Using Oral Histories

In my last post, I covered how I went about collecting oral histories. In this one, I’ll discuss how I went about using them in Family Matters. What I learned was that oral history interviews provided so many more benefits than I expected when I started collecting them!

I initially began taking oral history interviews to fill in gaps in the historical record. Even though I was writing about the 1980s and 1990s, and therefore had a large number of written sources from which to draw, I often had questions about what happened, when, and why. Oral histories allowed me to get the answers I needed. For example, the Village Voice began offering domestic partner benefits to its employees in 1982. Its announcement generated a great deal of attention, spreading the concept and encouraging other companies to follow suit. But what led the Village Voice to make this change? To find out, I interviewed Jeff Weinstein, who was integral to making the program possible. He told me that he first began thinking about domestic partnership benefits in the early 1970s, but dismissed the notion as an impossible dream. Then, in 1979, he learned that the Village Voice provided health insurance to his straight colleagues’ unmarried partners. He reasoned that, if the Village Voice was willing to extend benefits to heterosexual domestic partners, then it might consider doing the same for their queer employees. He raised the issue with his union, which put it on the agenda during the next set of contract negotiations.

I quickly came to appreciate that the interviewees did not just fill in the missing pieces—they also provided details that enriched the story. When Weinstein told me about the union negotiations, he gave colorful commentary that brought the events to life. He described his appearance at the time—women’s clothing, long hair, and a beard—which he termed gender fuck drag.” Other interviewees volunteered details that I had not known to ask about, but which deepened the narrative. For example, I interviewed several researchers whose studies became crucial to lesbian mother custody lawsuits. One of them, Ellen Lewin, explained that she began her research after hearing about a lesbian mother’s custody battle. She did not just cite the case as a motivating factor—she told me that she undertook the work “with the fantasy that [she] would be called upon to be an expert witness in some of these cases.” That language conveyed just how personally invested she was in the legal issues her research implicated.

 As this indicates, what made the oral histories so useful was not just what the interviewees said—it was how they said it. Their word choices, tone of voice, and inflection all communicated valuable information. When I spoke to Tom Brougham, who became active in the gay liberation movement in the 1970s, his voice broke as he reflected on the changes he had seen in his lifetime. He had never expected to see large swaths of American society come to accept same-sex sexuality. I also interviewed Judy Shepard, who became a prominent advocate for hate crimes laws after her son was brutally murdered for being gay. In the wake of the news reports on the attack, parents of gays and lesbians reached out to her to ask how she had been able to accept her son’s sexual orientation. I could hear the irritation and anger in her voice as she wondered aloud how any parent could imagine rejecting their child. The emotion and tones that interviewees used all added to the substance of what they told me, conveying separate—and equally important—information.

Oral history interviews had several other benefits. One of them was that they corrected historical misstatements. Simply because documents consistently tell one story does not mean that it is true! To give just one example, the fourth chapter of Family Matters discusses states’ efforts to ban same-sex couples from adopting or fostering children. In 1985, New Hampshire became embroiled in a debate on this issue after the state’s Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) licensed an openly gay foster parent. Newspaper accounts indicated that DCYF tried to quell public outcry by adopting a policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents, but that the legislature considered this insufficient and therefore enacted a statutory ban. When I spoke to the director of DCYF at the time, David Bundy, he told me that this account was far from accurate. The policy his agency adopted did not in fact ban queer foster parents, because child welfare experts believed sexual orientation was irrelevant to parenting ability. DCYF’s leadership was so adamant on this point that, after the legislature stepped in, the agency did its best to circumvent the law! The statute prohibited placements in homes with homosexual adults, so social workers simply did not ask prospective foster parents about their sexual orientation. Bundy summarized the situation with by explaining: “We came up with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ way before Clinton.”

 In addition to correcting the historical record, some of the interviews corrected my personal errors. Family Matters focuses on developments at the state and local levels, which meant I often had to figure out the relationships between legislators, committees, and agencies. I did my best, but sometimes I just got it wrong! Speaking to the people involved allowed me to fix my mistakes before I submitted the manuscript for publication.

Collecting oral histories is time consuming, but incredibly valuable. Indeed, I am far from the only twentieth century historian to comment on the utility of these sources. (Margot Canaday has a particularly good discussion of oral history sources in her recent work, Queer Career: Sexuality and Work in Modern America.)  I realize not every historian has the option of taking and incorporating oral histories. However, if it’s a possibility, I strongly recommend you take advantage of the opportunity!

 I’ve now had a chance to share with you both the arguments and methods of Family Matters. In my next post, I’ll move from drafting the manuscript to getting it through the publication process.