “guided monologue” because it occurs in a plane of interview, based on well-planned and well-thought-out questions and answers, the interviewee being the most important element in this communicative act. The interviewer is not seeking to make friends with the person interviewed; the interviewer does not reveal his views to guide the interviewee or to agree with her. On the contrary, the interviewer hides his views, and allows the other to speak as much as she likes. He does not interrupt her nor harass her with annoying questions, although at the end, he may risk everything on a challenging question (Hammer and Wildavsky, 1996, pp. 40-42).

Indeed, the above considerations by Dean Hammer and Aaron Wildavsky are both evocative and critical as regards defining the oral history interview as either a guided conversation or a monologue. However, in my opinion-and I think those who have done interviews will agree with me-this experience is difficult to define in one way or the other. To circumscribe the reality of the interview based on a single characteristic or situation would be to exclude the particular situations imposed by the diverse cultural contexts of the interviews, the personalities, backgrounds, and ideologies of both the interviewees and the interviewers. I insist that each interview is different, and each person implies something new and unique in the interviewer/interviewee relationship. The interviewer has her art in knowing how to grasp and listen to what her interviewee requires, and in knowing what should be approached at the various moments of the interview. The narratives require both monologues and dialogues, conversations and discussions. The important thing is that the historian not lose sight of the fact that oral history is both narration and analysis, by both the questioner and the one who answers.

The oral history interview implies, of course, the recording of a story that a person tells through conversation or an assisted monologue, led by a historian interested in exploring the contradictions between the myths, ideology, visions of the story, unconscious motivations, individual and family scripts, public and private memories, the personal and the political.

The interview has aspects linguistic, grammatical, literary-and therefore deals with words-signs and their relationships. It has psychological and social relations conditioned by the interviewer/interviewee relationship and the context of the interview. It has yet another aspect harder to fathom-I mean the ideological-that aspect which the individual allows to be seen when he wants to tell his story to a larger audience, to his community. It is this ideological matrix which guides the interviewee in his praxis and action in the world.

Upon pondering these considerations, we must confess that the interview experience is very, very complex, and that every time, the communicative act will be expressed in different ways. Sometimes, the interviewee will think for herself, and will require only the echo of her partner for company in her solitary attempt to give new meaning to the experience she has lived. But at other times, the interviewee will want to hear the interviewer’s questions to aid in making sense of what he does not understand, because the gestalt of his narration has become broken, and appears not to fit together with the things that give it meaning, and to which it in turn gives meaning, Thus, the interviewee will be retelling his tale as a result of both the analysis implied in the very act of remembering, and of answering the questions suggested by the analytical language of the historian. The political praxis of the interview thus suggests the controversy, the tension of a dialogue format harsher than that of typical everyday conversation, but also the rapport characteristic of the interviewer/interviewee relationship.

Translator: Lessie Evona York-Weatherman
UABC Mexicali

Ek, S. B. (1996). Narraciones y realidad. Historia, Antropología y Fuentes Orales, 1, (16), 75-85.

Grele R. J. (1991). La historia y sus lenguajes en la entrevista de historia oral: quién contesta a las preguntas de quién y por qué. Historia y Fuente Oral, 5, 111-129.

Grele, R. J. (1998). Movement without aim: Methodological and theoretical problems in oral history. In R. Perks & A. Thomson (Eds.), The oral history reader (pp.38-52). London: Routledge.

Hammer, D. y Wildavsky, A. (1990). La entrevista semi-estructurada de final abierto. Aproximación a una guía operativa. Historia y Fuente Oral, 4, 23-61.

Joutard P. (1986). Esas voces que nos llegan del pasado (Trans. N. Pastermac). Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Mendiola, A. (1993). Michel de Certeau: la búsqueda de la diferencia. Historia y Grafía, 1, 9-31.

Morrisey, C. T. (1998). On oral history interviewing. In R. Perks & A. Thompson (Eds.). The oral history reader (pp. 107-113). London: Routledge.

Rosenthal, G. (1991). La estructura y la Gestalt de las autobiografías y sus consecuencias metodológicas. Historia y Fuente Oral, 5, 105-110.

Thompson, P. (1988). La voz del pasado (Trans. J. Domingo). Valencia: Edicions Alfons El Magnànim - Institució Valenciana D'Estudis i Investigació.

Translator: Lessie Evona York-Weatherman
UABC Mexicali

1See the use of the interview in the Nineteenth Century in Thompson, P. (1988).

2Earlier in the twentieth century, English, like Spanish, used the masculine possessive pronoun in generalized statements to indicate both genders of humankind. Since the advent of the feminist movement, however, such usage in English has been considered sexist, is generally avoided, and has been replaced by expressions such as “his and her”, “s/he” etc. (Fennel, Francis, 2002). While these non-sexist devices can be comfortably employed now and then in a work, their constant and continual use becomes awkward. In this work, in order to avoid the annoying repetition of such constructions, we shall at times use the feminine pronoun (she, her, etc.) and at times, the masculine (he, him, his, etc.).

3Not all historians and anthropologists share the idea of understanding this reality as a mere narrative. See Swen B. Ek’s reflections (1996).

4“The memory embodied in the account is not subject to the experience that was lived, but recreates it in terms of the practical contexts in which the narrator is situated [...] The identity of the ego, in late twentieth-century society, is manifested as textual narrative-textuality which is constructed from what the ego tells of herself-not losing sight of the fact that this contrast occurs at different times-and what others say about her. Furthermore, the context of utterance in which the ego expresses herself is constantly changing, as is the audience to whom the narrative is directed. Let us be clear: the ego who enunciates her subjectivity configures this in different ways, depending on when and to whom she is speaking” (Mendiola, A., 1993, p. 10).

5A question of confirmation would be, “Were those not years of intense political differences with the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD)? A question of clarification would say, “Did these differences have serious consequences for the electorate? A question of verification would be, “Were you a member of the PRD from 1996 to 1998?