The shift from Political History to Social History

[1stOVIGuard]

Hey there guys, I hope this is the right place to post this!:o
Moderators I appologize if it isn't.

I have noticed from personal experience, and probably influenced by being an undergrad still in school, that since I started reenacting here in Ohio in 97' that there has been several shifts in the CW reenacting world from a focus on the political history of the ACW to the Social history of the ACW. I have pondered on this for a looong time and have come to the conclusions of:

a. Social history more directly reflects the attitude of AC's and thus maybe the mainstream world is slowly making a hint of a shift for a more AC mentality

b. People in the hobby are less concerned with the political issues of the ACW and focus on the lives of the people during the ACW.

c. It is maybe seen as though the public already knows enough and is educated enough on the subject of ACW, but here I must disagree on a personal level due to going to college with MANY who do not even know what the Confederacy was and misplace the years of the war to be in the 20th century.

I just thought these might be some interesting points and be a great subject of conversation. I have not participated, sadly, in any AC events but am longing to eventually so I may meet some of you guys in person and be more directly influenced by the AC part of the hobby. This is to point out that I only know what I know about the hobby from the mainstream point of view so I am sorry if it does not clearly reflect that of the AC portion.

[CSchneider]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Well, that's just following in the general scholarly trend of academic fields such as History, American Studies, and now Museum Studies (and even among folks who study military history), where the switch began to be made about 40 years ago. Could it be a more scholarly approach to authentic side living history or the effects of a new generation of research, books, and exhibits on living historians and the public in general?

-Craig Schneider

[1stOVIGuard]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

That is a good point, after all, it is the social history that is the new vast and open field for research. Maybe political history is exhausted and after awhile a trend will go back to the political side. From what I have read of old history texts there is a trend (at least it seems to me) that there is a cycle for the political history and social history rotation. It is just now with the internet and wide range of resource wells out there that extensive social history research can be done, but alas we run into bad sources and secondary sources that we must track down through the plethora of materials out there. Maybe some of the guys from the 60's on can provide some deeper insight into the trends.:D

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

Just to further the discussion, by going Zen-like...
Is everything old, new again? ;) :)

Maybe you are now coming to discover the same "point" or benchmark on your personal Path and Journey towards "Life in the Past" that others have already discovered on theirs 5, 10, 20 years ago as they shift toward the right on the ever-evolving F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm?

I do not go back that far, but I know/knew professors who were teaching American, Central American, South American, European, and Asian social history in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Maybe you have not encountered shifts but rather just came to the some of same or similar milestones in your own growth, progress, and evolution?

;)

Curt
Heretic

[5thMIkeydet]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

While I agree with Mr Schmidt and Mr Dyre, there is something to be said in a shift of focus that is not necessarily cyclic. As history expands and is continually researched I think people do tend to emphasize the Social and cultural side more. We will never be done studying the politics of the Civil War and other wars, but they are often times (arguably) more exhaustively studied than cultural issues. Often the more well known and comprehenisve studies of the ACW focus on big picture thinking. In some ways the individual soldier and civilian and their world are virgin forest waiting to be harvested.
I do disagree with the idea that Progressive Reenactors are behind this movement. If anything we are a tool of the movement. The modern layperson probably isn't as interested in being able to recite from memory all the members of Lincoln's cabinet as some members of this forum may be bale to do. They are interested in learning about the individuals who made up the time period and attempting to connect to their past. We facilitate that by doing a lot of the research into that and attempting to imitate them as truthfully as possible.
I think that we are seeing a natural progression. As time continues to distance itself from the events of our past, more and more study is done. As more and more is researched, the quest for knowledge will naturally cause us to explore different areas. Eventually areas of simingly less grander consequence quickly become much more important. Is inconsequintial to history which kind of wool was used in the Richmond Depot type II jacket. Yet we find ourselves, as living historians, seeking out some of the most insanely minute details of the ACW Joe and his family back home. We do this as part of our effort to educate ourselves and others and really appreciate those smaller building block and pieces that make up the larger Political and Economic issues that result from the war and influenced, in some degree or another, American History in the last 150 yrs.
Just 2 cents from a fellow undergrad.
This would make an interesting essay to develop and research more fully. And take out the generalizations.

[CSchneider]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

If you're really interested in learning about the historiographical study of the Civil War, take a look at this volume:

Woodworth, Steven E. ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1996).

Let's make it clear that at 750 pages this is far more than a "handbook," and being compiled in 1996 is a bit dated, but is a good record of the historiography of Civil War scholarship up to that point.

-Craig Schneider

[Hank Trent]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

I've definitely noticed a shift from military/tactical history to social history in the last 15+ years in reenacting, and as everyone has mentioned there's been a general shift, overall, from political to social history in the last couple of generations.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I've never really noticed a huge emphasis on the interpretation of political history in reenacting, other than the occasional appearance of a Lincoln impersonator or some Confederate reenactors who genuinely want to bring the Confederacy back, and their enemies. But even they seem to argue more from a social-history or military-history viewpoint. Not so much "Jeff Davis's economic policy..." or "The federal government's relationship with Russia...," but "my grandpa was a poor farmer who didn't own no slaves so it's all about heritage not hate," or "If only General Lee had done X we could have won."

