Another retrospective by Edward Rothstein of Studs Terkel’s life and work appeared today in the NYT, this time pointing out his affiliation with the left. The article notes that as an oral historian, Terkel anticipating much of the movement in academic history to tell history from below. But it goes further and notes that as an oral historian, he might have been expected to hold up a glass to the working class whose experiences he sought to record. In fact, Rothstein explains that Terkel’s perspective on the left filtered his oral histories, providing not just the impulse for his work but the context for his editing and the ultimate rhetorical effect of his history. “It is, in fact, impossible to separate Mr. Terkel’s political vision from the contours of his oral history,” Rothstein explains. “You grow more cautious as you keep reading. Mr. Terkel seems less to be discovering the point latent in his conversations than he is in shaping the conversations to make a latent point.” I think this is both an astute reading of Terkel’s work and displays a kind of naivete about the working and mechanisms of objectivity in history. It might be a nice way to start a conversation about history and objectivity in an undergraduate class. –DS
U.S. Intellectual History Blog
Related Posts
Natalie Mendoza
July 30, 2023
Natalie Mendoza on Rubén Donato and Jarrod Hanson’s *The Other American Dilemma: Schools, Mexicans, and the Nature of Jim Crow, 1912-1953*
In The Other American Dilemma: Schools, Mexicans, and the Nature of Jim Crow, 1912-1953, scholars of education Rubén Donato and Jarrod Hanson contend that the discrimination Mexican-descent people[1] experienced in Read moreAndrew Seal
June 1, 2015
Fanfare for the Common Man
There is no Library of Congress subject heading for “common man,” though there is one for “common mussel” and for “common markets.” Nor could you go to your catalog and Read moreJeanelle D. Horcasitas
May 19, 2024
One Thought on this Post
S-USIH Comment Policy
We ask that those who participate in the discussions generated in the Comments section do so with the same decorum as they would in any other academic setting or context. Since the USIH bloggers write under our real names, we would prefer that our commenters also identify themselves by their real name. As our primary goal is to stimulate and engage in fruitful and productive discussion, ad hominem attacks (personal or professional), unnecessary insults, and/or mean-spiritedness have no place in the USIH Blog’s Comments section. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any comments that contain any of the above and/or are not intended to further the discussion of the topic of the post. We welcome suggestions for corrections to any of our posts. As the official blog of the Society of US Intellectual History, we hope to foster a diverse community of scholars and readers who engage with one another in discussions of US intellectual history, broadly understood.
This would also be a particularly good article/topic in light of how undergraduates tend to believe that first-hand/primary evidence is indisputable. Still, it’s harder to sway oral histories—done properly and ethically—to the interviewer’s perspective than when one writes their own history. – TL