Appendix: the oral sources
My original research plan was to examine the contrast between the rhetoric of SF’s agenda for women and the reality of its implementation in the context of the early post-war period. In particular, I was interested in exploring the lifestyle of elite members, to determine how work for SF might challenge traditional gender roles and how members conceptualized their own contribution to the organization. Through personal contacts in and around Salamanca, I intended to interview women who had implemented Franco’s mandate through SF’s educational programmes as well as women with experience of the organization through social service, the school curriculum or the necessity of carrying the Party card in the 1940s.
As I made a preliminary exploration of written sources, however, I was struck by the complexity of both SF’s staff hierarchies and its ideological origins. Concentrating on the ‘flat’ regional structure would have been to ignore the political, social and religious influences working at different times and in differing ways on the development of SF. Despite the availability of potential interviewees in Salamanca, therefore, I decided that the nuances and inconsistencies of SF’s ideological message could only be explored satisfactorily with more reference to the national team and over a greater time span than I had originally envisaged.
This was confirmed after early contact with the body of SF’s former members, the Asociación Nueva Andadura (ANA). The association has premises in Madrid and around six hundred members nationally. At the time of my first visit in 1994, it housed a library and private archive and teams of its members had recently completed an ‘official’ chronicle of SF. [1] As I realized that I would be able to speak directly to many women who had been part of Pilar Primo de Rivera’s national team, I made the decision to change my focus of study.
With the help of ANA, I was able to interview four former national heads of SF’s twelve specialist departments and many more working on national teams. In all, nineteen of the forty-five people interviewed were introduced to me by ANA and a further three interviews resulted from the personal intervention of two of these first interviewees. Most of the remaining twenty-three interviewees were introduced to me by friends in Spain and Britain. The largest number was from Salamanca, where I interviewed not only SF elites but also women health professionals marginally involved with SF and men with knowledge of SF in the early post-war period. I was keen to spread the interviewing base beyond Madrid and Salamanca, and consequently followed up contacts in Zaragoza, Santiago de Compostela, the province of León and Toledo. Two of my interviews with former SF national staff members were the result of chance encounters in Spain. They talked to me with no prior introduction or involvement of a third party.
Interviews were conducted through the ‘life-story’ model, allowing interviewees to tell their own story but using prompts and pre-prepared questions to guide them. [2] This was a decision taken after my first interview, when I had prepared a longer and more specific list of questions. I received detailed answers to all my points but the acquisition of facts was at the cost of understanding the individual’s feelings and emotions. From then on, I limited questions to open-ended invitations to tell me about early life, education, political background and reasons for becoming involved with SF. In most cases, this led to an account of their career both within SF and after the break-up of the regime. In the case of elite members, I asked further questions about their dealings with and experience of Pilar and their knowledge of La Mota. I prefaced all interviews with a short explanation of who I was and what I was aiming to do. In the case of interviewees secured by ANA, this was sufficient for us to begin the discussion. Indeed, ANA always provided a third person as the intermediary between interviewer and interviewee. This person generally remained for the first five minutes of the interview. Where the contact was through my own friends, however, I was usually on my own. I had to justify and explain my motives and on occasions, interviewees required reassurance.
The interview process was a constant reminder of the sensitivity of the information and the strength of feeling which still exists when discussing the Civil War and the regime. One former member of SF agreed to be interviewed only if she were sent a transcript of the conversation. On another occasion, I was required to give two names of people in the area willing to vouch for my integrity before the interviewee agreed to see me. The two families I cited were phoned. In two instances, despite assurances about me given by close friends, interviewees cancelled at the last moment.
In the case of the male interviewees, life stories were usually more focused on the elements which had involved SF and were generally less chronological than those of the women. Although my introduction to these interviews was the same, the men tended to begin with their direct experiences of SF and return to earlier experiences when they were reflecting on the significance of particular events. One, for example, talked late on in the interview about his wife, reflecting how she had fitted the propaganda image of SF women. Another male interviewee, after discussing at length the profile and importance of SF in the Civil War and early post-war years, personalized the contradictions in Falangist ideology by describing his own reactions to an enforced stay at a summer camp.
I did, however, conduct follow-up interviews with ten people, which took the form of a detailed question-and-answer session. In each case, this was because during their ‘life-story’ account, it was clear that they had more information about specific areas of SF operations. I used these interviews primarily to supplement written sources and to check their validity. In the areas of SF’s religious programme, its twin hierarchies and its work in the rural areas, interviewees gave me detailed accounts of SF practice. This was invaluable in helping me to evaluate the accuracy of SF ‘official’ literature and statistics. In the most extreme case, it showed the distance between the propaganda vision of SF local operations as a scaled-down version of the national programme and the reality, which was considerably less.
