Counter-hegemonic ideational framing

I understand these oral history projects that we are undertaking are affected by the preconceived ideas and perceptions that we, the historians, bring to the project. It is important to frame the project with our own ideology so that we may understand our biases and use them to our advantage in the interview and transcription process. Thus it is necessary to apply an “ideational frame” to our work. However, the term “counter hegemonic” sticks in my craw somewhat; it seems to apply a value judgment to a process that should, ideally, be objective. Ideologically framing, at least in this context, is the historian’s evaluation of his/her core belief system. Modifying this process by calling it counter hegemonic makes this process directive and tailors the outcome into something that feels less than genuine.

The very nature of the creating ideational framing around historical research is counter-hegemonic. While I understand fully the necessity of useing oral history to shed new light on written history too often overshadowed by the authority, trying to frame this project un-objectively against the predominate hegemony would be dishonest to my informants and myself - I am a member of the hegemonic class. I was taught from their textbooks, I speak their language and think inside their context. This proved by the very fact that I am taking this class and have the free time to run around interviewing old people about their lives. College and the luxury of higher education places me on one side of the well marked line that delineates the hegemonic and proletariat classes in this country. How am I supposed to bring a counter hegemonic aspect to this project when I am so clearly a member of its ranks?

I suppose this is a good theisis for my essay!