New Social History, Post Modernism & the Modern Era

What factors led to the emergence of the new social history? How did the new social history change both the topics and methods that historians used? What is postmodernism and how has it impacted the writing of history in the modern era?

                As we studied last week, during the 60s and 70s attitudes were changing towards social matters. New Social History surfaced due to a necessity for social change, especially regarding minorities and women. One important factor was the admission of minorities and women into the historical profession through universities. This brought in a lot of new perspective into the research and study of history. The movements, rallies, and marches of the time were also heavy factors into how new social history became so popular; people were advocating for the rights of minorities in a primary middle class white ran country.

                With the emergence of so many minority and women historians into the profession, how history was studied changed also. Most importantly the perspective of history changed rapidly, how it was viewed changed drastically. History was primarily written by white males, now a new plethora of people were conducting research and writing history from their view points. According to our book race histories were, “shaped by the rising civil rights movement and America’s renewed commitment to equality following WWII, new theories of race relations arose to challenge the “mint-Julep” school of thought on African Americans.”[1] And women’s history, “surged as the civil rights moment and other social movements of the sixties inspired thousands of young women to explore the historical origins of sex discrimination in their quest to achieve equality and justice for women.”[2]

                Jean Lyotard’s book, “The Postmodern Condition” explained [postmodernism] as ‘a disbelief in metanarratives’; a metanarrative is an overarching story of belief held by a society as a universal truth”[3] Postmodernism, as I discussed in the last discussion, is really interesting because the historians that promote it basically state that every person has their own unique perspective, and because of that no historical account can ever be viewed as fact or the complete truth. Our book dictates that postmodernists, “argue that historical truth is shaped by and reflects the perspective of the historian and the society in which he or she writes, and is thus relative and reflexive, making all conclusions at least somewhat subjective, and true objectivity an impossibility.”[4] I think postmodernism in some ways is still a part of the objective historian’s research and method. If you are focusing on creating a completely objective account you are keeping in the back of your mind the fundamentals of post modernism.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011,174

[2] Ibid., 177.

[3] Ibid., 212.

[4] Ibid., 213.

New Social History, New Left, & Postmodernism

How did the events of the 1960s and 1970s impact the emergence of the New Social History?  How is the new social history an outgrowth of the New Left?  In what ways do postmodernism and the new cultural history both build on and challenge the new social history?

                The 1960s and 1970s greatly influenced how historians thought about history. As attitudes were changing and evolving about social, political, and economic situations, so were the attitudes about history and how it was conducted, analyzed and studied. As the New Left became popular and people began to advocate for minority, women, and homosexual rights, a seed was planted that would eventually expand the world view on certain subjects. Rallies, movements, and marches popped up all over the United States and included prominent historical figures like Martian Luther King Jr., John Hope Franklin, and William Leuchtenburg.[1] With access to higher education by minorities and women the entire system began to evolve; including history programs which became much more diverse. There were also some really important historians to advocate progress in historiography in the 60s like E. H. Carr who wrote “What is History?” In which he wrote, that the main goal of history was to help us to understand the present and shape the future.”[2] I think one of the most important points to take away from some of the major changes during the time is that as historians became more diverse socially and culturally, they began to discover and unearth biases from a previously white male dominated subject.

                New social history was less explicitly theoretical and more empirical than New Left history, and as a consequence was much more acceptable to the mainstream historical profession.[3] New social history took its foundations from the New Left; like advocating for minorities and women. They then used those key principals and other social and historical study to create a social history based on fact and evidence.

                Jean Lyotard’s book, “The Postmodern Condition” explained [postmodernism] as ‘a disbelief in metanarratives’; a metanarrative is an overarching story of belief held by a society as a universal truth”[4] Postmodernism historians believe that because every person has their own unique perspective in life, that every account of an event will be different from every person. If this is true, there can be no universal truth in history because all of history is completely subjective. Postmodernism really took the skepticism on perspective that the New Social History movement advocated to a new level. They exhumed and revealed biases and examined and analyzed how those biases affected how history was studied.

