The chapter opens with a survey of the principal semantic inflections of the concept of voice: physical, emotional, intrapsychic, voice as advocacy, and voice as metaphor. The aim is to rescue the term from indiscriminate use and to delimit the sense on which the analysis turns. That sense is giving voice understood as a hermeneutic function, one that interprets individual lived experience together with the social context that frames it, and that may answer what Miranda Fricker calls hermeneutical injustice. The work of Nuto Revelli, a self-taught intellectual-scientist who moved from autobiographical testimony to the systematic collection of life stories from the peasant world of the Cuneo countryside, provides an exemplary instance of this function. It also displays a situated, epistemically partisan and implicitly sociological mode of writing. Drawing on this legacy, the chapter develops a methodological reflection on the biographical interview. The interview is conceived not as a sequence of questions and answers but as an elicited narrative event whose success depends largely on the stance of the interviewer. The chapter examines several conditions that make authentic narration possible: time that is not rationed; sociologically relevant questions translated into prompts that carry meaning for interviewees; active listening unbound by protocol; open, at times unexpected, questions capable of circumventing the comfort zone of well-rehearsed accounts. Finally, the chapter addresses the unsaid and the misunderstandings that run through the interaction. It proposes interpretive feedback as a practice of negotiating meaning that defines the researcher’s hermeneutic commitment, in the field and in transcription.
Il capitolo muove da una ricognizione delle principali declinazioni semantiche del concetto di voce: fisica, emozionale, intrapsichica, come istanza di advocacy e come metafora. L’intento è sottrarre il termine a un uso indistinto e circoscrivere l’accezione su cui si concentra l’analisi, cioè il dare voce inteso come funzione ermeneutica del vissuto individuale e del contesto sociale che lo incornicia, nonché come possibile risposta a ciò che Miranda Fricker definisce ingiustizia ermeneutica. L’opera di Nuto Revelli, intellettuale-scienziato autodidatta che dalla testimonianza autobiografica approda alla raccolta sistematica delle storie di vita del mondo contadino cuneese, offre un caso esemplare di tale funzione. Vi si riconosce anche una scrittura situata, epistemicamente partigiana, implicitamente sociologica. Da questa eredità il contributo trae spunto per una riflessione metodologica sull’intervista biografica, concepita non come sequenza di domande e risposte ma come evento narrativo suscitato, la cui riuscita dipende in larga misura dalla postura di chi la conduce. Vengono così esaminate alcune condizioni che rendono possibile una narrazione autentica: un tempo non contingentato; interrogativi sociologicamente rilevanti, tradotti in domande significative per gli intervistati; un ascolto attivo, non vincolato a protocolli; domande aperte e talvolta inattese, capaci di aggirare la comfort zone di racconti già collaudati. Il capitolo si sofferma infine sul non detto e sui fraintendimenti che attraversano l’interazione. Propone la restituzione interpretativa come pratica di negoziazione del senso, che qualifica l’impegno ermeneutico del ricercatore sul campo come nella trascrizione.
Dare voce al vissuto. L'intervista biografica come evento narrativo
De Rose Carlo
2026-01-01
Abstract
The chapter opens with a survey of the principal semantic inflections of the concept of voice: physical, emotional, intrapsychic, voice as advocacy, and voice as metaphor. The aim is to rescue the term from indiscriminate use and to delimit the sense on which the analysis turns. That sense is giving voice understood as a hermeneutic function, one that interprets individual lived experience together with the social context that frames it, and that may answer what Miranda Fricker calls hermeneutical injustice. The work of Nuto Revelli, a self-taught intellectual-scientist who moved from autobiographical testimony to the systematic collection of life stories from the peasant world of the Cuneo countryside, provides an exemplary instance of this function. It also displays a situated, epistemically partisan and implicitly sociological mode of writing. Drawing on this legacy, the chapter develops a methodological reflection on the biographical interview. The interview is conceived not as a sequence of questions and answers but as an elicited narrative event whose success depends largely on the stance of the interviewer. The chapter examines several conditions that make authentic narration possible: time that is not rationed; sociologically relevant questions translated into prompts that carry meaning for interviewees; active listening unbound by protocol; open, at times unexpected, questions capable of circumventing the comfort zone of well-rehearsed accounts. Finally, the chapter addresses the unsaid and the misunderstandings that run through the interaction. It proposes interpretive feedback as a practice of negotiating meaning that defines the researcher’s hermeneutic commitment, in the field and in transcription.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


