A major dilema found in oral history, which was broght to my attention when reading O'Farrell's (1979) account is that there exists a fine line between usage and reliance. (O'Farrell, P 1979) Unless used in a sociology piece, oral testimony can not be given the significance of primary evidence because what results from an interview is the word from one person alone, which is frequently a commoners voice, one that does not portray a universal message. Australian history is a prime example of how this line can be crossed, as many historical figures in Australia are embelishments of truth, yet they still command respect and acknowledgment from the common Australian, largely due to the fact they are of their creation. The Australian bushranger is a prime example as although an outlaw who caused considerable perile to those he came in contact with, Australian's since the time of Ned Kelly adored, even idolised these rebelous characters because an integrel part of the Australian physche to reject authority. When word spread of such people their image began to change from mouth to mouth, or from mind to mind. Unlike oral history, when myths are created they are the combination of many lines of thought, although still upholding the message, or purpose of the recorded act. Myths reveal a worldview, not an analysis of facts and figures, and therefore can be used to explain practises and beliefs, however reliance on such information often leds us into the supernatural. Oral history has a great ability to transform to myth becuase what is often said in oral testimony is requently a socially acceptted norm for that particular class, therefore elaboration from that class, often being the under or middle, usually occurs. The reliance on oral testimony and myth must only be held at face value, however the usage of oral history must also be contained. If to many accounts of oral history are used throughout an argument a one sided conclusion will be reached, not to mention the creditablity of the work will be decreased. If used scarcely to support the given thesis, oral testimony can reveal what facts and figures can not, the opinion and perspective of the minority, or those often left out of offical recording. Oral history is restricted by its nature however any history that is heavily reliant upon one source of information is limited.
History has been described as a highly selective disipline by the likes of Finley (2000) who will most likely rarely be mentioned in history books, however those such as Aristole who also openly rejected history are frequently mentioned throughout history.(Finley, M 2000 p.11) Unless Finley is to predict the future, this in itself is an example of histories selectivness. Historians are responsible for what we reguard as history, however it has been their choice as to what to reguard as relivant history, much like the way one whould choose to recall certain aspects during an interview. Enevitably all recorded history comes under scrutiny of the indiviual historian, wether it be the oral historians choice of subject and questions, or the ancient historian who chooses what evidence to use, whether being government archives or meuseams, and its degree of relivancy depending upon individual interpretation. It is the interpretation of history, the fact that a dominate historian or culture decides what is history and what is everyday life that makes it so particular, or disiplinary. Although it has been extreamly challenged by historians, reguarding the nineth chapter as not dealing with history at all, Aristole's work in large is not contructed with facts, figures, statistics or details of a recorded event. Perhaps the reason why Aristole never deals with history is becuase in expaining an issue, one will always choose as to what they reguard as truth, therefore by stating his thesis and using his mind alone, Aristole has create his own truth. Unreliant upon anyother source of information, Aristole states that 'Poetry is more philosophical and more weighty than history, for poetry speaks rather of the universal, history of the particular'. (Finley, M 2000, p.1) With poetry in mind being an artistic expression in lyrical form, the results of oral history are much like poetry in that one message carried by Romanticism is that the way in which we sense the world, or interpret our enviroment, is activly created in the individuals imagination. This being a perpetual cycle until the day we die, the interview procedure and method of using taperecorders that enable us to sense periods of emotion, makes oral history to those who share Aristoles line of thought to be a far more reliant source of information.
Although there is a case for the relivancy of oral history, another issue facing the conclusivness of oral testimony is that of its own creation. The human mind is certainly creative, however it is also capable of predijuce and memory loss, which has the ablility to underline everything that is said, especially under a recorded conversation. If one want's to speak their truth then there is no greater time to have their opinion heard. Oral history falls under attack when for example, a racial issue is explored only using the testimony of one race. Although Australian aborigines have had no say in past perceptions of Australian issues, today their voices are heard, however it is not unreasonale to think some may hold a grudge against white people, given the fact of our past treatment towards them. The work of 'Living Black', by Kevin Gilbert (1977) seeks to explore the issue of the 'actual condition' of the Australian Aborigines, however only using Aboriginal testimony. (Gilbert, K 1977, page 1) Although some of his interviewees were white in complextion such as Natasha McNamara, they are still transcendents of a race that became subject to cruel treatment, therefore when looking for the truth, or actual condition, Gilbert has only used one side of the story. In nature there always coexists a positive and negitive, good and evil, life and death. In the search for the truth both 'positive and negitive' must be explored, if not the truth can only be held by the individual, or particular class. When oral history falls into the wrong use its result is completely uncreditable, which is not to say Australain aboriginals were mistreated, however to achieve a universal truth we must hear from all relivant perspectives at the time.
The method of oral history has also been prominately used in the novel 'Auntie Rita', by Rita and Jackie Huggins (1994), however the aim of this work permits the weighty usage of recorded evidence. (Huggins, R, J 1994) At the begin of 'Auntie Rita', the author states that "I (Auntie Rita) speak only for myself and not how others would expect me to speak". (Huggins, R, J 1994 p.1) Following this the usage of the oral history method is permitable as she has declared that she can only say what she holds to be true, in that she is not claiming her opinion to be universal. Throughout the book Huggins (1994) has used oral testimony mainly coming from her own family and friends, in which the conversation recorded was done by the author, not a historian. When historians created oral history they often find their work preserved in museams, government archives and public libaries. A major problem for not only oral history, but history in general is the issue explored by York (1993), being that even if a historian decides use evidence located in government archive, they can often be restricted to access as all recorded lyrical, visual and written information is subject to 'sentencing'. (York, B 1993 p.15) When it is realised that all historical information is subject to an individuals perception at one time, there seems no logical argument to discredit or ignore oral history as a reliable source of information in a social concept.
Oral history may go against the previouly assumed method of recording history, that being the "historians job is to saturate him or herself in the sources within reason"(O'Farrell, P 1979 p.7) , however ones reason or perception of truth can only be held accountable by the individual. Given that, the central problem seen with oral history is that it overshadows, or is opinionitive, yet all historical evidence, whether it be newspaper articles, government statistics or oral testimony comes under the perception of one mind eventually. All forms of evidence are created for a single purpose and their continuing existence also comes under scrutiny from not only the modern collective public perception, given the case with relocating and destroying monuments depending on their recent realivance (Davison, G 1998 p.59), but also the public servents working to control archives. After realising that all data and recorded evidence is opinitive there remains no reason to exclude oral history as a historical method. Oral history can be seen in the light as social history becuase what results is the perception of life through the selected subject. When oral testimony encounters both sides of the story, such as white and black perception, the historian is able to glance into the imaginitive world of the interviewees. So long as the historians takes both counts into equal weighting, oral history allows what other forms of history can not, the ability to discover how and why we percive our world completely, underlying all we create.
