This paper examines the academic status of oral history within historiography, arguing that oral accounts deserve greater historical credibility than they traditionally receive. Beginning with a typology of oral history — collective forms such as myths and legends, and personal first-hand accounts — the paper explores the strengths and limitations of each. Drawing on journal literature published in The Journal of American History, the study uses the September 11, 2001 attacks as a case study to analyze how political, religious, and social perspectives shape the oral historical record. The paper concludes that oral history captures emotional and individual dimensions of events that official accounts omit, and that understanding those differences is essential to a complete historiography.
The paper demonstrates the use of a contemporary event as a methodological lens for understanding historical practice more broadly — a technique common in historiographical essays. By treating 9/11 not merely as a subject but as a controlled case through which to observe the formation of oral history in real time, the author shows how proximity to an event (including video documentation) can both validate and complicate oral accounts.
The paper follows a standard academic research essay structure: an introduction establishing the problem, a typology of oral history, a stated thesis, a literature review drawing on journal sources, an analytical section applying the reviewed literature, and a conclusion that synthesizes findings. The literature review and analysis sections form the core of the argument, with the conclusion returning to the paper's central claim about oral history's rightful place in historiography.
Oral history has often been discounted by the academic community as hearsay because it is not based on provable fact. As a result, oral history has been omitted from many traditional accounts of events. When one considers recent history, we have many records that can tell us exactly what happened and when. However, as we travel back through time, pieces of "hard evidence" become more difficult to find. If we go back far enough, oral history is all that we have. Before our collection of oral history begins, we have nothing but scant archaeological evidence to piece together societies and events. Correlating archaeological evidence with ancient oral history can provide a perspective that aids in the deciphering of ancient information.
History is more than simply an account of events. Just as we are influenced by our emotions, politics, and the world around us, so it was with our collective ancestors. Oral history provides an element that is often missing from purely factual historical content. To know how a general felt as he looked over a battlefield provides a perspective that helps us gain a deeper understanding of the events and actions of individuals. Sometimes diaries and personal accounts help to fill in missing pieces of an event that are absent from official accounts. The purpose of this research is to explore the use of oral history in relation to the interpretation of an event, using a recent occurrence that remains in living memory: the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent War on Terrorism.
Oral history falls into two broad categories. The first is collective oral history, such as myths and legends. Myths and legends have been used to complement archaeological finds and to draw pieces of information from many sources together into a collective work. The central debate has always been whether to take a myth literally, symbolically, or as a loosely translated oral history. One example of this debate is the Arthurian legends. It is easy to view the battles described in those legends as accurate historical accounts; however, figures such as Merlin and the Lady of the Lake are difficult to accept from a strictly historical perspective. This legend demonstrates how historical elements can be intertwined with fictional or symbolic elements to create a myth.
Gilgamesh is another example of a narrative that combines historical account with obvious symbolic or fictional elements. There are many theories as to why oral history contains these mixed-element stories. It may be that in order to preserve the historical core of a narrative, ancient storytellers knew it had to be interesting enough to be retold. If we think about our own lives, we can place this in greater perspective: when we speak with someone, we tend to recount only the most interesting points of the day. We do not waste time discussing books that were uninteresting. The same principle may have applied to the ancients.
The second type of oral history is the personal account of a known historical event or time period. Personal stories have been discounted as inaccurate because they express emotions and reflect the personal viewpoints of the individual. An account may be swayed by personal opinion and preferences. Certain information may be omitted because the person was unaware of it, or because they intentionally left it out. This characteristic of oral history is a major point of contention among purists in the academic world.
There are many aspects of both types of oral history that must be considered. Much controversy surrounds the use of myths in academic works. The most obvious reason for their omission stems from the world of empirical science — myths simply cannot be proven in a way that meets strict scientific method. The same can be said for personal oral history. Before the advent of the video camera, oral history and its evolution into print media was the only method for preserving accounts of important historical events.
Academic perspectives on how we view oral history changed drastically after the advent of recording devices, the television, and motion picture cameras. It is much easier to reconstruct history accurately using photographs and footage rather than line drawings or written descriptions. This research explores the hypothesis that oral history needs to be given greater historical credibility than it currently receives, and stresses the value of oral history as a key to grasping the "big picture" surrounding any given event.
It would be safe to say that on the morning of September 11, 2001, two airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers, causing their collapse and the deaths of many people. This is the basic information that everyone knew almost immediately. It was not until sometime after the events that people learned additional details such as the names of those killed, the identities of the pilots, and the apparent reasons for the attacks. Many people initially assumed the first plane crash was a terrible accident — at least until they witnessed the second plane changing course and flying directly into the second tower. Only then did it become apparent that this was no accident. The "official" account was not long in coming, but individual accounts began to emerge and continue to emerge today. They morph and change as time passes and the events recede further from people's immediate memory. It took time for people to process what had happened and to form perspectives filtered through their own experience.
In conclusion, this study provided insight into the development of the oral history of an event as it unfolded. The September 11, 2001 attacks provided an excellent resource for studying an event in real time. Scholars could watch the development of various viewpoints and compare them to actual documented footage and official investigations. Only recently has this capability become available to historians. There is still much that could be learned about oral history from this event. It would be particularly valuable to compare a person's account recorded just after the events with a re-telling of those events as they recall them today. Such research would help resolve the question of whether memory or politics dominates oral history accounts.
This research raised important issues and perspectives regarding the place of oral history in historiography. Oral history is the history of the individual, whereas general history represents the "official" account. Understanding these differences is an essential element in determining where oral history fits into the complete story of any given event.
Appleby, R. Scott. "History in the Fundamentalist Imagination." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 35 pars.
Clark, Mary Marshall. "The September 11, 2001, Oral History Narrative and Memory Project: A First Report." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 33 pars.
Cullather, Nick. "Damming Afghanistan: Modernization in a Buffer State." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 51 pars.
Dillon, Pattie. "Teaching the Past through Oral History." The Journal of American History 87.2 (2000): 10 pars.
Hunt, Michael H. "In the Wake of September 11: The Clash of What?" The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 25 pars.
Kuniholm, Bruce R. "9/11, the Great Game, and the Vision Thing: The Need for (and Elements of) a More Comprehensive Bush Doctrine." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 29 pars.
Lawrence, Bruce B. "Conjuring with Islam, II." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 29 pars.
Lofgren, Stephen. U.S. Army Guide to Oral History. Center of Military History, United States Army, 2006.
McAlister, Melani. "A Cultural History of the War without End." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 42 pars.
Prados, John. "Notes on the CIA's Secret War in Afghanistan." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 15 pars.
Shopes, Linda. "Oral History and the Study of Communities: Problems, Paradoxes, and Possibilities." The Journal of American History 89.2 (2002): 25 pars.
You’re 40% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.