CHAPTER 1. THE HISTORY OF WHOM?
Great men
The ‘Great men’ were the focus of historical research. They were men with the
power to affect the course of events in the world around them, and were
considered the makers of history. The reasoning for this focus was because
history was considered a political and military topic, and it makes sense to look
at the leaders in these topics. This comes with the view that the actions of a
single individual can shape an era.
Another aspect of ‘Great men’ are exceptionally gifted and influential people. This
connects to another big aspect of original history; the history of ideas. This
includes people who fundamentally challenged and sometimes destroyed
established political systems.
This approach to history is called a top-down approach. It focuses mostly on the
‘ruling’ or ‘political’ class. Until about half a century ago, the focus on ‘Great men’
was the one that mattered most.
Social history
The 19th century saw the rise of social history. This field of research focuses
either on the ordinary people, or (more often in the 19 th century,) the working
class. But until the mid-twentieth century they were regarded as unsignificant
actors of history. They were only useful as a crowd, when they could make a big
change. But in the 1960s, a focus developed on the bottom-up approach. People
wanted to write about the experiences of regular people.
Connected historian: E. P. Thompson was the first social historian to focus on
subjective experiences instead of data. He argued in his book ‘The making of the
English working class’ (1963) that the lives of labourers were changed not only
economically, but culturally by the pressure of mechanization. Class
consciousness- the awareness of common exploitation- was born. This
consciousness cannot be deducted from theories or numbers. This book became
the standard of ‘new social history’.
Even though in theory no historical approach is connected to a set of political
beliefs, in practice social history is often linked to democratic or progressive
agendas. In its beginnings social history focused mainly on the poor, but now it is
widely acknowledged that ‘the oppressors’ are as much a social group as ‘the
oppressed’. Their collective behaviour and fate is of historical import. The social
history of elites is crucial to understanding class relations and social change in
any given society.
Quantification
A way to capture society through the systematic gathering of the largest possible
amount of data. The thought behind this was that the bigger the sample, the
more it could be trusted. Quantification works best for broad historical questions
about population, the economy, and mass politics. It is still a popular approach in
the field of economic history.
Connected historian: Stephan Thernstrom wrote a book about social mobility in
Boston based on a computer-assisted analysis of large amounts of data drawn
from census manuscripts, marriage records, birth certificates and the Boston City
, Directory. By following individual men over time, he was able to arrive at good
conclusions.
But the quantitative approach has led to two problems: it reduces humans to one
dimensional being, and makes for boring reading. Going back to the former, the
numbers and data don’t tell you about the thoughts or beliefs of the people who
experiences whatever you’re researching. It obscures the meaning. Individuals in
quantitative history are anonymous and inert. ‘Quantification can show you what
happened to the majorities in ‘society’, but not what individual social actors did
and what those actions meant to them.’ (= directly from Maza).
Agency
A big part of social history has been to recover the lives, voices, and struggles of
disempowered groups. Historians want to restore agency to the people they
study. They show the ways in which the dispossessed took action against
injustices, in ways that might be confusing to modern observers. Social
historians have shown that even in circumstances of extreme powerlessness,
people have carved out areas of freedom.
Connected historian/example: Stanley Elkins wrote a book about the way slaves
took independent action against their oppressors. One of the ways they did this
was by staying true to their own culture, adapting Christianity to fit in with their
view of the world. Elkins also showed everyday forms of resistance, like talking
behind the backs of the masters and infrapolitics= behaviours such as wasting
time, damaging tools, disappearing from the workplace, pretending to
misunderstand, etc.
Women’s history
Women are a group whose agency has been recovered in the last few decades.
The presence of women has always been acknowledged, of necessity, but women
never seemed to make any difference to the story. Before the 70s, women’s
history was a niche speciality.
Early work in women’s history was simply a ‘yes, and women were there too’. But
much pioneering feminist work stressed the oppression women suffered, or the
differences in women’s experiences compared to that of men.
But the true strength in women’s history lies in the demonstration that women’s
history is inseparable from that of men. This is called gender history, it serves to
express the idea that masculinity and femininity are concepts constructed by
society that vary and cannot be reduced to biological sex differences. Gender
history shows how women have shaped the lives of men, either by the activities
of women or by the symbolic opposition to femininity. ‘A central task of women’s
history has been to show how the relationship between women and man has
shaped every society in the past’ (= directly from Maza).
Women were invisible in history because of the assumption that they didn’t work,
or that their work was inconsequential (because it didn’t make any money). But
making ends meet was as much a woman’s job.
Men make claims to power by asserting their masculinity, which is a process of
rejecting and repressing femaleness. Independence, rationality and dedication to
the wider polity were considered as male attributes, whilst women were
characterized as dependant and with a devotion to the narrow interests of family
and home.
