Szóbeszéd vagy történelem? Az oral history értelmezési lehetőségei
Idle tale or historical science? Possible interpretations of oral history

Summary/Abstract: The Kádár era was about—among other things—the taboos and neglect surrounding certain historical events and moments in public discourse, the repression and the silencing of personal memories and the lack of debriefing of traumas. Therefore the previously unusual, “alternative historical sources” of the transition and the preceding decade—such as the historical documentaries, the formation of the Oral History Archives, the first video interviews of the Historical Interview Archives—have all significantly contributed to starting the process of common reflection upon and recalling and exploration of the past. In Hungary too, the concept of “oral history” has been and is being used by many people in many ways. From among the differing interpretation alternatives two major strands seem to have emerged: oral history as a type of source, document and approach; and oral history as a specific, strictly defined and delineated research and interviewing methodology. According to the first approach, oral history is based on the totality of personal documents, diaries, memoirs and live oral personal stories. The second approach to oral history—as a methodology—uses a comparatively narrower interpretation, and simply reduces it to a specific interviewing technique.

• Details
• Contents