|
Biography
and Academy
My
Research Plan for the Next Few Years
Home
|
Research Project in USA (spring 2002):
The Methods of Microhistory
Background
In this project "The Methods of Microhistory" I will attempt to
fulfill three main goals: The first one is to master the historiography of
microhistory and study the strengths and weaknesses of its approach. This I will
do both by reading studies which have been published recently (older works I am
already familiar with), and more importantly, I will get an opportunity to
discuss the methods of microhistory with colleagues who have been working within
this area of historical scholarship.
Secondly, I am determined to further develop a microhistorical model which I
have been working on for the last two years and have been calling "The
Singularization of History". This experimental model attempts to give the
methods of microhistory a chance to reach their full potential in the academic
world. I will pay special attention to the use of personal documents in the
development of microhistorical methods, and how they will be best put into use
within this framework.
Finally, I am planning to work on texts which will eventually be published both
in Iceland and the USA and will be the results of the theoretical framework of
"The Singularization of History" model. This extended visit will give
me the opportunity to combine writing and the dialogue with scholars at Carnegie
Mellon University and elsewhere for my project.
Some discussion of the evolution of microhistory is in order here. As a field of
study, it has developed over the past twenty years in most of Europe and North
America. However, it took shape somewhat earlier in Italy around the journal Quaderni
Storici, in the hands of historians such as Carlo Ginzburg, Giovanni Levi,
Edvardo Grendi, Edward Muir and Guido Ruggiero, to name a few.
Microhistory emerged in Italy in response to dominant trends in the
French Annales-school. Both schools of thought shared
the agenda of bringing common people, the lost people of Europe, into history.
However, they disagreed as to how best to bring this about. Microhistorians did
not accept that the best way to come to grips with popular culture was though
quantitative methods and historical demography. They instead focused on in-depth
investigations of smaller unitsindividuals, families, small communities or
just a single event which might or might not be of any importance. These sort of
phenomenon reveal the diversity within the larger unit. Individual subjectivity
takes on significance as the most informative source on the motives underlying
decisions and actions in microhistorical research. In a recent publication, I
have discussed thoroughly the development within the field of microhistory
("Social History Now and Then" in Microhistory Conflicting Paths;
"The Singularization of History"in Pieces and Molds. About
Microhistory and Lost Time. Co-authorship with Carlo Ginzburg and David
Olafsson) and connected it with different stages of history writing in countries
like Italy and Germany (where Alltagsgegeschichte (everyday life history)
developed and which is strongly connected with the methods of microhistory), and
at last how it took shape in the English speaking world in the form of the
"the New Cultural History".
All of these conceptual frameworks have greatly contributed to the development
of microhistory as it is known today in the world of the humanities and social
sciences.
Objectives
This project draws strength from the different approaches to microhistory,
mentioned above and develops a synthesis which would both serve as an analytical
tool for my research on this project and in the future. My main goal is to
sharpen the definition of microhistory. To do that, I will take the
methods of microhistory one step further and develop the theoretical and
conceptual framework of "The Singularization of History". This new
approach is a radical turn from conventional scholarship in social history and
microhistory, one which refuses to accept the connections between micro and
macro. The macro perspective is seen as static and artificial which has little
or noting to do with the genuine textures of life in past times.
I will use my previous work on microhistorical research (like the one already
mentioned and the monographs Education, Love and Grief. Microhistorical
Analysis of the 19th and the 20th Century Peasant Society in Iceland. Studia
Historica 13; The Sound of Divine Revelation. A Diary, Autobiography, Letters
and Poems of Magnus Hj. Magnusson. Anthology from Icelandic Popular Culture
2) to devise a new understanding of the possibilities which the microhistorical
approach has to offer; how it will best deal with complicated historical
problems in modern research in the future. This understanding will not only be
based on my former work but also on the strength and the weaknesses of the
models which historians in Italy, Germany, and the English speaking world have
given the microhistorical framework.
I will not be able to bring this intellectual synthesis about and accomplish the
objectives of this project unless I will have the opportunity and access to the
opinions of scholars who have been working on similar problems and are willing
to share their opinions with me. I believe that I will find an important group
of scholars at academic institutions in the USA who will be enthusiastic to
participate in my experiment.
Given that these necessary requirements will be fulfilled, I am certain that I
will be able to develop the idea of "The Singularization of History"
into a sound methodological model which will hopefully add considerable flavor
to the interesting texture of microhistorical research already established.
Methodology
"The Singularization of History" process takes a resolute stance
against "grand narratives" such as the modernization theory and
Marxist theories (to name a few) on the grounds that they are constructions
which, when invoked, almost inevitably mold historical research in their own
image. Thus, research so informed yields a product unrelated to knowledge of the
past.
As an alternative to accepting the guidance of grand narratives, I have been
advancing "The Singularization of History" approach. (In addition to
the book Pieces and Molds, I have dealt with this model in an forthcoming
paper called: "The Contours of Social History " which will be
published in Denmark in the beginning of next year in a book that focuses on new
theories in history).Taking this approach involves looking for meaning within
the events and objects of research, rather than in larger contexts, scrutinizing
their details and nuances.
