Soru

Passage A
The traditional historian’s reliance on the bureaucratic archive has long structurally marginalized subaltern populations, whose lived experiences are rarely captured in official state documents. In response, the elevation of oral history and "affective memory" has provided a necessary epistemological corrective. However, traditionalist historians frequently evaluate oral testimonies using the very evidentiary standards—such as chronological precision and factual corroboration—that were specifically designed for state archives. This constitutes a profound methodological error. When an oral account materially contradicts the documentary record, the discrepancy should not be automatically read as a cognitive failure of memory. Rather, such deviations often expose the insidious power dynamics inherent in state-sponsored record-keeping. The literal inaccuracy of a recounted memory frequently articulates a deeper psychic or social truth about the experience of systemic oppression. For instance, if a marginalized community collectively misremembers the specific date of a pivotal labor strike, aligning it instead with a culturally significant religious festival, this temporal distortion is not a mere factual error to be corrected by the archive; it is a profound articulation of how the community integrates resistance into its broader cosmological framework. Thus, affective memory must be recognized as an autonomous historical source, one that is largely immune to the falsification metrics of the hegemonic archive. Its primary historiographical value lies not in verifying the objective coordinates of an event, but in revealing the subjective, emotional contours of historical trauma.

Passage B
The recent ascendance of oral history as a privileged conduit for marginalized voices has undoubtedly enriched modern historiography, offering a vital counter-narrative to official histories. Yet, an increasingly prevalent trend among progressive scholars romanticizes oral testimonies as inherently more authentic or epistemologically purer than institutional records. This perspective dangerously assumes that while the bureaucratic archive is heavily curated by state power, personal memory is somehow insulated from external curation or ideological distortion. In reality, human memory is relentlessly shaped by present-day psychological imperatives, shifting collective narratives, and the cognitive need for post-hoc rationalization. When historians encounter material contradictions between oral testimonies and archival documents, reflexively interpreting the oral distortion simply as a "deeper symbolic truth" is an abdication of the historian's core analytic responsibility. Both oral and written sources are highly constructed narratives, and both must be subjected to exactly the same rigorous hermeneutic suspicion. State records, despite their undeniable biases and omissions, often provide the unavoidable material scaffolding upon which subjective experiences are ultimately built. To dismiss the factual rigor of the archive in favor of the emotional resonance of memory is to merely replace one form of historical myth-making with another. Reconciling these disparate sources requires carefully triangulating them, recognizing that while memory provides indispensable insight into the subjective processing of events, it cannot entirely supplant the empirical project of establishing what materially transpired in the past.

Based on the passages, which of the following propositions regarding historical sources would BOTH the author of Passage A and the author of Passage B be likely to endorse? Select all that apply.