Our discussion this morning centred heavily on pinpointing the value of microhistory, with close reference to the article “A Chinese Farmer, Two African Boys; and a Warlord” by Tonio Andrade, and Heather Streets-Salter’s “The Local was Global: The Singapore Mutiny of 1915.”
“We should also use our unique position as custodians of the world’s past to be mediums, to bring alive, just for a few pages, some of the people who inhabited those structures and lived through those processes, using what Braudel called the most important tool of the historian: imagination.”
This quote from Andrade highlights where part of the value of microhistory can be found. Microhistory allows the historian to use his or her imagination, and when the imagination is engaged, history writing immediately becomes more accessible to the reader. The articles by Andrade and Streets-Salter offer fine examples of this, as both succeeded in capturing my attention instantly, through the use of a focused account of a fascinating historical vignette. Andrade’s approach of weaving his narrative throughout his article was particularly refreshing, and ensured that my interest was piqued from the first page and sustained to the last. Nevertheless, we as a class agreed that Andrade’s article, while extremely readable, was not a perfect manifestation of the usefulness of microhistory.
The fundamental use of microhistory lies, I believe, in the relationship between the local and the global. The global turn in historical writing since the 1990s caused some to question whether microhistory had a future. Far from threatening the practice of microhistory, however, the global focus offers the chance for its true potential to be unlocked. There is no question that the micro level can serve not only as a descriptive tool, but also as an explanatory basis for broader, global themes. While Andrade offers little more than a hint of its value in this regard, Streets Salter provides a more comprehensive example. Her article on the Singapore Mutiny explicitly uses a local event to offer a perspective on “larger intercolonial and global connections.” Such an approach is undoubtedly the aspiration of all microhistorians, and it must remain so if microhistory is to retain its relevance.
Both of these articles offer inspiration as I consider how to develop my own project, and both challenge me to consider how best to utilise the tool of microhistory. As Harri and I discussed this morning, the idea of entering our analyses through the account of a specific event is an extremely appealing one. This leaves me with the difficult task of finding an event that is attention-grabbing, relevant, and representative of my project’s broader themes. Harri’s suggestions as to how I could go about this were welcome, and this is something I shall have to pursue over the coming weeks. If such an event were found, I would then seek to develop an essay that utilised Andrade’s device of repeatedly returning to the story in order to analyse a different actor, or portray in a different light. Ideally, this would allow me to retain both the appeal of a narrative history, and the value of the micro as an analytical lens through which to view the macro. Such aspirations are far from easily achieved, but microhistory certainly holds exciting possibilities for us all.