.jpg)
Microhistory is a genre ofhistory that focuses on small units of research, such as an event, community, individual or a settlement. In its ambition, however, microhistory can be distinguished from a simplecase study insofar as microhistory aspires to "[ask] large questions in small places", according to the definition given by Charles Joyner.[1] It is closely associated withsocial andcultural history.
Microhistory became popular in Italy 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 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.[5] Another early use was by theAnnales historianFernand Braudel, for whom the concept had negative connotations, being overly concerned with the history of events.[6] A third early use of the term was in the title ofLuis González's 1968 workPueblo en vilo: Microhistoria de San José de Gracia.[6] González distinguished between microhistory, for him synonymous with local history, and "petite histoire", which is primarily concerned with anecdotes.[6]
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.[7]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.[8]
Carlo Ginzburg has written that a core principle of microhistory is making obstacles in sources, such aslacunae, part of the historical account.[9] Relatedly, Levi has said that the point of view of the researcher becomes part of the account in microhistory.[10] Other notable aspects of microhistory as a historical approach are an interest in the interaction of elite and popular culture,[11] and an interest in the interaction between micro- and macro-levels of history.[12]
Since the 2010s, historical research has expanded to include the field of “global microhistory,”[13] which seeks to combine the detailed focus of microhistorical studies with broader transregional or global perspectives.[14]
