Social versus constitutional history-pros and cons, etc.

Babbit

Dionysus wrote: »

You get a much more cogent view of 'doing history' by reading Anthony Grafton's The Footnote: A curious history (Harvard, 1997). The only satisfying thing about the 'doing history' stuff is that you can read rightwing lunatics like Geoffrey Elton going apoplectic when "dangerous" historians suggested that studying social history could be a valuable thing for historians to do back in the 1960s. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly be as important as constitutional history, real history, he raged. Social history was confusing things; never mind the peasants, old bean! No wonder his nephew ended up as a (quite good) comedian.

Elton was hardly a rightwing lunatic. And he had a good point. Many social historians, particularly those of a Marxist bent tend to view history as part of one over-awing pattern beyond the control of individuals - Elton argues that it is individuals that shape history. His Reformation in Europe and Tudor Revolution in Government in testament to that.

I'll admit that in the practise of history and in his collection of lectures (Return to Essentials) he did veer a little on the 'nutty' side, as in, he did appear to be rather absurdly traditionalist, but his underlying argument was and is strong.

P.S- He didn't move to England until his 20s- so the crack about being some sort of English aristocrat is a little off. He was a Czech.

P.P.S - Not to mention that his underlying assumption was that the study of history relies on the available source material - it is therefore impossible to write a history of the European peasants - the sources are too slim and rely far too much on conjecture. Which is where social 'historians' go wrong.

Dionysus

Babbit wrote: »

Elton was hardly a rightwing lunatic. And he had a good point. Many social historians, particularly those of a Marxist bent tend to view history as part of one over-awing pattern beyond the control of individuals - Elton argues that it is individuals that shape history. His Reformation in Europe and Tudor Revolution in Government in testament to that.

I'll admit that in the practise of history and in his collection of lectures (Return to Essentials) he did veer a little on the 'nutty' side, as in, he did appear to be rather absurdly traditionalist, but his underlying argument was and is strong.

P.S- He didn't move to England until his 20s- so the crack about being some sort of English aristocrat is a little off. He was a Czech.

P.P.S - Not to mention that his underlying assumption was that the study of history relies on the available source material - it is therefore impossible to write a history of the European peasants - the sources are too slim and rely far too much on conjecture. Which is where social 'historians' go wrong.

Elton was German, not Czech even if his family later moved there. But interesting you equate "rightwing lunatic" with "English" when I never mentioned the English.

And if you can't see how myopic and ahistorical Elton's history is - for instance, making generalisations about society by examining the behaviour of the elites who dominate constitutional history - I don't know what to say ... except perhaps have a read of Penry Williams's critique of his history all those decades ago.

Babbit

Dionysus wrote: »

Elton was German, not Czech even if his family later moved there. But interesting you equate "rightwing lunatic" with "English" when I never mentioned the English.

And if you can't see how myopic and ahistorical Elton's history is - for instance, making generalisations about society by examining the behaviour of the elites who dominate constitutional history - I don't know what to say ... except perhaps have a read of Penry Williams's critique of his history all those decades ago.

Who is Penry Williams?

Elton's history is real history. History is after all the study of the traces of the past. The elites left sources behind, hence they can be studied. Ordinary people left very few sources behind, hence it is extremely difficult/semi impossible to study them. These studies often rely on conjecture. Constitutional history relies on evidence. See where I'm going? You aren't convincing.

conchubhar1

who are normal people?

what is real history?

who is to say what is reliable evidence?

wherever you studied history - you got a fairly simple and skewed view of it......


maybe use your great subscriptions, a book? or the wonderous internet to find out who he is
and no you are the one who is less than convincing

Babbit

What are you talking about?

Did 14th century peasants write their memoirs down? Did medieval monks write about the average day in a French village, or chronicle the first crusade? Did Tudor England have state records for peerages or for which peasant won the archery competition? These are the facts my friend.

claire h

Just because the evidence is skimpier for 'the ordinary people', especially the further back into the past you go, doesn't mean that it's impossible to work with or that it's entirely conjecture. It just means you need to be careful with the source material - but that's the case with everything, regardless of how official and unambiguous it seems.