In short, I encourage historians to cut the umbilical cord that ties them to
"grand historical narratives", but I am aware that this is not an easy
task, since the "grand narratives" inform the conventional codes of
scientific research. In order to circumvent these narratives, I suggest a
procedure, which I call "historicalization" whereby a work is 1)
estimated of its own merit; 2) compared to other works in the same field of
inquiry; and 3) placed in a larger context of general ideas about the
development of societies, constructed by "grand narratives" (minimum
emphasis is put on this third stage). "Historcalization" is thus a
methodology of "the Singularization" process of historical
study, designed to promote its credibility in general scholarship, within which
it must necessarily vie for influence. So, this model attempts to criticize the
conventional theoretical framework of microhistorical research and at the same
time intends to redefine the aims and parameters of microhistory in order for it
to achieve its full potential.
However, it must be kept in mind that this is an early of an emerging
methodology. Only the first steps have been taken towards this new
methodological approach and many unresolved problems need to be sorted out.
That, I am firmly convinced, will not be possible without a strong collegial
partnership. Unfortunately, with regard to microhistory,
that sort of interaction is hard to come by in Iceland.
Therefore, my plan is to work with scholars from USA, exchanging ideas and
reading on microhistory. My plan is to present them and others with the
model of "the singularization" process and make sure that it will be
introduced in print both in the USA and Iceland.
My research plan for the project "the Methods of Microhistory":
1. To attempt to study as much as possible the newest research in the fields of
microhistory, the New Cultural History" and Alltagsgeschichte, and
get the opportunity to discuss it with other scholars and by networking on the
internet. This is crucial since all of these fields are developing and a lot may
be learned by participating in a dialogue about the subject.
2. To make a systematic comparison between microhistory as it is practiced in
Italy, "the New Cultural History" as it is practiced in the English
speaking world, and Alltagsgeschichte as it is practiced in Germany, and
come up with a synthesis which would both serve as an analytical tool for my
research in the future and sharpen the definition of "the
Singularization" process of history.
3. The main goal of this project is to further the development of my own
approach to microhistory, taking special notice of the extremely rich first
person sources in Iceland. In other words, I would make an attempt to draw from
the intellectual experience of scholars around the globe and apply it to
Icelandic empirical data. The most important questions which I would have to ask
are:
A. To what extent have microhistorians used first person sources in their
research and what are considered their strengths and weaknesses?
B. What kind of source material has been used in the Alltagsgeschichte
and how has it been applied to the everyday life experience of ordinary people?
C. How have historians applied the anthropological and ethnological approaches
to their studies of history? What are the connections between the theoretical
approach of microhistory, "the New Cultural History" and Alltagsgeschichte
in terms of their use of anthropological and ethnological methods and models?
D. Instead of reconstructing a text using the methods of anthropology and
ethnography with the intention of drawing out the subjective experience of the
general public of all classes, is it possible to use first person sources as a
substitute? If so, what would be the real advantages of such an approach?
E. How would a microhistorical approach best be applied to a intensive study of
a diaries from the eighteenth, the nineteenth, and the twentieth centuries, or a
collections of letters from the same time period? How would it be possible to
use this source material when "the Singularization" model will be
applied to some specific historical circumstances?
4. Is "the Singularization" model applicable with the use of the
methods of anthropology and ethnography and how would it then be mobilized?
5. Is it possible to shy away from "grand narratives" when historical
studies are conducted and how can it be done prudently?
Significance
During my recent research, especially when I was working on the book Education,
Love and Grief, it became clear that I had been working on the same
problems as microhistorians. By making the individual the focal point, rather
than formal institutions as has traditionally been done, I created problems
which I have had difficulty solving: e.g. How can an individual be taken as
representative of a larger group or unit? Are their stories worth telling and
what relevance do they have to our understanding of history?
The approach of microhistory came, in some sense, to my rescue and
History". They share a strong theoretical foundation and scholars are
constantly dealing with the importance, the meaning, and the possibilities of
the everyday life experience. Alltagsgeschichte has both political and
intellectual roots in Germany and together it has caused an unusually dynamic
atmosphere in terms of exchange between academia and grass roots historians.
Risking an oversimplification, one can argue, that Alltagsgeschichte is a
mixture of "the New Cultural History" as it is practiced in the USA
and Europe, micro-history as it is practiced in Italy and elsewhere in the West
(using anthropological and ethnographical methods), and last but not least, it
draws its strength from the traditional German intellectual history. This
approach became the history of everyday life,Alltagsgeschichte.
Even though microhistory is built on a strong international foundation, I find
its development somewhat disappointing. One can argue that it has been
considered a "cool" addition to traditional social historical research
but not a serious contribution. In my mind, the good news is that the field of
microhistory is very much in the making and has been developing quickly in the
past few years, under strong influences of the postmodern condition. It is, in
this sense, an exciting field of inquiry which I am convinced will alter a great
deal how we will think about the workings of historical processes. That still
depends on whether scholars have the courage to face the problems underlying the
practice of social history. "The Singularization" model is exactly an
attempt to do that.
I have already written extensively on the methodology of microhistory but find
my self constantly discovering new angles of its methods and approaches which I
have not been familiar with before. This does not come as a surprise since this
field of research has been growing very fast, but, also, because I have been, to
some extent, isolated from the epicenters of historical scholarship. The
Fulbright grant will give me an opportunity to further my theoretical framework,
as it has been described above, and become a participant in a fast growing field
of historical methodology. In the context of my own country, Iceland, I do think
that microhistorical research will open up a new and exciting opportunity to
look into specific historical problems in Icelandic history and apply the method
to the rich first person sources which have been collected in Iceland over the
years.
Index - Top page -
Continue
|