A benefit of having a large pool of interviewees was the number of personal narratives obtained from various age groups. Nineteen of the forty-five had experienced the Civil War as adults, and a further seven had had some involvement in youth activities in the war years. Of the remainder, around half had spent their most productive time with SF in the 1950s, while for the youngest group, this was when they began their connections with SF. Having decided to limit the time frame of the study to 1959, I could not fully use the material that these younger ex-members gave me. Although I conducted the interviews in the same way, I tried with these interviewees to find out more about their early experiences through supplementary questions at the end.
The dynamics and success of each interview depended on a number of factors. First was the question of my own credibility with the person to be interviewed. When I was visiting interviewees in their own homes, the length of my introduction depended on the ground work that my contact had done. In general, women who had been on the fringes of SF were less amenable than those who had been heavily involved. Those who had left SF tended to query my motives and stressed the insignificance of their time with SF in relation to the rest of their lives. There was a general reluctance within this group to allow me to tape the interview, although in each case I persuaded them on the grounds of my limitations as a non-native speaker of Spanish.
A number of other interviewees prefaced the interview with a lengthy account of SF’s operations, in particular its welfare work and role in preserving the folk culture of Spain. This was all the more reason for adhering to the ‘life story’ model of interview so that we could move quickly from the general to the particular. It was noticeable that their need to speak to me in such terms diminished as I could show detailed knowledge of SF. This group of women commonly also gave a self-justification of their own experiences within SF and expressed anger as they described Spain’s return to democracy and with it the demise of SF.
A second factor was the presence of other people at the interviews. Occasionally, a husband, wife or sibling would present themselves mid-way through the discussion, which invariably resulted in the rhythm of the conversation being broken. On other occasions, a second (or third) person was there from the beginning and ‘shared’ the interview. This made transcription much harder, and time within the interview was lost to internal disputes about the information and memories.
The third factor was the physical surroundings of the interview. Those conducted at the premises of ANA were the most technically efficient, because a quiet room and optimum recording facilities were guaranteed. But there was a great deal to be gained by interviewing in members’ own houses. The addresses themselves, particularly those in the centre of Madrid, were an indicator of the social status of the interviewees. In general, too, interviewees were relaxed and their home environment was often full of visual clues to their feelings about their past life. Photographs of Pilar and José Antonio, for example, were prominently displayed in many sitting-rooms, as were SF awards and decorations. The readiness and pride with which photo albums, press cuttings and SF memorabilia were produced in some homes were as powerful a comment as anything said in the interview. On one occasion, as I waited for an ex-member in her place of work, I was able to observe her interactions with colleagues and her personal style, both of which subsequently informed a number of my questions. At times, interviews were in public places such as in bars or restaurants: the noise levels and distractions made these difficult occasions.
With the exception of the first, and the final two interviews (conducted in the UK in informal conditions), all were tape-recorded with the prior agreement of the interviewee. With three exceptions, the interviews lasted between fifty and ninety minutes. All but the final two were transcribed and in each case this was done within a week of the interview. With the exception of my discussion with Monsignor Ronald Hishon, all interviews were in Castilian Spanish.
The interviews were conducted mainly through three one-week visits in each year between 1994 and 1999. The availability of interviewees did not always coincide with my own targets for completing chapters. There were therefore two stages in my analysis of the interview material. Following the research visit, I transcribed each block of interviews and analysed them individually and collectively. First, I went through each highlighting details that could be added to existing knowledge. This was copied across to other documents on, for example, ‘membership’ or ‘relations with Pilar’ or ‘career progression’. I then reread each interview separately, trying to see it as a complete narrative and considering the flaws and strengths in my interviewing technique. It was on the basis of this that I decided to send one questionnaire to ANA and, in another case, to clarify a piece of information on the telephone. Although there was not necessarily any prior link between the interviews I had conducted in any one week, I considered each block as a whole and attempted to see connections, similarities and inconsistencies in the set of narratives. In this category was the use of language (repeated phrases, preferred adjectives, the speed and flow of sentences), and more generally, subjects on which interviewees said little. Sometimes it was helpful to record this in the same way as I had done with more concrete information, but mostly it informed me of what my next set of interviews should attempt to do. In the case of SF collusion in the black market of the 1940s, for example, information was not readily forthcoming. I therefore added this as a specific question in my next block of interviews to be asked of all mandos who could possibly have known anything.
The second stage of analysis was to use the full set of interviews as part of my information source. For each chapter, this involved a full rereading of each interview and a more systematic recording of information in each. Facts given in interviews were cross-checked with secondary sources. Opinions and anecdotes were grouped and their frequency noted. Some interview material previously considered to be worth inclusion was discarded because it could not be verified via other interviews or through secondary sources. It was at this stage that I planned follow-up visits to a number of my interviewees. At the point where information was recorded systematically, I found several significant gaps both in information given and in my understanding of what had been said. In this category were the relationship between SF and Acción Católica, the relationship between SF and the male Falange, and the effect on SF and the Falange of the Axis defeat.
