The Practised Story and Oral Histories

Are there links between practised stories and oral histories? I believe there are, but not in the way you mightthink.

Both oral histories and practised stories are about people's lives, and about their responses to events that have happened, things they have learned, people who have influenced them.

The most obvious difference is that oral histories are told from the receiver's perspective, i.e. his or her worldview, rather than that of the teller. For example, an interviewer takes charge of the project, and is working towards a specific outcome. This directs the questions that will be asked, guides the storyteller to deliver responses around those questions, before the historian edits and compiles responses into a larger work. Aside from the obvious power imbalance in this relationship, the fact that the oral historian has an agenda is often disguised, or at least not made transparent. It may form part of a doctoral thesis, or supply useful data to form the basis of a grant application. While stories in themselves may contain surprises, most oral historians will unconsciously decide which bits of the stories are useful, which are not, and how the elements will be put together.

In story practice, the person who facilitates the process (and remember, this might be the main protagonist of the story) comes to the meeting with no preconceived ideas or agenda. The questions he or she will ask are never leading; the art is in opening the right doors for the teller to develop and relate his or her story without it being judged or assayed. The person central in the story is the one who decides what is important.

Here is a simple analogy to demonstrate. Someone holds a wine glass in front of them and asks for a particular type of wine, from a particular region, being a particular colour and having a certain taste. He or she tastes the wine tests it against his or her expectation, based on knowledge and experience. It may be a bit better or a bit worse than expected, but it will most probably not be surprising. This is the literary equivalent of picking up a Mills and Boon paperback, or a daily newspaper.

A story practitioner is more like the person who presents several drinking glasses of different shapes and sizes, and invites the wine waiter to select a glass and to then provide the liquid of their choice. The taster will probably find the contents surprising, unique, perhaps even unpalatable, but he or she will drink it all the same, and appreciate its special qualities, feeling its impact on his or her taste buds, intestinal juices, and general demeanour.

As the receiver of a story, are you a person who enjoys the comfort of the known, the expected? If so, you might prefer a story that will not transform or shock you but will make something you feel when you come home to a nice ordinary meal with a friend or partner after a long hard day? Or, do you want a story to be unique, to teach you something new, something that will stretch your perspective on life and what it is about?
I have talked elsewhere about the transformational nature of story practice. Given that storytelling is not something that all people do well, a story practitioner can become the intermediary between the individual and his or her story. The art of the story practitioner lies in working with the storyteller to identify the transformational elements of the story. The oral historian, on the other hand, is interested in obtaining perceived 'truths', often presented (or at least interpreted) as factual information. In other words, there can be described as transactional story elements that combine with other stories as evidence: many stories that share common elements make a larger whole that is unified and can be thematised, described and analysed in terms of its relevance to the oral historian's original proposition.

Story practitioners do not have an original proposition, nor do they place any importance on consensus, themes and patterns, rather they look for unique events, individual responses and surprising outcomes that have led to individual transformation, i.e. changing one's life course, believing in something new, operating on a new and more meaningful level.

Another way oral histories differ from practised stories is in their timing. Finished or past events that have created ideas, beliefs, and ways of life are the focus of oral histories - these are entire, concluded in some way. Practised stories, on the other hand, tend to be as much present and future focused as they have elements of the past. They might begin with a current state, goals and plans and then go back in time to provide details that show how the transformation occurred, or the transformation might be in progress, incomplete and containing many unresolved issues.

Obviously special techniques are required if a story practitioner is to assist a person to reveal the elements of a practised story. Some of these techniques are discussed on the Story Practitioners' Space page. You can also find out why being a story practitioner might be the right job for you.