|
 
11 * 14 MAY 2001
LEIDEN/ AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
Talking about Past & Future
Between 11 and
14 May, the Foundation for the Oral History of Indonesia (SMGI) organized
three events to celebrate the completion of its project. More than three
thousand hours of interviews with 720 people, who have experienced the
last decades of Dutch colonialism in Asia, have been recorded. The first
celebratory event was an international conference 'Changing the Guard,
Guarding the Past. Oral histories of the end of colonialism and the birth
of new nations in Asia'. The second day was entitled 'Stemmen uit Indië:
Over de mondelinge geschiedenis van Indië/Indonesië, 1940-1962'
(Voices from the Indies: On the oral history of the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia)
and was designed to present the project to the Dutch public. Finally,
specialists from the Netherlands and abroad discussed potential cooperation
in Southeast Asia in a two-day meeting: 'New sources, new networks, and
new opportunities: towards a new agenda for cooperation on Oral History'.
* By FRIDUS STEIJLEN & HEATHER SUTHERLAND
Complementary pairs of speakers set the
tone for the first day. Each significant collection was discussed by a
'maker' and a 'user': Fridus Steijlen and WimWillems for the SMGI, Charles
Allen and Tazeen Murshid on South Asia, Uma Devi and Daniel Chew for Singapore,
and Mona Lohanda and Rudolph Mrazek on the Indonesian National Archives.
Potential constraints imposed by government, institutional, or project
guidelines were discussed but, more importantly, the unique value of oral
sources was explored and re-affirmed.
The second day was different in both organization and atmosphere. More
than 300 people, including many who had contributed their stories to
the SMGI, gathered in Leiden. In the morning, Fridus Steijlen emphasized
the collective nature of the project, uniting respondents, interviewers,
and the organizers. Then, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Thomas Lindblad, and
Jaap de Moor commented on the collection in three lively presentations.
In afternoon workshops, organized by the interviewers, the audience
could listen to recorded extracts. The diversity of attendees, and the
festive reunion atmosphere demonstrated community commitment to the
project. Audience reaction was enthusiastic, with people describing
the collection as being important to themselves as well as to their
children and grandchildren.
The meeting of experts, directly after the two conference
days, was held at the Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology
(KITLV) in Leiden, the International Institute of Social History (IISH),
and the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) in Amsterdam.
The participants recognized that an effective oral history programme required
both researchers and archivists, that individual interviews and the collection
as a whole should be planned together, with suitable technology (recording
and access), and that respondent groups be involved early on.
It was also emphasized that better communication within
Southeast Asia was needed to discuss both 'making oral history' and the
use and analysis of oral sources. This would facilitate the exchange of
experience and techniques, and comparative research. It was decided to
build a network in several phases. The Singapore National Archive was
prepared to take a leading role in this. Initial steps will include setting
up an e-mail distribution list, a database of interested parties, and
eventually a website. Another possibility would be to seek a forum (preferably
structural) in printed media, for example, in the Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies. Organizing conference panels on
the use of oral sources in Southeast Asia perhaps at an IAHA (the International
Association of Historians of Asia) gathering is also a possibility.
Although each of the three events had its own character,
their complementary natures supported certain mutual general conclusions.
Heather Sutherland, who closed the first day, concluded that 'oral history'
is a misnomer that creates a false dichotomy between 'ordinary' (implicitly
'legitimate') and 'oral' history. It would be better to talk of 'oral
sources', and for historians to recognize that interview material, like
any other source, had it's own specific problems and potential.
It is not unusual that critical care is required in the use
of oral material, but the interview does offer unique possibilities
for creating sources.
Analysis of any documentation demands awareness of the context in which
it was produced, who is using it, and why. Government files, personal
memoirs, diaries, or interviews all have their pitfalls, and historians
must evaluate each according to its worth. Nothing can be added which
is not there already. However, during that process of emotional and
intellectual interaction, which is at the heart of an interview, content
will be formed that reflects both the intent of researcher or institution,
interviewer and respondent, and inter-personal dynamics. Pretending
that this does not take place, or claiming that the results are consequently
invalid, are equally naïve. On the contrary, this process should
be acknowledged and addressed. While recognizing that an interviewer's
sensitivity and respect for the respondent are prerequisites for mutual
trust and, hence, for good quality narratives goals and parameters should
be defined.
Creating an oral history collection poses specific challenges. Most
archives do not make written sources (although they might edit and publish
material), but some do have sections to create and conserve a 'national
audio memory'. Priorities for this may be government-set, often as part
of nation building, and may also be subject to market forces, if large
corporations or business sectors can hire the experts to document their
own histories. Smaller oral history projects are those of individual
researchers or, increasingly, those of activist groups, such as NGOs,
who do systematic interviewing to support their own agendas. The resulting
specific collections are often technically inadequate and abandoned
once their limited purpose had been served.
A fundamental conclusion from the four days of discussion
in May, and from the SMGI experience in general, was that the initial
organization of a large-scale oral history programme should combine the
interests of several constituencies. Often institutionally separate, together
they determine whether, why, and how a collection can be formed. One such
constituent group would be the academic community. In this case, a range
of interests should be represented and it is necessary to be aware of
the shifting and contingent nature of intellectual and social preoccupations.
Another group is represented by the archivists or documentalists who are
responsible for preservation and access, and able to help contextualize
eventual oral sources in relation to other collections. Then there are
the potential respondents, the technicians, and those granting subsidies.
Discussion between these groups is essential for defining the aims and
mustering the resources for significant public collections. Ideally, this
should be coordinated by a platform or institution, which can provide
expertise and continuity in open discussion with the constituencies. The
quality of the resulting material, however, will also depend upon the
ability of the interviewers to transcend their bureaucratic environment
and remain focused upon the intimate dialogue, personal memory, and self-revelation
that is at the core of 'oral history'.pondents who will have their own
priorities, and the technicians, who can offer the appropriate hard- and
software for recording and access. Finally, and on another level, come
the subsidy-givers, who have to be convinced of the political, institutional,
or social return on such an investment. *
*
Dr Fridus
Steijlen is coordinator of the SMGI and researcher of contemporary
social, economic and political developments in Indonesia at the KITLV,
Leiden.
Professor
Heather Sutherland is professor of Non-Western History at the Free
University
of Amsterdam (VU) and chair of the SMGI.
|