Great men
The ‘Great men’ were the focus of historical research. They were men with the
power to affect the course of events in the world around them, and were
considered the makers of history. The reasoning for this focus was because
history was considered a political and military topic, and it makes sense to look
at the leaders in these topics. This comes with the view that the actions of a
single individual can shape an era.
Another aspect of ‘Great men’ are exceptionally gifted and influential people. This
connects to another big aspect of original history; the history of ideas. This
includes people who fundamentally challenged and sometimes destroyed
established political systems.
This approach to history is called a top-down approach. It focuses mostly on the
‘ruling’ or ‘political’ class. Until about half a century ago, the focus on ‘Great men’
was the one that mattered most.
Social history
The 19th century saw the rise of social history. This field of research focuses
either on the ordinary people, or (more often in the 19 th century,) the working
class. But until the mid-twentieth century they were regarded as unsignificant
actors of history. They were only useful as a crowd, when they could make a big
change. But in the 1960s, a focus developed on the bottom-up approach. People
wanted to write about the experiences of regular people.
Connected historian: E. P. Thompson was the first social historian to focus on
subjective experiences instead of data. He argued in his book ‘The making of the
English working class’ (1963) that the lives of labourers were changed not only
economically, but culturally by the pressure of mechanization. Class
consciousness- the awareness of common exploitation- was born. This
consciousness cannot be deducted from theories or numbers. This book became
the standard of ‘new social history’.
Even though in theory no historical approach is connected to a set of political
beliefs, in practice social history is often linked to democratic or progressive
agendas. In its beginnings social history focused mainly on the poor, but now it is
widely acknowledged that ‘the oppressors’ are as much a social group as ‘the
oppressed’. Their collective behaviour and fate is of historical import. The social
history of elites is crucial to understanding class relations and social change in
any given society.
Quantification
A way to capture society through the systematic gathering of the largest possible
amount of data. The thought behind this was that the bigger the sample, the
more it could be trusted. Quantification works best for broad historical questions
about population, the economy, and mass politics. It is still a popular approach in
the field of economic history.
Connected historian: Stephan Thernstrom wrote a book about social mobility in
Boston based on a computer-assisted analysis of large amounts of data drawn
from census manuscripts, marriage records, birth certificates and the Boston City
, Directory. By following individual men over time, he was able to arrive at good
conclusions.
But the quantitative approach has led to two problems: it reduces humans to one
dimensional being, and makes for boring reading. Going back to the former, the
numbers and data don’t tell you about the thoughts or beliefs of the people who
experiences whatever you’re researching. It obscures the meaning. Individuals in
quantitative history are anonymous and inert. ‘Quantification can show you what
happened to the majorities in ‘society’, but not what individual social actors did
and what those actions meant to them.’ (= directly from Maza).
Agency
A big part of social history has been to recover the lives, voices, and struggles of
disempowered groups. Historians want to restore agency to the people they
study. They show the ways in which the dispossessed took action against
injustices, in ways that might be confusing to modern observers. Social
historians have shown that even in circumstances of extreme powerlessness,
people have carved out areas of freedom.
Connected historian/example: Stanley Elkins wrote a book about the way slaves
took independent action against their oppressors. One of the ways they did this
was by staying true to their own culture, adapting Christianity to fit in with their
view of the world. Elkins also showed everyday forms of resistance, like talking
behind the backs of the masters and infrapolitics= behaviours such as wasting
time, damaging tools, disappearing from the workplace, pretending to
misunderstand, etc.
Women’s history
Women are a group whose agency has been recovered in the last few decades.
The presence of women has always been acknowledged, of necessity, but women
never seemed to make any difference to the story. Before the 70s, women’s
history was a niche speciality.
Early work in women’s history was simply a ‘yes, and women were there too’. But
much pioneering feminist work stressed the oppression women suffered, or the
differences in women’s experiences compared to that of men.
But the true strength in women’s history lies in the demonstration that women’s
history is inseparable from that of men. This is called gender history, it serves to
express the idea that masculinity and femininity are concepts constructed by
society that vary and cannot be reduced to biological sex differences. Gender
history shows how women have shaped the lives of men, either by the activities
of women or by the symbolic opposition to femininity. ‘A central task of women’s
history has been to show how the relationship between women and man has
shaped every society in the past’ (= directly from Maza).
Women were invisible in history because of the assumption that they didn’t work,
or that their work was inconsequential (because it didn’t make any money). But
making ends meet was as much a woman’s job.
Men make claims to power by asserting their masculinity, which is a process of
rejecting and repressing femaleness. Independence, rationality and dedication to
the wider polity were considered as male attributes, whilst women were
characterized as dependant and with a devotion to the narrow interests of family
and home.
