• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Microhistory Days at HSE

This April, Microhistory Days took place at HSE. The event coincided with the visit to the School of History of Prof. Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon (Reykjavík Academy in Iceland) and Dr. István Szijártó (Loránd Eötvös University, Budapest), renowned experts in microhistory, founders of the Microhistory Network, and authors of What is Microhistory? Theory and Practice, a comprehensive analytical monograph.

The event included a roundtable discussion ‘Microhistory: its advantages and limitations’, where the guests made their presentations. In addition to that, the visitors read two lectures on microhistory for HSE students and everyone interested. Finally, the session H-03, Microhistory, took place as part of the XVII April International Academic Conference. The session was chaired by Prof. Alexander Kamenskii. Dr. István Szijártó spoke on ’Microhistory in the Future’, Prof. Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon on ‘Far-reaching Microhistory’, and Prof. Mikhail Boytsov on ‘Is Russian microhistory quite dead or still alive?’

Origins of microhistory

Microhistory was originally founded by Italian Marxist researchers. In 1976, Carlo Ginzburg published his renowned work ‘The Cheese and the Worms: the Cosmos of a Sixteenth-century Miller’, and in 1977, Edoardo Grendi suggested a programme of research based on microanalysis, which was supported by Ginzburg. According to Szijártó, one of the main features of microhistory is the combination of the cultural and the social histories. Microstoria in Italy was from the very beginning split into social (E. Grendi, G. Levi) and cultural. With the area gaining popularity, microhistory was becoming more varied, and that’s why Prof. Szijártó emphasized that there is no one concept and understanding of microhistory.

Advantages of microhistory

István Szijártó defines microhistory by means of three parameters. First, it studies small objects (such as one event, one village community etc), and studies them in detail (it uses a microscopic rather than telescopic view). Second, studying small objects, nevertheless, can explain big historical issues (unlike case studies, where the main thing is to interpret the specific situation rather than make a generalizing conclusion). And the third parameter is the interest in a person and studying individuals as conscious actors.

The microhistorical approach has several advantages. First of all, individuals and humans as an object of research are always interesting for a wider audience, since they involve personal experience. Another advantage of microhistory is the opportunity to look at the situation in various contexts

There is also no shared opinion about the extent to which microhistory is a relevant and productive area today. According to Prof. Szijártó, the microhistorical approach has several advantages. First of all, individuals and humans as an object of research are always interesting for a wider audience, since they involve personal experience. Another advantage of microhistory is the opportunity to look at the situation in various contexts. Finally, Prof. Szijártó believes (and here he agrees with C. Ginzburg) that the microhistory approach is a well-developed study of one case, which should lead to better  generalization. Although the researcher noticed that microhistory is only one of many possible ways, and that he doesn’t consider himself as microhistorian at the moment, he believes that microhistory is the best way to ’write a good story’.

Analysis of each specific case problematizes the prevailing concepts in historiography, checks them and reveals both their explanatory potential, and costs and limitations. On this basis, Dr. István Szijártó formulated a two-stage research strategy for historians. The first stage is microhistorical. ‘For example, take 25 years of national history. Describe some examples that would problematize the prevailing explanatory models’. A microhistorian should stop at this stage. The second stage is correction, radical change or suggesting some new, more adequate explanatory models, taking into account the recently acquired knowledge, on a new, macrohistorical level. In this way, microhistory organically integrates into macrohistory and the general process of historical cognition.

Practice of microhistorical research

Prof. Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon focused his speech on the practice of microhistorical research. The speaker told the audience about his past and future publications dedicated to the life of Icelandic peasants in the 18th – 20th centuries. Particularly, he spoke about working on his 1997 book, Education, Love and Grief. A Micro-Historical Analyses of the 19th and the 20th Century Peasant Society in Iceland, which became a major example of such research practice.