                Cultural history has been around for ages but originally was focused on cultural leaders of the time. In the 1970’s cultural history began to evolve into a much more in depth analysis of culture and cultural identity. Cultural historians, “now seek to understand how past cultures shaped identity and created knowledge and reality.”[5] Cultural history, like the New Social History movement, take into account various other subjects like anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. to help aid in the understanding of their field.

               

Work Cited:

Gilderhus, Mark T. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 172.

[2] Hoefferle, 173.

[3] Hoefferle, 173.

[4] Hoefferle, 212.

[5] Hoefferle, 218.

Consensus History, Annales School, New Left

What was consensus history and why did it become the preferred method in the United States in the mid-twentieth century? How did the new approaches of the Annales school and the New Left challenge consensus history?

            Consensus history was a movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s that argued a much less ‘progressive’ view of history in the United States. Instead of an America based on politics, conflicts and social class, consensus historians argued, “that the success and progress of the United States was due to its unique democratic system, which encouraged and fostered consensus among liberals, conservatives, and other groups within society.”[1] After WWII and the infiltration of communistic ideas into the country, the majority of the United States wanted to get back to a regular routine of an amplified typical middle-class American value system.

            Consensus history was doomed from its conception because looking back on history with rose colored glasses will never allow you to see the entire picture. As historians all over the world argued about which way to study history was best, the French began the Annales school which focused more on the long term progression of humans throughout history. Fernand Braudel created a pyramid that referenced how quickly different historical aspects of the world changed. On its base were the geographic and environmental changes, in its middle were the social and economic structures and cycles, and at its apex, “specific events, political, diplomatic, and biographical history.”[2] The New left was a movement inspired by the Marxist movement that focused on social and political injustices regarding highly controversial subjects like women’s rights, and the civil rights movement.

            So while consensus history focused on the positive, and the Annales School was focusing on a more philosophical view of history, the New Left movement focused on all the injustice in the political, social, and economic systems of the world.

Work Cited:

Gilderhus, Mark T. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 119.

[2] Hoefferle, 142. 

Marxism, Romanticism, and Empiricism

Briefly explain the major points and one major author in each of the following historiographical schools: Marxism, Romanticism, Empiricism. How were American historians impacted by these schools of history? Which do you believe is the best approach to writing history? Why?

            Marxism is an ideology and a philosophy molded by Karl Marx, a man who took on many roles and studies throughout his life, a philosopher, a sociologist, a scientist, an economist, and a historian. As most people, Marx’s ideas about the world evolved as he grew older and as he aged so did his ideologies. Marx was extremely interested in the social aspects of his world; especially the role of the working class in the country. He created a philosophy called “historical materialism” that assumed a man was molded by his socioeconomic class.[1] What this assumption entails is that a person is forged through their class based on a number of material factors such as, “how the obtain[ed] the basic necessities to live, what they own[ed], what work they do [did], and how they produce[d] these necessities.”[2] Marx believed that a man’s social class would forever dictate his, “beliefs, behaviors, education, political power, and material possessions.”[3] Marx concluded that as the “superstructure” of a society changed, often violently, it was only when the proletariats became aware of their oppression and over through the bourgeoisie that a balance in social class would be possible. Communism is the idea of equality in a society where there is only one social class and people work together to form a balanced economy where all of the country prospers. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect, and communism requires perfection, honesty, hard work, effort, and many other impeccable qualities that not all people possess. This “imperfection” in some people destroys the possibility of a completely equal society because someone will always want more than someone else because they feel they deserve or warrant it.

