Throughout the April 2007 edition of Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History, various authors such as Phillip M. Guerty, James M. Banner Jr., Gary J Kornblith, and Carol Lasser explore the importance, development, and changes in the community of historians’ emphasis on New Social History. The journal’s articles highly emphasize the context surrounding the changing emphasis on various aspects of social history over the past century, and highlight specific examples of major historical works to provide supporting evidence of the authors’ assertions.
Throughout Phillip M. Guerty’s “A Century of Change”, Guerty emphasizes the many changes in the professor of history over the last century include but are not limited to an increase in gender and racial diversity. Whereas 100 years ago the professor of history placed heavy emphasis on tradition and the prominence of white male history-makers, modern OAH members’ top area of interest is social history[1]. As shown throughout James M. Banner Jr.’s “Chapters in the History of American History, 1907-2007”, Banner mentions many ways in which the field of history has changed over the nineteenth century, such as the study of history becoming it’s own intellectual branch of study separate from philosophy by forming its’ own “branch of knowledge with its’ own institutions” and developing its’ “own protocol of research, scholarship, teaching, and professional practice”. The study of history had developed to the point where an increasing percentage of historians were being educated in university graduate schools, creating historical organizations such as the MVHA, building archival compilations, and holding “careers as professional historians in schools and colleges” [2]. From a closely analyzed reading of this article, one forms the conclusion that the field of history is far from static, it is instead always changing; developing and branching off into more specialized fields with an ever increasing emphasis on New Social History. However Banner makes it clear that whereas the study of history has indeed changed, previous historical accounts have not simply been overlooked; they have instead been built upon, enhanced, and tested to increase their validity and influence new historical research[3].
Banner gives a multitude of reasons in which he believes historians and students of history need to know the history of history. In his own words which cannot be paraphrased and still carry the same exponentially imperative message that “such knowledge tells us where we entered the story and thus helps us locate in time and within the community of thought that constitutes a discipline and it’s constituent parts; knowing historiography locates us historically”. If one can comprehend the spectrum of historical development, they can determine where their historical interpretation falls in the development of the historical field. Banner also explains his idea that it is necessary that students have a knowledge of historiography as being a necessity if students hope to understand history within the context of the time it is written[4].
Throughout Gary J. Kornblith and Carol Lasser’s “More than Great White Men: A Century of Scholarship on American Social History”, the authors discuss the shift of historical emphasis from the major life accomplishments of white male celebrities to social and cultural factors that influence “society as a whole or on the lives or on the lives of ordinary people who are excluded from established centers of power”. As this shift slowly took place over the past two centuries, historians such as Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard were pushing the envelope of their time by urging further analysis of historical subjects to uncover new developments apart from the recording of political occurrences of high society. For example, Frederick Jackson Turner emphasized the importance of reaching “out to the social sciences and humanities” to call attention to the social changes surrounding the progressive era in which he lived. Whereas many historians of his time were focused solely on political influences on society, Turner was reaching deeper into the Cultural Revolution, economic shift, and social change of the early twentieth century which he found comparable to those altering the founding of the nation and even the Civil War[5].
Similarly, Charles Beard emphasized analysis of “social forces in their economic manifestation and evidenced in the behavior of individuals”. Rather than placing emphasis solely on the actions of institutions such as government, Beard delved deeper into the reasons behind the actions of individuals of these institutions; for example his research and analysis of the nations’ founding fathers’ economic ties to the nation thus the financial benefit they stood to gain through the “governmental framework they devised”. In comparison to Turner, Beard viewed the context of his progressive era place in time as analogous to the revolutionary social changes of the late eighteenth century. In accordance with Beard’s pedagogy, social and economic dynamics of an era play a major role in the actions of higher institutions and have an equal effect on societal change, thus these aspects of history that were often left un-researched in his time had become the main focus of his career as a New Social Historian[6].
Most of the history of history heavily relates to the epoch in which it is deducted and written. For example, during the Great Depression, historical records began to encompass the lives of African Americans, women, and children, a broad development from the previously accentuated emphasis on the lives of wealthy white males. During the times of WWII and the Cold War, emphasis shifted further away from the differences that divided society and reallocated the common threads that held American society together through contrasting American society to European society through the consensus interpretation of history. Consensus historical interpretation focuses primarily on those aspects of society that have positive connotations in regards to American society yet are absent from or have negative influences in European society. For example, the consensus interpretation of David Potter’s People of Plenty identified the broader social mobility, social equality, and economic prosperity of American society in comparison to the more conservative and traditional European culture of the 1950s[7]. When in reference to a “usable past”, historians allude to a record of New Social History encompassing the social activism of groups and individuals that drives societal change that is in such highly contradicting light of the previously addressed consensus interpretation. This usable past is intended to “provide models of success and inspiration for contemporary activists” in such times as the civil rights movement of the 1960s-70s[8].