On someone's earlier posts re: TCD access to various databases - 'censorship' seems an inappropriate way of framing it. Trinity's priority is obviously going to be ensuring that there's access to databases which its students and staff will be using - suggesting that visiting researchers don't have access to certain databases because they've been deemed in some way not 'allowed' is nonsense.

conchubhar1

again - you have to use all sources
that view is very one sided and narrow minded

Babbit

You either aren't listening to what I'm saying or you're just ignoring my post entirely.

Babbit

claire h wrote: »

Just because the evidence is skimpier for 'the ordinary people', especially the further back into the past you go, doesn't mean that it's impossible to work with or that it's entirely conjecture. It just means you need to be careful with the source material - but that's the case with everything, regardless of how official and unambiguous it seems.

Of course you do. But a lot of social history is mainly conjecture - They work with what they have and twist it round as much as they possibly can to make their point. Some of it is eminently admirable, but quite a lot is speculation. Constitutional history has an abundant supply of source material - hence it is why it should be the primary focus of the historian. Social historians struggle and sometimes fail to write history (Such as the several embaressing attempts at writing a history of the 'family') due to the profound lack of source material. I am not opposed to social history - I'm just saying that social history is effectively impossible. Intelligent and reasoned speculation? yes. Definitive history? No.

Dionysus

Babbit wrote: »

Who is Penry Williams?

Elton's history is real history. History is after all the study of the traces of the past. The elites left sources behind, hence they can be studied. Ordinary people left very few sources behind, hence it is extremely difficult/semi impossible to study them. These studies often rely on conjecture. Constitutional history relies on evidence. See where I'm going? You aren't convincing.

What arrogant, arrant and utterly immature nonsense indeed - "real history"? "real history"? Are you for real?

To draw generalisations about society based upon the "constitutional" history of an elite is at best myopic and at worst extraordinarily ahistorical. If this train of thought were to be taken seriously we could write off the Irish people as barbarous savages centuries ago just because the English said so. It must be "real history" because the English wrote it down, and any observations like that the English had a vested interest in dehumanising the people whose heads they were sticking on pikes in west Munster - well, that must be "conjecture" because, well, it doesn't appear in English constitutional history. Not forgetting the impeccable character of the human beings who gave "evidence" in this sort of constitutional history. No agendas - nothing. More "impartial" heroes of the age.

Meanwhile, in the world of all serious historians, trade routes, imports, exports, crop records, port records, latin records, church records, chancery pleadings, market records, toll and custom records, and much, much more are being used and the narrow-minded blinkered "history" of Elton and his reactionary ilk belong to a distant century when history was written to bolster the victors and justify their lot. Yes, "real history" how are you. No political agendas there in "real history" land. Yes, let's just officially make historians the intellectual prostitutes of the ruling classes and outlaw critical inquiry. I'm convinced!

Dionysus

Babbit wrote: »

Of course you do. But a lot of social history is mainly conjecture - They work with what they have and twist it round as much as they possibly can to make their point. Some of it is eminently admirable, but quite a lot is speculation. Constitutional history has an abundant supply of source material - hence it is why it should be the primary focus of the historian. Social historians struggle and sometimes fail to write history (Such as the several embaressing attempts at writing a history of the 'family') due to the profound lack of source material. I am not opposed to social history - I'm just saying that social history is effectively impossible. Intelligent and reasoned speculation? yes. Definitive history? No.

This "conjecture" stuff has long been disproved, in the Irish case through the work of historians like Kenneth Nicholls and Katharine Simms who have reconstructed Gaelic Ireland to widespread acclaim among historians. Moreover, all histories begin with some conjecture, another historian comes in and corrects/clarifies historical issues, somebody else builds on that and so on until we have a well established social history. That is the way history, and historians, operate. That is, in fact, the way most things in life operate; mistakes are made, corrected and the product/service is improved by later arrivals.

