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.