The most general question that Prof. Magnússon focused on was the question of the influence of the Guttenberg Revolution on ‘big narratives’, and particularly, their correlation with Iceland’s mass culture. In order to understand how education and distribution of printed books have influenced the evolution of written traditions in peasantry, it’s not enough to look at this process from above. A lot of personal sources, such as autobiographies, diaries and letters, have been preserved in Iceland, which make it possible to look at history from the ordinary person’s point of view. Working with this material allowed Prof. Magnússon to shift the focus of his study towards personal experiences and look at how emotions and education influence each other.

Three main ingredients of microhistory: focused attention on the source and its subjectivity, the ‘moral exception’ principle, which means that an accused or marginalized behaviour, opinion or phenomenon has its internal logic in an unconsidered context, and finally, decreasing the scale of observation

The speaker also outlined the main differences between his approach and the ‘Italian school’ of microhistory, which is focused on completing the senses that come from historical sources. Such completion is mainly related to the fact that the Italian scholars most often worked with people who didn’t leave any personal materials, so they had to use some processed information, and often processed by people related to the authorities. For 19th-century Iceland such completion is unnecessary, since there is the opportunity to study letters and diaries, known as ‘ego-documents’. For similar reasons, Prof. Magnússon only used hand-written materials. Printed books have to be edited, which decreases their representativeness as a personal source.

Prof. Magnússon outlines the three main ingredients of microhistory: focused attention on the source and its subjectivity, the ‘moral exception’ principle, which means that an accused or marginalized behaviour, opinion or phenomenon has its internal logic in an unconsidered context, and finally, decreasing the scale of observation. Despite this, Prof. Magnússon was sceptical about some microhistorians’ inclination to tie any material to larger explanatory models no matter what, and to consider them in relation to ‘great historical issues’.

Prof. Magnússon encourages microhistorians to focus on small objects, to study the textual environment, to focus on the sources, and to follow a living research model, when the plans on source collection, the tasks, the topics and the problems of the research are not formulated beforehand, but depend on immersion in the sources and on the perspectives suggested by the latter.

Microhistory in Russia

Prof. Boytsov said in his presentation that Russian microhistory, as well as historical anthropology, was initially connected to a reaction against official Marxism, which expectedly lost its authority as the Soviet Union collapsed. But the opposition character of these areas did not mean they used similar methodology. For example, anthropology was accused of excessive determination; individual behaviour was inevitably determined by their mentality, which could remind an attentive researcher about the historical process theories which prevailed short before that. The microhistorical approach, which started evolving in the mid-1990s, on the contrary, focused on cases outside of the norm. According to Yury Bessmertny, it was supposed to demonstrate ‘how an individual was able to express their identity under limitations’. At the same time, Prof. Boytsov emphasized that the Russian microhistory has never been a solid area united by one journal or a team of researchers. For example, the editors of the Kazus almanac, which popularized microhistory, have always spoken about its closeness to microhistory, but were more attracted to postmodernism than was acceptable, for example, from Carlo Ginzburg’s point of view. Nevertheless, while before the mid-2000s there still were discussions on microhistory and some researchers, albeit it few, associated with this area and published their papers, later the former and the latter both disappeared. The authors of papers that could have been defined as ‘microhistorical’ preferred not to use the term. Obviously, the speaker concluded, Russian historians failed to believe in the universalism of the microhistorical method, and the academic community’s unwillingness to discuss the problems of microhistory is related to lack of integration inside the community, which failed to find a uniting factor after the ‘death of big narratives’. This means that microhistory is definitely dead, as well as the historical narration in general. At the same time, Prof. Boytsov emphasized that history provides evidence that something once dead may resuscitate again, and it is within our power to do this.

See also:

Recent Lecture Addresses Reflections on Empire, Russia and Historical Comparison

On October 11, Professor Dominic Lieven of the University of Cambridge, where he serves as Senior Research Fellow, Trinity College, gave a public lecture at HSE St Petersburg entitled ‘Reflections on empire, Russia and historical comparison’. The event was organized by the Center for Historical Research.