If we were to listen to advocates of constitutional history, history as a discipline would never grow; it would have died a long time ago. It would live in a cocoon. Your "real history", constitutional history, is contrived history where sets of factions face off against each other through statutes, proclamations and state papers and try to represent their own interests as best they can. They highlight what is important to their interests and that emphasis is, more often than not, not what is important to the history of society at that time.

brianthebard

Off topic posts from the history degree thread separated. Dionysus warned. This could be an insteresting discussion but that doesn't mean I won't lock the thread and infract/ban people if needs be. Mod.

brianthebard

One of my lecturers in final year had an interesting metaphor-political/constitutional history is the breaking of the waves on the surface of the ocean;social history is the driving power beneath the waves, the thing you can't see but pushes it all along.

conchubhar1

history is about using all that is at your disposal
all written records, audio video etc

archaeology and other disciplines also


you may want to focus on one aspect of history or think it is the best or most abundant, but you cant and shouldnt ignore the rest

conchubhar1

if that is the methaphor

then i would view and take into consideration the ocean floor, the water and all its inhabitants
how it was all formed, where is it heading?

the sky above and what is below - and how do they all tie together to try, just try, to get the full view



this is history - all encompassing

encompassing all

brianthebard

There's such a thing as stretching a metaphor too far you know...

Dionysus

Never! hehe

conchubhar1

brianthebard wrote: »

There's such a thing as stretching a metaphor too far you know...

and the entire universe - all times and dimensions

multiple realities...........
...............
......
.
.
:P

Ostrom

Babbit wrote: »

But a lot of social history is mainly conjecture - They work with what they have and twist it round as much as they possibly can to make their point. I am not opposed to social history - I'm just saying that social history is effectively impossible. Intelligent and reasoned speculation? yes. Definitive history? No.

E.P. Thompson made a noble attempt - I would disagree on the latter point as you seem to be referring more to historical sociology, which has for the most part been conducted within a Marxian framework, as opposed to social history.

I would place Thompson within the former, but some excellent work has emerged from studying the development of pre-capitalist societies from the point of view of physical production - often moving beyond 'traditional' historical source material.

Estyn Evans attention to the Irish peasant has produced some enduring and contested theories of Irish history - an excellent combination of social history and archaeology. Brian Graham published an interesting debate on this in the second edition of Historical Geography, 1994, and threw up some issues on the limits to analyzing social structures by historians such as John Andrews and Fred Aalan.

You cant simply say 'all social history is impossible' - its like any discipline, you learn to sort the crap from the good, or in this case, appreciate that history is no closer to replicating the concrete by virtue of objectivity.


On the point about TCD - you can apply at the desk for internet access. They gave me a new card recently on ALCID that allows me to order online from stacks, and have always given me excellent help in early printed and manuscripts

Joe1919

I think this is really a silly argument as its really a matter of subjective taste as to what area of history is worth studying. Anyhow, who can really trust Goverment documents or indeed any document 100%.

I personally preferred social history and there are plenty of interesting sources.

For example, Erasmus 'Praise of Folly' (1515?)has interesting things to say about important issues such as 'make up' and 'wigs' and how to charm at parties and one gets great consolutation at knowing that thing have not really changed.

The consumpltion of legal whiskey in Ireland also makes interesting reading, especially during the famine and it appears to be the case that there may have been a shortage of grain for bread but perhaps not for whiskey.

The religious pratices in pre-famine Ireland are also worth studying, as well as the level of infanticide, which is frequently referred to in the Irish poor law report.
Emmet Larkin has some interesting thing to say about how religion changed.

Some church records are also worth reading. e.g.Deacon in Kilkenny spent most of his time sorting out marriage problems.(putting pressure on youths to get married).

Poetry and literature and art can reveal much about how people thought..

Anyhow, as already mentioned, History covers such a wide area that there really should be room for all tastes and for all to enjoy and its to some extent silly considering one area to be more important than another.

Babbit

I'm amazed by some of the reactions here.

All I am saying is that where there is no source material there is no history - it ISN'T (PLease get that into your angry head) that I don't consider it important, or relevant, its that there is not enough evidence to support an historical investigation.

Your point about the Irish under the English is unfounded - there is an abundant supply of source material for the Irish side. Contrast the histories of Lecky and Froude for the 17th, 18th century for an example.

Either way, the anger is just nonsense. I'm not concerned with what is morally right or not. history is a discipline which relies on the available source material. Where the source material is not existant there is no history. Call it myopic if you want, that doesn't change the underlying facts.

Babbit

If we were to listen to advocates of constitutional history, history as a discipline would never grow; it would have died a long time ago.

