Movement Without Aim Summary
Oral history is the collection and study of historical information with people having personal knowledge of past events. In the article “ Movement Without Aim,” Ronald J Grele discussed how the world views oral history and how it should not be taken seriously. Grele formed a strong argument due to the way he debated the irrelevance and how unsuccessful oral history is in the modern world. In the article Grele projected a strong and effective argument with the usage of quotes and how others felt about the relevance of oral history. The importance of having quotes and other people’s thoughts is to have an argument that is not just their opinion. It shows that Grele has taken what other scholars argues previously, and based his argument on what they stated. When he uses other people's thoughts and words it shows that he has some background information on the topic. Having background is imperative when making an argument because without it, the person is just stating their uneducated opinion. In the article when he uses the quotes and thoughts, it gives the reader the impression that Grele has done his research before forming his thoughts. He used an interview from professors Cantor and Garraty, to show that even the
…show more content…
interview they had presented many faults.
Johnson 2
With the interview, he showed that the most intellectual people in that field made mistakes and that they did not know how to provide a good interview. As professors they are supposed to teach oral historians how to present and effective interview. According to Grele“...in their interview, having shown little regard for the interviewing techniques…” (Grele, 38), In saying this he is explaining why other interviews are constructed the way they are. He explains that if the professors do not know how to construct interviews correctly, oral history should not be viewed with the same importance as history printed in books and documentation. When Grele says “Despite this uncritical acceptance of the results of the use of oral history, there is evidence of skepticism about and doubt and distrust of oral history among professional historians…” (38) he is proving what other professional historians feel about oral history. He is informing the reader that if the professionals who have studied, researched, and worked with the topic of oral history feel that oral history does not have the same validity as printed history, then they, people who know nothing about oral history, should not view them the same. It also makes his argument strong when he included his knowledge about jobs and the job opportunities oral historians have.
When Grele included his knowledge about jobs and the opportunities of them, he is proving that oral history is not that important. In the modern world most people assume that if jobs do not come out of something it is not important, it’s just a hobby. Grele stated the unimportance of oral history when he says, “Despite this growth and the evidence that more and more historians are using the oral history interview in their own work, there has been little discussions of oral history by historians” ( 39). With his statement, he explained how the only people that respect and view oral history as a career are the ones who
are
Johnson 3 heavily involved in oral history. He is showing the irrelevance of oral history by this because in the modern world because if the majority do not follow or view oral history as relevant or important, then it would never be relevant or important. In society today majority makes the decision and determine what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Gele continues his point by stating “ Few departments are willing to accept the financial or intellectual responsibilities of oral history projects” (38). Grele’s point is that the better business companies are not inclined to hire someone to interview someone. He wants people to recognize there are limited jobs for people who desire to have a career in oral history. Being a professional oral history, Grele’s standpoint was essential because he is farilyn educated on the topic. He thought it would be beneficial to the public if they understood how oral history is viewed in the modern world. In the article Grele makes a convincing argument when he implies that oral history has no relevance or have job opportunities in the modern world.
interview they had presented many faults.
Johnson 2
With the interview, he showed that the most intellectual people in that field made mistakes and that they did not know how to provide a good interview. As professors they are supposed to teach oral historians how to present and effective interview. According to Grele“...in their interview, having shown little regard for the interviewing techniques…” (Grele, 38), In saying this he is explaining why other interviews are constructed the way they are. He explains that if the professors do not know how to construct interviews correctly, oral history should not be viewed with the same importance as history printed in books and documentation. When Grele says “Despite this uncritical acceptance of the results of the use of oral history, there is evidence of skepticism about and doubt and distrust of oral history among professional historians…” (38) he is proving what other professional historians feel about oral history. He is informing the reader that if the professionals who have studied, researched, and worked with the topic of oral history feel that oral history does not have the same validity as printed history, then they, people who know nothing about oral history, should not view them the same. It also makes his argument strong when he included his knowledge about jobs and the job opportunities oral historians have.
When Grele included his knowledge about jobs and the opportunities of them, he is proving that oral history is not that important. In the modern world most people assume that if jobs do not come out of something it is not important, it’s just a hobby. Grele stated the unimportance of oral history when he says, “Despite this growth and the evidence that more and more historians are using the oral history interview in their own work, there has been little discussions of oral history by historians” ( 39). With his statement, he explained how the only people that respect and view oral history as a career are the ones who
are
Johnson 3 heavily involved in oral history. He is showing the irrelevance of oral history by this because in the modern world because if the majority do not follow or view oral history as relevant or important, then it would never be relevant or important. In society today majority makes the decision and determine what is relevant and what is irrelevant. Gele continues his point by stating “ Few departments are willing to accept the financial or intellectual responsibilities of oral history projects” (38). Grele’s point is that the better business companies are not inclined to hire someone to interview someone. He wants people to recognize there are limited jobs for people who desire to have a career in oral history. Being a professional oral history, Grele’s standpoint was essential because he is farilyn educated on the topic. He thought it would be beneficial to the public if they understood how oral history is viewed in the modern world. In the article Grele makes a convincing argument when he implies that oral history has no relevance or have job opportunities in the modern world.