James Oliver Horton, a prominent historian of the late twentieth century, defined new social history as a study of the “every day working people and the families and communities in which they lived… whose historical experiences differed fundamentally from those of the elite minority about which most historical accounts ha[ve] been written”. New social historians utilize varying methods and specialize in differing areas to challenge traditional historical interpretations. For example, colonial historians such as Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissbaum have determined the origins of
New Labor historians such as Eric Hobsbawn and E.P. Thompson placed the emphasis of his work on the cultural influences on working class formation and “traced the persistence of preindustrial work habits” of the American poor. Similarly, a new wave of feminism interacted with the historical world’s newfound accentuation of social history to place a heavy emphasis on the importance of ordinary women’s lives. Throughout the 1980s, scholars increasingly emphasized the influences of class, gender, sexuality and race in the formation and development of American society. However, most modern Social historians have placed more emphasis on a deconstruction of the “ideologies that uphold systems of established power”. They modify, redraft, amend, and strengthen received historical accounts to better include the full convolution of the past. Based solely on the article, in times of war historians take a nationalistic approach to social history, and tend to de-emphasize the differences that divide society and focus predominantly on the ties that bond American society together. Because the context of the 2005 congressional vote to teach traditional history in educational institutions was rooted in the social constructs of the War in
Ulrich’s in-depth research into the life of Martha Ballard is a prime example of New Social History because Ulrich used details of the life of a working class woman to further analyze the context of the society in which the nation was formed. Ulrich focused on the social, economic, and cultural factors that impacted Martha Ballard’s life based upon an in-depth analysis of Martha’s diary and numerous other primary sources contemporary to the time of Martha’s life[11]. Throughout Brumberg’s Kansas Charley: The Boy Murderer, Brumburg challenges David Potter’s People of Plenty through it’s emphasis on the plight of the huge population of young American orphans in poverty, whereas Potter placed the focus of his work on the “economic abundance” that he felt was the key factor distinguishing American character from the rest of the world[12].
If Quinn’s history of dairy farming in the 1930’s had been from the vantage point of early twentieth century historians, it would likely have focused her research on the government institutions and major uprisings that had impact on the dairy strikes, as opposed to her New Social History approach which instead focused on the economic, social, and cultural factors that influenced the actions of these working class citizens. As a New Social Historian, Quinn placed a palpable emphasis on the lives of individuals who were involved and the societal factors which influenced their actions to further understand the events of the dairy strikes in relation to the context of the time in which they occurred[13].
Throughout the April 2007 edition of Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History, various authors such as Guerty, Banner, Kornblith, and Lasser explore the importance, development, and changes in the community of historians’ emphasis on New Social History. The articles place profound weight on the context surrounding the changing emphasis on various aspects of social history over the past century, and highlight specific examples of major historical works to provide supporting evidence of the authors’ assertions. Such works as those of Quinn, Brumberg, and Ulrich also provide insight into the growing shift away from traditional historical focus on the wealthy white male minority to the every day working class citizen who’s social environment greatly impacts their daily life.
Works Cited
Banner, J.M. “Chapters in the History of American History, 1907-2007” Organization of
American Historians: Magazine of History. Vol. 2, April 2007.
Brumberg, Joan Jacobs.
2003.
Guerty, P.M. “A Century of Change”. Organization of American Historians: Magazine of
History. Vol. 2, April 2007
Kornblith, G. J. Lasser, C. “More than Great White Men: A Century of Scholarship on
American Social History”. Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History. Vol. 2, April 2007
Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. A Midwife’s Tale: The Life Of Martha Ballard Based On Her
Diary, 1785-1812”
[1] Phillip M. Guerty. “A Century Of Change”. Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History. Vol. 2, April 2007. p.3
[2] James M. Banner. “Chapters in the History of American History, 1907-2007” Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History. Vol. 2, April 2007. p. 5
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid. p.5
[5] Gary J. Kornblith, Carol Lasser. “More than Great White Men: A Century of Scholarship on American Social History”. Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History. Vol. 2, April 2007. p.8
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid p.9
[8] Ibid p.10
[9] Ibid p.11
[10] Ibid pp. 8-12
[11] Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. A Midwife’s Tale: The Life Of Martha Ballard Based On Her Diary, 1785-1812 ”
[12] Kornblith, p.10
.jpg)