Oral History Training Workshop in Indonesia
5 - 11 April 2002, Yogyakarta

by Ratna Saptari

With support from the Open Society Institute and organized by CLARA in collaboration with the Realino Study Institute in Yogyakarta this workshop aimed to start off a joint oral history project in Indonesia which will consist of a number of sub-projects covering the areas of Aceh; North Sumatra; West Kalimantan; West and South Sumatra; West, Central and East Java; and Jakarta. These sub-projects will focus on specific social groups such as victims of violence; people in conflict areas; factory workers and labour organisers; peasants and peasant activists, ethnically marginalised groups. Twenty eight participants from various NGOs and research institutes in Java and Sumatra, one participant from Burma and three participants from KITLV and IISH in the Netherlands attended the workshop. Realino Study Institute in Yogyakarta provided a most amenable venue for the intensive discussions.

The workshop was meant to be a training workshop to prepare the participants for their own interviews, which meant that much space was to be given to basic interview techniques and how to deal with different interview situations. However the questions posed within the group emphasized the need to look at epistemological questions concerning the creation of sources; whether to look at oral history as an approach or method, how to deal with the dilemmatic relationship between interviewer and interviewee and how to analyse the link between micro- and macro-histories (or whether or not to link them). Since most of the participants had already a long-standing relationship with their informants either as activists or as researchers, questions were framed around their existing experiences and the direction of their future research plans. There was certainly no more need to emphasize the importance of collecting oral histories of the people they were working with since all of them felt the need to conduct interviews to 'dig up the past'. However the feeling was generally shared that this did not immediately pave the way to a better knowledge of clear-cut methods of inquiry and interviewing, let alone how to deal with the multiple roles that researchers and their informants are in. These and many other questions were raised in the extended period (six days) that the participants sat together and discussed the complex issues of conducting oral history.

Oral History as 'Alternative History'?

Conducting oral history has often been strongly associated with an attempt to bring undocumented voices into the picture; to provide another angle to official history, to counter accounts and interpretations of events constructed by the ruling elite. Indeed in the discussions there was a sense of bringing in something 'new', namely the writing of an 'alternative history'. Although the terms 'alternative' or 'competing' (tandingan) were mentioned a number of times, under more critical scrutiny they were considered unsatisfactory. In part this could be attributed to the fact that individual or micro-histories might not be 'alternative' in the sense that they can challenge or are different from the official national history. The complex and often ambiguous relationship of the individual to the larger structures and events rendered such a notion too simple and therefore inadequate. However various intentions and aims of the researchers, expressed in the first days of the workshop reflected some of the ambivalences, not only of the link between the individual and larger structures but also of the role of the researcher, of linking the past with the present. The idea that men and women for instance, 'know their own history' or that 'knowledge of the past is important for strategies of mobilisation' or that the knowledge pertaining to 'the nature of repression', and of 'collective identities', will allow a better understanding and therefore provide a better basis for the creation of new political strategies, were some of the underlying aims of the participants of the workshop.
For most of them, an understanding of how individuals perceived history and what happened during certain important historical events, became more a means to give meaning to the present rather than to re-examine the dynamics of the past. In an attempt to untangle the different levels of history, the organisers requested a reflection on the different levels of history (national; community and individual histories) which participants were persuaded to look at; yet this brought also a realisation of the intermeshing of different levels of history and experiences, therefore making the boundaries often ineffective.
In looking at the periods that the participants wanted to cover it was rather inevitable that most were interested in recent history - with the establishment, or the period leading up to the establishment of Suharto's regime and later on, its demise. The participants interested in workers' histories pinpointed a number of events as landmarks for their interviews, namely the 1950s (as a period where workers' organisations thrived at the same time as attempts by the state to control them brought them into two distinct categories ie. 'communist' and 'non-communist'); the 1970s and 1980s (when the domestication of trade unions was in full swing); early 1990s (when large strikes started to undermine the legitimacy of military/Suharto's rule) and the late 1990s (when a fragmented state and an equally fragmented workers movement brought disputes and strikes in different directions). Other participants wanted to focus more on the experiences and consequences of the 1965 mass arrests and massacres on those considered to be left wing leaders and followers, whether men or women. One participant wanted to focus on the periods when women experienced different forms of state violence therefore spanning the Japanese Occupation in the early 1940s, the 1965 massacres, the Military Operation Period which was enacted in Aceh (1989 - 1998); some wanted to look at women's experiences in periods of social conflict between ethnic or religious groups in Lampung, Jakarta and West Kalimantan in the 1990s; or at those who were rape victims during the May riots in 1998.
In dealing with these periods the necessity to highlight micro-histories was apparent. There was a clear understanding of the necessity to interview people at different levels to capture the diversity of experiences. For instance those interested in the ex political prisoners wanted to look at the party members, cadres and non-cadres but also the family members; those interested at factory workers and peasants would look at leaders, members of unions and non-members; those interested in women wanted to look at 'ordinary women', members of organisations and those who play important cultural roles. Some saw individual lives as shaped and defined by events and structures, others saw individuals and groups as having their own logic, their own repertoires of resistance and cultural grids to deal with them. Should we look at oral history to gain a better knowledge of the facts or should we attempt to understand the perceptions that people have regarding those 'facts'?