Although the present study draws also on written sources, the context and verification of the oral testimonies has been essential. Paying attention to why certain topics (their contribution to the welfare and education programmes, their belief in Falangism) appear to be so important to former SF members has required me to appreciate the greater truth behind the individual accounts, namely members’ collective sense of being ignored, forgotten and misunderstood. It was in this knowledge that I always invited comments from interviewees on political aspects of their role within SF or the regime. It was surprising, therefore, to realize that very few could tell me anything about the politics of the regime. Only at national level did staff have either knowledge or involvement and even among this group, political memories for most were suppressed or very dim. Politics was relevant mainly in terms of their own contribution and a general sense of ‘rightness’ of the regime, but its nuances did not usually impact upon staff members.
The quality of the information was best when personal memories and recollections of SF were voiced. [3] Where interviewees moved from the particular to the general, their information often sounded like political propaganda. This was the case when former SF members spoke of Madrid at the time of the Popular Front elections, the actions of the Communists in the war or made general comments on the Franco regime. It was more impressive when they coincided on points of detail, such as the money they earned, their recollections of Pilar, the regime at the training schools or their reasons for joining SF.
Information was less reliable when applied to events that were neither recurrent nor consistently remembered. This was the case with one interviewee who, in the course of describing her experiences in Germany, had difficulty separating the content of two distinct visits. In other cases, the detail of information was less valuable than its emotional memory and context. In this category were the many anecdotes about Pilar’s personal appearance, important for what they said about the character and importance of her relationship with members. Relevant here, too, was the story of one young member’s journey in the Civil War to take up a post in Nationalist territory. Her recall of the physical conditions of the journey -- sharing a closed train compartment with Republican prisoners -- is of symbolic importance, remembered as being the start of her role within Falangism.
I brought no preconceived ideas to the interviews of what might be considered ‘off-limits’ but soon understood that details of personal or sexual history or members’ sexuality would not be readily given. On the few occasions when interviewees volunteered information about boyfriends or fiancés, they equally clearly closed the topic. When invited to comment generally on marriages or relationships of SF members, they were similarly laconic. Such silences as there were tended to occur during interviews with older members, especially when recalling events of the Civil War and the loss of family members.
The need to avoid bias has been a constant concern. As I transcribed my first interview in 1994, I realized that the questions I had asked had been in part a reflection of the values of the friend who had secured me the contact. I had, in fact, prejudged the areas on which information might have been forthcoming. But the major potential pitfall was the fact that the interviewing pool was predominantly SF elites and their sympathizers. This reflected the contacts I was able to make and the access allowed me. I always hoped to find women with different experiences of SF, particularly those at the receiving end of its welfare work in the ‘liberated’ territories. The nearest I came was interviewing two professional women who had worked in the Nationalist zone. Each had refused to join SF and was prepared to discuss her dislike of SF style and methods. Within the ranks of SF members, I interviewed three who had resigned their posts and one who had been expelled. I was also keen to balance the views of the many national staff available for interview with those of SF staff in the lower ranks. The need to do this became obvious as I became gradually aware of the nuances of social rank and self-esteem within SF’s twin hierarchies. The most important interviews in this context were those with local leaders in the province of León and in Santiago de Compostela. I actively sought interviews with men, but those willing to be interviewed were from similar social and political backgrounds as the women. Only in one case did I secure an interview with someone who was openly critical of Falange and the Nationalist cause. Wherever possible I used information from all non-members of SF both to add detail and to corroborate other material. Fifteen of the forty-five people interviewed were in this category. [4]
Finally, there was a balance to be found between accepting the help of ANA and setting my own parameters for the conduct of the interviews and use of the information. Repecting the wishes of their leadership, the names of members interviewed by me have been anonymized for publication. There was, too, a tension between the undoubted hope of their members that I would present a positive view of SF and my need to avoid the charge of bias. In an attempt to resolve this, I wrote to them in the first year of research indicating the major focus of the study and later talked to them in person about each of the chapter themes. I shared with them my concern that information about SF needed validating from as many sources as possible, and was very grateful when, in response, they arranged (inter alia) an interview with the most openly critical former mando, Mercedes Fórmica.
Shortly before completion of my interviewing, ANA made public its archive, which is now lodged in the Real Academia de la Historia. Future researchers will be able to study and copy documents to which I had only periodic access. [5] The difficulties I faced obtaining information were an early talking point with former SF staff and broke down many barriers. Numerous informal conversations took place as I worked in the private archive or were held over the telephone, often from Britain. These are unrecorded but have been instrumental in forming my thoughts.