You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the Journal of Social History online. About 605 words from this article are provided below; about 7529 words remain.
 
If you are an individual subscriber to the Journal of Social History, you may:
• login here if you have already registered for online access.
• Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.

If you are not a subscriber to the Journal of Social History, you can:
• subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of Social History.

Instititutions can:
• Subscribe to the journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.
Lara Putnam | To Study the Fragments/Whole: Microhistory and the Atlantic World | Journal of Social History, 39.3 | The History Cooperative
39.3  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
Spring, 2006
Previous
Next
Journal of Social History

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 

TO STUDY THE FRAGMENTS/WHOLE: MICROHISTORY AND THE ATLANTIC WORLD

By Lara Putnam University of Pittsburgh



the unity is submarine breathing air, our problem is how to study the fragments whole ...
—Edward Kamau Braithwaite (b. Barbados, 1930), "Caribbean Man in Space and Time"1


      This essay is about the past, present, and future connections between two kinds of history: microhistory and Atlantic history. The first is a well-defined and long-standing label, perhaps not much in fashion today; the second is a somewhat inchoate emerging field and apparently a hot tag, to judge by its rapid rise to prominence in dissertation titles, symposia, and job descriptions. Micro-history is often associated with a particular style of presentation—the narrative exposition of a single event or a single life—and with a particular set of topics—cultural history, in particular the cultural history of those at the margins. Other works labeled microhistories offer dense reconstructions of the social history of circumscribed communities, tracing patterns in kinship, commerce, or governance in exquisite detail. What links such disparate kinds of inquiry is a shared methodological tactic. Microhistory reduces the scale of observation, often to the level of personal encounters or individual life histories. It does so not in search of sympathetic "human faces" to illustrate the impact of historical processes, but rather in order to challenge our understanding of the processes themselves, in "the belief that microscopic observation will reveal factors previously unobserved."2 1
      Meanwhile, the unwieldy collective of works tagged as Atlantic history coheres around a geographic claim, regarding the spatial scope of key historical processes from the sixteenth century to the present (in its maximalist chronology) or during the height of the transatlantic slave trade, from the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries (the minimalist chronology). Atlantic historians argue that the density of commerce and travel linking ports in Europe, Africa, and the Americas in these eras made historical developments at each site profoundly dependent upon the others. To understand the causes and assess the consequences of change observed at one locale, we must consider events and patterns at the places most closely linked to it, as well as trends affecting the system as a whole. Atlantic history has also been characterized by other tendencies which may or may not be essential to it, depending on whom you ask: an eagerness to find actors or practices of African origin in places where traditional historiography had not marked their presence; an insistence on the centrality of slavery and the slave trade to historical developments in Europe or North America traditionally explained without reference to them; prominent attention to the unequal distribution of power across the Atlantic world; the conviction that even those most thoroughly subjugated by the system—for instance, those bought and sold within it—made their own history within its constraints. 2
      On the face of it, Atlantic history and microhistory seem radically different. The first sounds very, very big; the latter very small. The geographic scope of the historical processes Atlantic history seeks to understand covers roughly a third of the globe; the scale of observation within microhistory is frequently no larger than a town, sometimes no larger than a miller's bookshelf. Yet scope and scale are two separate matters.3 Like Atlantic history, microhistory has attempted to elucidate historical processes transcontinental in scope, such as the spread of werewolf legends across the Indo-European ecumene. Like microhistory, Atlantic history has been characterized by researchers' purposive manipulation of their scale of observation, so that reconstructing the trajectory of a Yoruba Muslim and his kinsmen may occasion a reevaluation of the dynamics of slave rebellions across the nineteenth-century Atlantic world. . . .

There are about 7529 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.