            Empiricism and Romanticism are little less complicated to describe. Empiricism is learning through observable evidence; moving away from the mythopoetic narrative and into the historical method. Out of this ideology came positivism which was an idea, from Auguste Comte, that as humans evolved they would eventually steer away from superstitions and base their outlook and information solely on researched and empirical evidence.[4] One of the most important ideologies that stemmed from empiricism was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which suggested that organisms change and evolve over time to adapt to their environment. This theory was then adapted by certain historians and politicians to justify certain, “racial, sexist, and elitist concepts.”[5] “Survival of the fittest” was a concept that was taken out of context to support the supremacy one race, ethnicity, or nationality over another. More often than not it was, “upper-class males of European decent, that naturally saw themselves as the more highly evolved organisms of the world, and placed women, and people of lower classes, and other regions of the world, lower down on the evolutionary scale.”[6] Leopold von Ranke is one of the most influential empiricist historians of his time. He wrote based on primary sources and really revolutionized the way historians looked at archival materials.

            Romanticism resembles the mythopoetic narrative that we studied in previous chapters. It relies less on science and more on thought, emotion, and feeling; it is almost like a philosophical historical narrative. These narratives often focuses on people and created a hero for a nation and rallied support for politicians and the military. Thomas Carlyle wrote more about the great men and women of history rather than for a specific nationalist goal.

            Americans had great interest in both empiricism and romanticism. Historians used the historical method to advance their study and research of history to a more academic level but at the same time the used romanticism to foster patriotism and support for people and events throughout history.

            I think both empiricism and romanticism play an important role in writing and researching history. I prefer to write with feeling and emotion so that my reader can put themselves into the shoes of my subject. You need a balance of facts and flare to make history worth reading.

Work Cited:

Gilderhus, Mark T. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 64.

[2] Hofferle, The Essential Historiography Reader, 64.

[3] Hofferle, 64.

[4] Hofferle, 66.

[5] Hoefferle, 66.

[6] Hoefferle, 66.

Mythopoetic & Greek History, Christian Historiography & The Scientific Revolution

What were the major characteristics of each type of history: mythopoetic and Greek? How were they alike? Different? What were the major characteristics of Christian historiography in its beginning and throughout the Renaissance and Early Modern Period? Explain the contributions of one major Christian historian during this time. How did the Scientific Revolution change the writing of history?

            Mythopoetic history, sometimes called mythopoetic narrative, is a history surrounded in mystery. This type of historical narrative uses written or oral poems, songs, and stories that have been handed down for generations to relay a message, be it historical, religious, or other. These stories often feature supernatural entities like gods, heroes, or celestial beings. However they can also feature ordinary humans, perhaps political figures or other interesting or important people in history. There are three primary features of mythopoetic narratives; a mythical view of space and time, a belief in the eternal recurrence of ‘cycles’ of events, and the absence of any notion of the historic capacity of man to fashion what we call ‘progress’.[1]History and Historians, a book by Mark T. Gilderhus, states, “that although definitions and points of emphasis have changed overtime, written narratives have always centered on human affairs and purportedly set forth truths.”[2]

The transition from mythopoetic narratives to a more methodical and objective history began somewhere in the sixth-century B.C.E.[3] Famous Greek thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle no longer accepted societies traditional methodologies regarding historical thinking. They began to branch out using their own techniques involving a more scientific approach to history. Two of the most famous Greek historians who amplified an already expanding new idea of how history was analyzed and documented were Herodotus and Thucydides. This duo of early historians added two integral components to modern day historical thinking: asking not only what and where but also why as well as collecting observable evidence to establish a factual account of the past.[4]

The main difference between the two types of history boils down to a good story with some truths (Mythopoetic) and a history of accountability (New Greek thought). As historical thinking grew, researchers needed evidence of events, people, and accounts to really understand history. However, there are as there always will be, skeptics. These skeptics, among them the philosopher Aristotle, criticized historians like Herodotus and Thucydides for “merely reciting facts”[5] There was also thought that since every person was born with a unique perspective on life that history would never be the same for anyone therefore an account of the past could be different for every person involved therefore no “one truth” could ever be identified. [6]