The Orality in Oral History

There were questions on whether oral history was purely a method of collecting information or whether it was a separate approach. Indeed it was stressed that the major factor distinguishing oral history from other types of history was its oral nature and this therefore confronts the historian with the problem of dealing with subjective accounts and narratives. The question of objectivity and subjectivity brought an animated discussion regarding whether there were boundaries between them; in one instance, objectivity was somewhat vaguely associated with rigorous procedures of scientific research and there was also a sense that 'subjectivity' implied haphazard data collecting, i.e. following one's own whims. The oral nature of the information meant also that the researcher should be able to capture the multiple signals manifested in the tone and articulation of the speaker, in the use of language and language levels, the use of songs or poetry to convey one's feelings. The various advantages but also problems regarding the use tapes and mini-discs were discussed; the distinctions between individual versus or group interviews were touched upon. Anthropologists in particular have long dealt with the problematics involved in interviewer-interviewee relationships. These problems emerge in the posing of questions, in the pursuance and selection of certain types of information, in the interpretation of narratives. In this workshop, concern with the problems of the present and attempts to advocate the interests of those lacking power, have strongly influenced the framing of the questions that the participants posed. However this position has not been uncritically examined. For instance when women interviewers are concerned with the issue of sexual violence and attempt to obtain stories (or testimonies) from the women on this topic, they often face painful silences or become entangled in the working out of emotional traumas. The question was raised as to how far an interviewer could pursue a topic further to obtain the required information. Also, when a researcher is faced with stereotypes and biases held by the informants with regard to other social groups, to what extent could researchers steer the conversation in such a way as to neutralise such views or to raise their solidarity towards the groups they are biased against? All of us were aware of the precarious balance existing between the need to listen and the urge to direct the conversation. Although there were no definite answers to these questions, the posing of such questions was useful to provide a check on us all.
In the same way that interviews are saturated with ambivalent and complex relations between researcher and informant, the question of interpretation is equally thorny. We have to grapple with interpreting the kinds of answers informants give; in the categories they use, and in the expressions they make. There was mention of 'fossil stories' - standard answers which are repeatedly provided by informants, and may manifest a number of different things. These fossil stories may either be meta-narratives, which have been internalised by informants; they may be mechanisms to avoid dealing with their own emotions, or instruments to prevent researchers from getting into their innermost thoughts, a reflection of the social distance with those who attempt to enter 'their world'. This naturally brings up the major question of the nature of memory - various factors are involved in attempting to 'jog one's memory', a topic which would be worthy of another workshop. The way we interpret the answers may also hinge on the way we see the link between individuals and their cultural repertoire.

Documenting and Reproducing Oral Histories

Another set of problems emerged when we discussed how the sources would be kept and made accessible to a broader public. As interviews would be taped and stored in mini discs three major issues came up. First of all, where to store the tapes; secondly how to safeguard the identity of the informants but at the same time (thirdly) how to make the information accessible to the general public.
These issues were not yet resolved in the workshop but the tapes were to be deposited in a still to be determined place in Jakarta and in the respective organisations of which the researchers were part. In total at least three copies would be made of each interview, two to be kept in Indonesia and one copy in the Netherlands (at the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam). Applying strict procedures in concealing the identity of the informants, if required, would safeguard the security of the informants. There was also mention of the production of films and novels, on the basis of the interviews, but these were topics, which were still agendas for the near future and therefore did not get much chance for discussion. The participants were primarily concerned with how to start the project and how the interviews were to be conducted;what to do with the interviews was a subject to be later discussed. There is a plan to discuss these issues further in November this year.

The participating organisations and individuals were: Haswinar Arifin, Popon Anarita and Indri from Akatiga; Ayu Ratih, Hilmar Farid, Muhammad Fauzi, Razif, Rinto Tri Hasworo and Andre from Jaringan Kerja Budaya, Erwiza Erman from LIPI, Puthut and Eka Kurniawan from Jendela Budaya, Danu Rudiono from Humanika, Abdurrahman and Toto from Yayasan Bhakti Pertiwi, Khanis Suvianita from Arek, Lugina Setyawati and Sri Endras Iswarini from Kapal Perempuan, Budi Agustono from the University of North Sumatra, Ita Nadia from Komnas Perempuan, Hermawan Trinugraha from Yayasan Pondok Rakyat; Suraiya Kamaruzzaman from Flower Aceh, Dianto Bachriadi, Yando Zakaria and Noer Fauzi from Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria; Geni Achnas from Tifa Foundation. Bellay South from Burma also attended as observer. Fridus Steijlen from KITLV; Emile Schwidder and Ratna Saptari from CLARA/IISG; and Budi Susanto from Realino Study Institute acted as facilitators and organisers.

[top]