I found the Andrade article ‘Toward a Global Microhistory’ particularly thought-provoking. His narratival and biographical approach to recounting the Dutch-Chinese conflict of 1661 in Taiwan made this article a very enjoyable and casual read. Andrade begins with introducing a major international conflict or event and then shifts to the perspective of a seemingly small or insignificant actor, such as Sait.
Through my studies thus far, I feel as though I have been encouraged to stray from this type of historiographic approach – therefore I am a bit skeptical of Andrade’s confidence in portraying the inner thoughts of major actors like Coyet and Cauw. Primary sources such as letters and personal diaries inform Andrade’s characterization of these actors. While these types of sources are likely the most ideal for creating these personalities, I am still suspicious of the author’s ability to accurately convey the personal opinions and sentiments of Dutchmen in such a detailed manner. The issues associated with translating primary Chinese and Dutch sources into English along with the dynamic of creating a narrative claiming to have insight of what these characters are thinking, together, is a bit troubling. Not to be a pessimistic postmodernist, but the instability of language and reception poses the largest threat to this work in my opinion.
Although, by prefacing his introduction of Sait, the two African boys, Koxinga, and others within their respective historical context, Andrade was able to justify some of the gaps in the information available regarding these actors. Through this entry point, these diaries and letters piece together a narrative that has a much higher degree of historical relevance. The story of Sait and the two African boys do not appear to be very useful or relevant in isolation, but together, add colour to the dynamic between the Chinese, Dutch and African slaves during this historical period. While this narratival style has its limits, Andrade’s approach provokes new questions and subsequently, produces new hypotheses in examining the dynamics of seemingly unambiguous events in history. I am left with this question: How do we exploit the benefits of this narratival/biographical style of writing a more personal global history without incorporating too much ‘imagination’?
Thoughts on Andrade’s ‘Global Microhistory’
Ah, a fellow sceptic of narrative! I feel like my initial blog post was harsher on Andrade than he deserved. He is, after all, really very knowledgeable about both Chinese history and Global history and I have very little doubt he could clearly answer and undermine my source-based critique.
However, I think the really interesting aspect you’ve touched on in this post, that almost certainly makes a better case for avoiding narrative than my own work, is the “instability of language and reception”. I also think the malleability of language over time is another element which could distort a historian’s perspective of their subject, something that is strongly implied in your post.
I think we both agreed that a narrative style is great if you can detach it from imagination, but I struggle to see how it can be used for most individuals in history due to a lack of information about ‘normal’ (for want of a better word) people like Cauw and to a lesser extent Coyet. A point you highlight excellently. I do wonder what we should do when there simply are not enough sources to construct a watertight account of an individual’s life? Should we make do with what we have, fill in the gaps, or simply consign them to oblivion and find a better ‘main character’?
To be honest, I’m not certain myself.
But perhaps most important takeaway was that we both found Andrade ‘thought-provoking’ and ‘enjoyable’ and we continue to discuss it in these blogs and comments. So perhaps, despite our misgivings, he succeeded in his aim of imparting historical knowledge to us and making his work engaging?