As Christianity flourished in the Roman Empire, history began to evolve to meet the needs of the new larger quantities of Christians and Christian historians and teachers (Evolution does not necessarily mean progression, it constitutes a change). Christians used history as means to, “convert new followers and instruct fellow Christians…but also to defend Christianity from its enemies.”[7] When the Roman Empire collapsed (somewhere around 1450) it had a direct effect on the spread of Christianity because as the Romans spread they brought Christian teachings with them, and if they were no longer spreading, then the Christian word was no longer spreading. The Renaissance sparked a new rejuvenation in learning math, science, history, art, and literature. As these ideas spread a sense of personal enlightenment to the masses, historical inquiry began delving back into a more scientific study of the past. As Hoefferle states in The Essential Historiography Reader, “Spawned by the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century and the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century undermined the Roman Catholic Church’s control of knowledge in Europe even further, allowing all scholars, including historians, to become more critical of the orthodox Christian worldview which had dominated the region for centuries.”[8]  Rather than focusing on the supernatural, history once again became about people. There were many Christians who advanced the historical Christian thinking but Eusebius is widely considered to be the father of Christian history. His historical writing used sources and documents to add credibility to his research but was obviously biased and in favor of making Christianity the religious leader of the world.

After the times of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment historians looked at history with an open mind, they began to look for new ways and new perspectives to analyze and understand it. Giambattista Vico was a historian that changed the way some people viewed history. He understood that the past was different from the present. For example, when you view historical documents from the past, you need to first understand what it was like during that time to better and fully understand the document. Vico separated history into a three part cyclical timeline, “the age of the gods and giants, the age of heroes, and the age of men.”[9] Some historians argue that Vico was, “the first to write a theory of history based on abstract principles and…was the first true philosopher of history.”[10]

Work Cited:

Gilderhus, Mark T. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Hoefferle, Caroline. The Essential Historiography Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010.

---

[1] Caroline Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011), 5.

[2] Mark T. Gilderhus, History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), 4.

[3] Hoefferle, The Essential Historiography Reader, 15.

[4] Hoefferle, 17.

[5] Hoefferle, 18.

[6] Hoefferle, 17.

[7] Hoefferle, 19.

[8] Hoefferle, 35.

[9] Hoefferle, 40.

[10] Hoefferle, 40.

Historical Thinking

How does each of the following impact historical thinking: continuity and change, causality, and context? Why is writing history considered a craft? What skills are necessary to be a good historian?

Historical thinking is using different reasoning skills to understand, analyze, and ask questions about historical subjects. It allows historians to more accurately comprehend a subject. Continuity, change, causality, and context are all important ideas when historically thinking about a topic.

Continuity and change are complementary concepts; they both work at the same speed within the same timeline. As our textbook states, “Most changes take place in the overall context of continuance of many of the old ways of doing things, and they are often no more than patchwork alterations of the existing system.”[1] Continuity is the constant; change is the irregular. Continuity allows historians to draw comparisons from the past to the present. We can also see what has remained the same over time. Change is a tool used to categorize eras, show turning points, and some would argue that history is the study of change in its entirety.

Causality is by definition the connection between cause and effect. This concept is an integral part of historical thinking. How will one event affect another? If one thing happens, what happens because of it? Although no one can predict the future, being able to draw from the past (Continuity) allows historians to predict, within reason, future events. For example: taxes, food shortage, social class inequality are all causes, what will they affect? What have they affected in the past?

Context is a very important idea for proper historians to execute. Context is how an excerpt of an event, statement, situation, or idea fits into the bigger picture. Many people take things out of context to fit their own means, it is a historians job the take an excerpt if it is given and think critically about it before presuming anything. For example: I recently read a quote from Abraham Lincoln somewhere that made him look like a racist. That quote was most likely taken out of context, and it was my job as a historian to think about the reasons to why it was taken out of context. Who was he talking to? When did he say it? What are the reasons he could have said it?

Historically thinking about a subject is a skill that needs to be practiced. Engineers pick apart mechanical things to see how and why they work. A historian’s job is to pick apart history and figure out how and why it happened.

