Macro micro macro macro micro macro micro micro macro history

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that these words are basically the same? And also like…so micro means small, right? Which means that macro means big? But then on a camera, right, there is a macro setting. And the macro setting is for taking photos of small things? So I don’t…like I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that. Does anyone get this? Are camera manufacturers specifically out to mess with history under-grads?

I still don’t know.

‘Asking large questions in small places.’ Charles Joyner, Shared Traditions: Southern History and Folk Culture, p. 1.

It’s a classic – the go-to definition for anyone looking for an introduction to micro-history. And I think it’s quite good. Mainly because it’s much easier to understand than those other two words.

It’s self-explanatory, right? Reduce the scale of analysis, in order to draw wide and far reaching conclusion. So look at something micro, and then use it to talk about something macro. Use the micro to look at the macro. Micro and macro.

Wait, so does that mean we’re doing micro-history or macro-history?

I’m getting confused again.

Why not both?

‘A marginal or extreme [historical] case is in some respects typical of a larger area or a group, but in its extremeness differs from the typical case in significant ways’. Matti Peltonen, Clues, Margina and Monads: The Micro-Macro Link in Historical Research, p. 357.

Matti Peltonen seems to think that both makes a lot of sense actually. Perhaps one of the best things about micro-history is its ability to provide a unique keyhole view in to certain ideas, institutions, structures etc. It allows us to connect with actual lived experience and understand historical phenomena from an entirely different angle.

Microhistory provides a level of precision understanding that most other historical techniques simply cannot – and broader historical studies can benefit greatly from this level of depth. Of course, on the flip-side, micro-history generally works to place its studies within a broader historical narrative.

But this is a Transnational history module…

I’m getting there, I’m getting there.

It doesn’t get much more macro than transnational history, right? This is as big as it gets – the movement of people, ideas, goods, and generally things across borders and around the globe. So how on earth can two things that seem so opposed work together.

Well the error is in the assumption. Micro and macro are set up in opposition, but in reality they’re not actually that opposite. Especially in history. I’ve already spoken about how the two are fairly inter-dependent when it comes to their place in history. And I think that can be especially pertinent in transnational history.

I briefly refer you to ‘A Chinese Farmer’ by Tonie Andrade – a great example of how focusing on one individual, confined to the margins of history, can lead to transnational conclusions about connections and interactions between Chinese and Dutch people in Taiwan. But just talking theoretically for a moment – it kind of seems like transnational history is already in the trade of focusing on individuals in this way. By it’s very nature, the primary actors in transnational history are the people who move across historical borders, and the effect that movement has. These people aren’t necessarily famous names, they themselves aren’t operating on a macro level. But they’re part of a macro trend. And that means that studying and understanding them will be invaluable in trying to understand that trend.

So okay, maybe these two words are far too similar to be opposites. But then, maybe they’re not really that opposite after all.