Please get it into your head that I am not G.R. Elton mk. 2. I do not completely agree with the man - as I have already said, he was absurdly traditionalist. His great hero was Maitland - enough said. History has benefited by the new waves of the 60s and 70s. I'm just saying that in most cases the persuit of social history is a lost cause - relying on the manipulation of a slim base of source material while constitutional history (Dealing with the elites, so to speak) has the majority of the sources. Hence, this is why political history is the only truly viable form of historical study.

Ostrom

Babbit wrote: »

I'm just saying that in most cases the persuit of social history is a lost cause - relying on the manipulation of a slim base of source material

Can you provide some examples?

As I understand it, your point concerns definition of discipline?

Babbit

efla wrote: »

Can you provide some examples?

As I understand it, your point concerns definition of discipline?

I believe I already have. Another poster has quite aptly pointed out that the sources are diverse and go further than mere state records. But not much further. Tell me what sources you would persue if you were to write a history of O Connell's agitation for Catholic Emancipation? First of all there are his diaries, correspondence and newspaper reports. Then there is contemporary correspondence from a wide variety of protagonists. Following on from this is any number of legal papers and government documents dealing with the period in question. These are all sources either of an individual (Bourgeouis) or national character.

Say for example someone wanted to write a history of the city of Waterford during the 19th century - he would need mainly the sources that were in the PRO... The building blown up and destroyed in 1922 during the start of the Civil War.

Ostrom

Babbit wrote: »

I believe I already have. Another poster has quite aptly pointed out that the sources are diverse and go further than mere state records. But not much further. Tell me what sources you would persue if you were to write a history of O Connell's agitation for Catholic Emancipation? First of all there are his diaries, correspondence and newspaper reports. Then there is contemporary correspondence from a wide variety of protagonists. Following on from this is any number of legal papers and government documents dealing with the period in question. These are all sources either of an individual (Bourgeouis) or national character.

Say for example someone wanted to write a history of the city of Waterford during the 19th century - he would need mainly the sources that were in the PRO... The building blown up and destroyed in 1922 during the start of the Civil War.

True, but I couldn't write on O' Connell for example, as I know nothing about him besides the textbook essentials

You cant compare social with constitutional history. Different approaches, objectives, subject matter, theoretical frameworks, and sources.

Social history by nature can never approach the rigors of the type of study you are talking about, as some level of abstraction/theorizing is necessary. Sources are limited by time, and the scope of topics such as the emergence of the modern family or the development of private property are too broad for exhaustive review.

claire h

Babbit wrote: »

All I am saying is that where there is no source material there is no history - it ISN'T (PLease get that into your angry head) that I don't consider it important, or relevant, its that there is not enough evidence to support an historical investigation.
....history is a discipline which relies on the available source material. Where the source material is not existant there is no history. Call it myopic if you want, that doesn't change the underlying facts.

There's a difference between having no source material and having some source material. You're refusing to acknowledge the limitations of material relating to constitutional/political history while magnifying the limitations of material relating to social history and refusing to acknowledge any potential uses of it. Myopic is a pretty apt word for it.

Babbit wrote: »

Tell me what sources you would persue if you were to write a history of O Connell's agitation for Catholic Emancipation? First of all there are his diaries, correspondence and newspaper reports. Then there is contemporary correspondence from a wide variety of protagonists. Following on from this is any number of legal papers and government documents dealing with the period in question. These are all sources either of an individual (Bourgeouis) or national character.

Many of these are the kinds of sources you could use to address social or cultural issues. Even as political history it's not exclusively elite politics. There's been work done on the crowd behaviour at O'Connell's meetings, for example. For relatively modern topics it's certainly quite possible to address aspects of life beyond what was happening (or what was recorded as happening) in the arena of elite politics. Diaries, newspaper reports, correspondence - you may not be able to write a 'total history of the working classes' from these sources, but you can do much more than a straight political history.

Even with legal documents, you can write microhistories along the lines of Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms or Judith Brown's Immodest Acts. It's probably more likely to be called 'microhistory' or 'cultural history' rather than 'social history' which can have overtones of statistical evidence re: economic conditions or whatever it might be, but it's going beyond a narrow elite constitutional history.