Shifting the Balance of Power: Oral History and Public History in the Digital Era

Abstract

Oral history and public history have been interconnected for many years, sharing multiple points of commonality, including a frequent interest in documenting under-documented communities. Both have brought different strengths to the table in their intersections, but it has been the digital turn in method and practice that has allowed these two areas of interest to complement each other most fully. Digital technologies have finally allowed oral history to be more fully public, and they have encouraged public history further toward the collaborative approach that oral history has often taken, fulfilling long-time aspirations on the part of both groups. The overall result of this evolution is a more holistic and contextualized treatment of the historical record along with a shift in power dynamics tantamount to the beginning of the “shared authority” moment. This essay is organized around some perceived joint concerns as a way of providing structure for the discussion. For both groups, there is an interest in presenting a more complete view of history in terms of perspectives, recipients, and mediation, and this comes across in three primary areas. First, there is concern about what/who is being documented: is the focus on capturing the stories of the elite, or is there more of an emphasis on gathering the perspectives of everyday people and underrepresented voices? Also, who is doing the documentation and driving the research agenda, and how do new digital tools shift what is feasible? Second, and less often considered, is the issue of who is involved in the interpretation of history – not just who gets to tell a story, but who controls how, when, or in what contexts the story is told? In the past, the work of curation and interpretation has been claimed largely by professionals, but new technologies have opened up that terrain to communities as well, so that there can be more public engagement in presenting the culture and history of everything from neighborhoods and organizations to traditionally underdocumented groups. The third and final shared area of concern revolves around who gets to hear the resulting stories: will only academics have access, or will the histories be presented to, and made meaningful for, the general public? Evolving electronic platforms have certainly changed how documented history can be disseminated, and while class, gender, and other demographic issues still contribute to the existence of a not insignificant digital divide, obstacles of geography, mobility, and physical access are at least reduced through the use of online portals. The ability to make audio and video easily available through digital platforms has also changed the level of mediation inherent in that dissemination. As digital technologies lower the barriers for communities to document, interpret, and present their own histories, we are at an exciting turning point in the development https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110430295-005 of oral history and public history. Outreach and engagement may now evolve in very different ways as local groups have the potential to take a more active role in the documentation and representation of their stories, and as their autonomy in creating and curating projects grows, we may get to see some very creative approaches. Our roles as oral historians and public historians will almost certainly change, but as we become more aware of power imbalances and can collaborate more meaningfully with communities on their own terms, the result will surely be a richer historical record.