Overcoming the Revolution

A hundred years has passed since the October Revolution of 1917, but this event still hasn’t reached its logical conclusion. Its consequences are still crucial in defining the political system in Russia today and fostering divisions in society, believes Andrey Medushevsky, Professor at the HSE Faculty of Social Sciences, political scientist, historian and author of the book A Political History of the Russian Revolution: Norms, Institutions and Forms of Social Mobilization in the 20th Century.

HSE St. Petersburg: Cooperation with German Universities in History Studies

Department of History at HSE St. Petersburg is focusing on a global, comparative and transnational approach to historical studies, and cooperates with several European and American research centers. One of its primary partners is German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), which sponsors a position of an Associate Professor for a German scholar, and Dietmar Wulff, the current resident, told The HSE Look about his three years at the department and plans for the future.

Expert on Soviet Economic and Demographic History Speaks at HSE

On October 10, Stephen Wheatcroft, Professor of the School of Historical Studies at the University of Melbourne delivered a lecture on ‘The importance of the grain problem in the Russian Revolution and for the next 40 years of Soviet Economics' at HSE Moscow as part of a long and busy schedule. A participant at previous April Conferences at HSE, Professor Wheatcroft is one of the world’s foremost experts on Soviet social, economic and demographic history, as well as famine and food supply problems in modern world history.

Ambassadors for Interdisciplinary and Applied History

Samrat Sil is a recent graduate of the English-taught Master's programme in Applied and Interdisciplinary History ‘Usable Pasts’ at HSE St. Petersburg. David Datmar, a native of Ghana, decided to join the programme to help him prepare for eventual study at the PhD level, which he plans to undertake soon at the University of Oxford. Both gentlemen were recently awarded certificates of recognition for their role as ambassadors contributing to the university’s internationalization agenda.

Analysing History through Ego-documents

International Centre for the History and Sociology of World War II and Its Consequences, Higher School of Economics and The Friedrich Ebert Foundation held 'A Memory Revolution’: Soviet History Through the Lens of Personal Documents' in Moscow on 7-8 June, 2017. The conference brought together distinguished historians and sociologists from across the globe. Michael David-Fox, Professor of History, Georgetown University, and Academic Advisor of HSE International Center for the History and Sociology of World War II and Its Consequences shares his reflections and considerations on the main topic and discussions at the conference and his own research

Seeking Answers in Medieval Russian History

On May 31, Valerie Kivelson, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, will be delivering a seminar entitled ‘Visualizing Empire: Muscovite Images of Race’. Professor Kivelson is an expert in Medieval and early modern Russia, history of cartography, history of witchcraft, religion, and political culture, among other topics. She is the author of 'Desperate Magic: The Moral Economy of Witchcraft in Seventeenth Century Russia' and a guest editor of 'Witchcraft Casebook: Magic in Russia, Poland and Ukraine. 15-21st Centuries'.

Ten Factors Ensuring Success in Educational Systems According to PISA Author

On April 14, 2017, Andreas Schleicher, Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills at OECD, spoke at the XVIII April Conference at Higher School of Economics (HSE). In 1999, he invented the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), one of the biggest international comparative studies of education quality. His honorary lecture was dedicated to global trends in the transformation of national education systems.

'The Government and Universities Should Complement One Another in Social Policy'

An important area being researched today is the relationship between universities and the government in the formation of socioeconomic policy, and this discussion was raised at the international seminar ‘Universities, Inclusive Development, and Social Innovation’ that took place as part of HSE’s XVIII April International Academic Conference.

‘Russia Won’t See the Huge Oil Money it Had in 2010-2014’

Global demand for oil will likely grow at a slower rate, but the chances that this growth will nevertheless continue until 2035 are still high. Moreover, the European Union will remain Russia’s key trading partner, while China will increase its share of the global economy, but it won’t catch up with Russia in terms of GDP per capita by 2040. Experts discussed these and some other options for Russian economic development over the coming decades based on global trends at the expert discussion ‘The Russian Economy in the International Economic System’ at Higher School of Economics (HSE).