![]() ![]() I sympathize to some extent with this criticism, even if I doubt its relevance to the major works of Italian microstoria, whose attention to larger questions of historical substance, theory and method can hardly be ignored. And there are certainly some microhistories, as well as numerous small-scale, monographic works (biographies come readily to mind) that relegate the larger world to a lesser, background role of context, at best. For these critics, what is important – and which microhistory errs by ignoring – is the big picture, social, economic, political, whatever. « Trivialize » here means mistaking what is not that important in history for what is. The greatest risk, or even threat, that microhistory poses, according to those who have strong misgivings about it, is the ease with which it trivializes the past. I would mention risk before tackling temptation. What is the biggest temptation in individualizing history ? If anything it is the long way around a problem, as anyone who has tried to produce one can tell you.Ģ. Similarly, microhistory provides no shortcut in historical work. ![]() Egodocuments are not rabbits one can pull out of a hat they require deep labor, ranging from constant rereading to various contextualizations. ![]() That said, one should have realistic expectations when considering working with either. When brought together by a talented and imaginative historian, they can promote forward movement, which is what we all should be pursuing. ![]() And in any event, the question is not so much the snugness of their fit, but the ease with which historians can promote a synergy between them. In other words, the fit between the two may be « natural », but it is hardly a given. That said, if one surveys the major microhistories written to date, it is easy to get the impression that relatively few of them resort to egodocuments as their principal source. There are many reasons to think of egodocuments – a particular type of historical source – and microhistory – a particular approach to or technique for framing historical research and writing – as fitting together closely. However, the same cannot be said regarding the question of the relations between them, which strike many observers as promising yet uncertain. Both microhistory and egodocuments have received much attention recently. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |