.jpg)
Microhistory is a genre ofhistory that focuses on small units of research, such as an event, community, individual or a settlement. According to Charles Joyner microhistory differs fromcase studies in that microhistory aspires to "[ask] large questions in small places".[1] It is closely associated withsocial andcultural history.
Microhistory became popular inItaly in the 1970s.[2] According toGiovanni Levi, one of the pioneers of the approach, it began as a reaction to a perceived crisis in existing historiographical approaches.[3]Carlo Ginzburg, another of microhistory's founders, has written that he first heard the term used around 1977, and soon afterwards began to work with Levi andSimona Cerutti onMicrostorie, a series of microhistorical works.[4]
The microhistorical movement gained momentum during the1970s, a period in which macro-historical processes and social science–oriented historiography were increasingly being questioned. Emerging as a reaction against grand narratives and broad explanatory models such asMarxism, microhistory sought to shift the focus of history from dominant power centers to the margins, highlighting the experiences of “ordinary people” who had been neglected both in traditional political history and in social-scientific approaches. The Italian tradition of microstoria, shaped by figures such asCarlo Ginzburg,Giovanni Levi,Carlo Poni, and Edoardo Grendi, became institutionally consolidated through the journal Quaderni Storici, founded in 1966.[5]
The word "microhistory" dates back to 1959, when the American historianGeorge R. Stewart publishedPickett's Charge: A Microhistory of the Final Attack on Gettysburg, July 3, 1863, which tells the story of the final day of theBattle of Gettysburg.[6] Another early use was by theAnnales historianFernand Braudel, for whom the concept had negative connotations, being overly concerned with the history of events.[7] A third early use of the term was in the title ofLuis González's 1968 workPueblo en vilo: Microhistoria de San José de Gracia.[7] González distinguished between microhistory, for him synonymous with local history, and "petite histoire", which is primarily concerned with anecdotes.[7]
The most distinctive aspect of the microhistorical approach is the small scale of investigations.[2] Microhistorians focus on small units in society, as a reaction to the generalisations made by the social sciences which do not necessarily hold up when tested against these smaller units.[8]For instance, Ginzburg's 1976 workThe Cheese and the Worms – "probably the most popular and widely read work of microhistory"[2] – investigates the life of a single sixteenth-century Italian miller,Menocchio. The individuals microhistorical works are concerned with are frequently those whom Richard M. Tristano describes as "little people", especially those considered heretics.[9]
While microhistory reduces the scale of investigation, it simultaneously transforms the methodology of historical inquiry. Rather than rejecting macro-historical processes entirely, it treats them as complementary, using local studies to test broader generalizations. By placing the individual and everyday experience at the center of inquiry, microhistory seeks to restore “the human face of history.” Influenced byClifford Geertz’s concept of “thick description,” microhistorians draw upon cultural anthropology to reveal the symbolic meanings embedded within historical phenomena.[10]
Carlo Ginzburg has written that a core principle of microhistory is making obstacles in sources, such aslacunae, part of the historical account.[11] Relatedly, Levi has said that the point of view of the researcher becomes part of the account in microhistory.[12] Other notable aspects of microhistory as a historical approach are an interest in the interaction of elite and popular culture,[13] and an interest in the interaction between micro- and macro-levels of history.[14]
Microhistory also places strong emphasis on narrative, viewing the historian’s process of research and perspective as integral to the narrative itself. In doing so, microhistorians distinguish themselves from radical postmodern approaches by maintaining a commitment to factual historical reality.[15]
Since the 2010s, historical research has expanded to include the field of "global microhistory,"[16] which seeks to combine the detailed focus of microhistorical studies with broader transregional or global perspectives.[17]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
