LettersLetters from the Readers
Send your letters via e-mail to both co-editors:
Pilar Domínguez (Spanish text)- pdprats@dch.ulpgc.es
Don Ritchie (English text) - oralhistorians@comcast.net
UNITED KINGDOM
A Truly International Association
Marieta de Moraes Ferreira has done us all a great service in her quantitative study of the past several years of participation in the various meetings of the International Oral History Association. She has shown in startling detail where in the world the Association draws its strength and where it must focus its efforts if it is to become truly international. Leaving aside the obvious spurts of participation in terms of attendees and presenters at our meetings on the part of the residents of the nations in which the conferences were held (Australians in Sydney, Brazilians in Rio de Janeiro, Italians in Rome, etc.) the areas of the world in which we must direct our attention are: Africa, all sections of Asia, and Eastern Europe. The surprising aspect of the numbers collated is the lack of attendees from these regions of the world even when conferences have been held in or near those areas. Istanbul did not attract large number of attendees and presenters from the Islamic world or Central Asia. Meeting in South Africa did not attract a large group of African scholars despite the long history of the study of oral history and oral traditions on that continent. And meeting in Sydney did not attract scholars from Southeast Asia despite many organized oral history projects and archives in such nations as: Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. The question we have to ask ourselves is where we go from here.
1: First on the agenda is the task of reaching out to nearby areas whenever we hold a conference. That may not yield the results we want next year in Mexico but it should be a consideration for future planning. Scholarship aid, if possible, should be offered to oral historians in neighboring venues in order to stimulate interest. Publicity and outreach should be focused on those areas rather than Western Europe and the Americas. To begin this effort a central listing of people and projects should be developed and kept up to date.
2: We should take seriously Philippe Denis's concerns about language policy. Many of the areas where we are the weakest, sub Sahara Africa, the Maghreb, parts of Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe, the Middle East are areas where a second language is not English or Spanish but French. This is a consideration brought home for me when I was in Cambodia but it should be obvious to anyone concerned with attracting new members. English speaking may be widespread in the non-English speaking world but Spanish speaking is not widespread in the non-Spanish speaking world.
3: Two other aspects of language policy deserve attention. When we meet in venues where any of the three major languages are not widely spoken, accommodation should be made for the language of that country. I know that that is already the tradition but it should be codified. In addition we have to do better by instant translation. I know this is difficult and expensive but we should keep it in our minds at all times to try to take advantage of every possibility.
4: The programs, to me, seem disjointed. Issues do not seem to be framed in such a way as to contribute to a continuing theme for the conference. Conferences are given themes but it is difficult to discern any rhyme or reason to those themes. Program committee members should be told that it is alright to refuse to accept papers that do not seem to make any sense in terms of the theme of the conference, even when the call for papers is so broad as to seemingly include anything. The concern should be what is common about the world we are documenting and what is common to our practice both methodologically and theoretically. Program committees should spend more time on matters of intellectual substance and the fit between the papers and the questions being asked about the topics selected and thereby try to bring coherence to the program. This does not mean that one searches for a bland agreement but it does mean that even with widely divergent views and practices people are still addressing similar or at least mutually understood problems.
5: Our ideas about interdisciplinarity seem to be fairly limited. To be sure one could argue that in some organizations the drive for reaching across boundaries has sometimes resulted in sessions that seem to have little to do with oral history (and here I am thinking specifically about meetings of the American Oral History Association) but I think an examination of the programs of the International Association reveals a very limited reaching out to other disciplines, especially on a theoretical level. Sending notices of meetings to the journals or list serves of various folklore, anthropological, sociological, political science and other organizations would be a step in the right direction.
6: There are several other issues that should be addressed. At this point let me suggest that the organization form some sort of group to review past programs in light of an effort to diversify the meetings and develop a plan to implement the proper program changes.
Thank you for your attention.
Ronald J. Grele rjg5@columbia.edu