A craft is something that is learned, something that needs to be practiced and honed; it is a skill. Writing history takes time and effort to succeed; it needs to be practiced and cultivated. There are a lot of skills historians need to succeed in the field, being a good writer is one of the most important. You also need to be a detective, that is, you need to be able to investigate and research history. You need to be able to think critically about subjects and be able to analyze, understand, and interpret different topics. You need to have a thirst for knowledge and also be able to communicate and work with other historians.

Work Cited:

Furay, Conal, and Michael J. Salevouris. The Methods and Skills of History. 3rd ed. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 2010.

---

[1] Conal Furay and Michael J. Salevouris, The Methods and Skills of History, 3rd ed. (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 2010), 26.

A Video Assessment; The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306

Kaitlin Walsh

History 294: Introduction to Historiography

December 16, 2014

               The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306 is a thirty-two minute documentary, released in 2008, directed by Adam Pertofsky and produced by Margaret Hyde. It recalls the events leading up to the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. through the eyes of Revered Samuel “Billy” Kyles; the only living witness that was present on the balcony the night King passed away. The documentary also features primary accounts from Maxine Smith and Dr. Benjamin Hooks, two members of the NAACP at the time of the movement.

            The main message of the video speaks about the great injustice for black Americans during the 1960’s; most notably the Memphis Tennessee Sanitation Strike of 1968. Kyles paints a vivid and informative picture of the Civil Rights Movement but the message of the documentary centers more on how far black Americans were willing to go for equality. Dr. King gave his life, and was prepared to give his life knowing that his bold and brave decisions would make a difference in the outcome of black Americans all over the United States.

            The documentary follows the story of a sanitation worker strike in 1968. During the time the wages for sanitation workers was very low, low enough to work full time and still qualify for welfare. As the sanitation situation got worse, marches took place that became increasingly violent. The violence was mostly due to a few stray young men breaking into shops and causing trouble in an otherwise peaceful march. Kyle begins to talk about the very famous, and last, speech by King entitled ‘I’ve been to the Mountaintop’. This speech was given at a church in Memphis the day before he was assassinated. It was in this speech that King had alluded to the fact he knew he was never going to make it to the ‘promised land’ but that his followers would. This particular point is very important because King was willing to pay the ultimate price for the movement in which he believed so whole heartedly in. The next day King was supposed to have dinner at Kyle’s house at five o’clock, but when he called to confirm the time, he was told six. When Kyle went to accompany King to his home, King was not yet ready and they sat and talked for almost an hour. As they were leaving, King stopped to talk to some people over the balcony and as he was turning to leave, was shot through the chest. He most likely died instantly.

            The film focuses on the racial discrimination of the 1960s and portrays most black Americans as victims and most white Americans as discriminators. It captured the raw emotion of the time but focused heavily on negative aspects of the Civil Rights Movement; they didn’t mention any positive roles in which white Americans played a part in the movement.

            Overall the documentary was received well critically as it received an Oscar nomination for best documentary in 2009.

            Editing played a crucial part in how this video flowed aesthetically. The way the video cut straight from one scene to another added in the raw portrayal of the time. Footage and audio from the actual time period allowed the viewer to put themselves in the shoes of the people who fought for their equality during those events, marches, and rallies.

            The film holds up as a very informative piece of history for historians because of the amount of primary resources available within the film. Overall it was a very interesting perspective from a man who has more information on the death of Martin Luther King Jr. than most other people in the entire world. This documentary will live on as a visual representation of the Civil Rights Movement for many generations to study in the future.

Works Cited:

Films on Demand. “The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306.” Accessed December 16, 2014. http://digital.films.com.proxy.ccis.edu/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=40368&psid=0&sid=0&State=&title=The%20Witness:%20From%20the%20Balcony%20of%20Room%20306&IsSearch=Y&parentSeriesID=&tScript=0.

Witness Room 306 “The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306.” Accessed December 16, 2014.http://www.witnessroom306.com/synopsis.html