Military and tactical history, yes. Who marched where, who should have done what at what point during the battle, what made general so-and-so decide to do what he did--that was the major focus (rightly so) when reenactments were pure battle re-creations. Then interest increased in researching and trying to recreate the experience of the common soldier, his military life outside of the battle, his life before the war, his family at home, the affect of war on the population around the battlefield and the homefront, and so forth, all of which required a social history viewpoint.

What are we referring to concerning the widespread interpretation of political history at reenactments? I wonder if I'm breaking out military/tactical history as something separate, when I really should be including it under the umbrella of political history.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Benedict]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

I, as a student of History, can only cosign the remarks that there has been a trend from the political, top-down point of view in History to the "average joe" perspective. This is not to say that social studies are replacing discussions on politics and leaders, but that they coexist. Maybe this also has to do with a growing tendency of interdisciplinary work- History and Archeology, or a more intense implementation of Gender Studies in History, for example. After all, History is not just "History", but Social History, Military History, and so forth.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

True.

I would add though, IMHO, there are two "forks in the path" at work here that may need to be developed further.

I look toward the academic discipline of "historiography" as being two things: one, a studying of the growth and development of "history" over time as an academic discipline (as well as in different times and among diffrent peoples and cultures). And the studying of the methods and particular tools that were used, and are being, used.
And, two, the actual writings that were written about a certain topic or event during a certain time.

So yes, there is the study of the history of political events, but there is the shift toward social history and "mental structures."
When it comes to so-called "reenacting" or so-called "living history" as a developing mix of recreation, pageantry, practice, history, social history, political history, etc., we have seen its own "historiography" grow and develop into the "F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm" since the rise of "leisure time" after WWII.

I see these two things as an evolution down the Path that some lads chose to take as part of their Mental Pictures- and how both part of the "historical method" has been borrowed and adapted by "reenacting" to unite a shift in focus from the names, dates, and places of "famous" personages and battles down to the everyday happenings in the lives of Everyday men, women, and children (the Cosmic Events in Ordinary Lives).

Curt

[styler]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

How many times do we refer to the Crisis of 1857 in our reenacting lives?

History is a whole, but that's sometimes more than folks want to bite. Nibbling at diverse subjects often seems the only way to digest the past.

[1stOVIGuard]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

How many times do we refer to the Crisis of 1857 in our reenacting lives?

History is a whole, but that's sometimes more than folks want to bite. Nibbling at diverse subjects often seems the only way to digest the past.

Are you saying that that as historians, we focus on specialty issues bit at a time? If you are I would have to agree. I personally focus my research as a living historian on the tidbits of daily life and rarely concern myself, or leaving it to others, to specialize in the military tactics and political history. I have a close mess mate that when approached with an opportunity can debate battlefield tactics till your ears fall off, however I can only go a short way before my knowlege is exhausted.

From what everyone is saying, it sounds like maybe myself and the way I view the hobby could be because I too am developing on the historian path. But is it also possible that we might be seeing a development toward more social based history and social history based programs over the political history based programs. When spectators come up to us, do we start by rambling on about the politics of the ACW or do we initiate conversation and continue it with who and what we represent. More "skits" are taking place in my area than public speakers and night tours are developing which primarily focus on the night lives of soldiers vs. a political gathering at a camp. It also seems to me that events are steering away from early war impressions to mid-late war. Could this also be seen as part of the shift due to Lincoln already being voted in and the south has seceeded, so the political fuss is over? (other than anti war demonstrations and draft riots, etc.) Just some more things to think about.

[Hank Trent]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

But is it also possible that we might be seeing a development toward more social based history and social history based programs over the political history based programs. When spectators come up to us, do we start by rambling on about the politics of the ACW or do we initiate conversation and continue it with who and what we represent. More "skits" are taking place in my area than public speakers and night tours are developing which primarily focus on the night lives of soldiers vs. a political gathering at a camp.

We also need to consider the difference between the history itself, and the interpretation (presentation) of it. I'm using the word "interpretation" in the museum docent sense of conveying history to the public.

It's possible to interpret any kind of history either through lectures or through living history. A lecture-type talk at a reenactment isn't much different than what a history professor in a classroom or a CW roundtable lecturer could do, perhaps with a uniform on a manikin or a few props. It always seems to me that it wastes much of the advantage of living history.

The topic of the lecture could be anything though, from the politics of the era to the details of a soldier's daily life.

Similarly, living history used to its fullest, where the interpreter actually portrays a person from the past, can be used to interpret anything from politics to daily life. As you note, a political rally would be an example of living history interpretation of political history.

An individual soldier could also start a conversation with a spectator, "Who are you planning to vote for? I'm voting for Lincoln because... I think Breckenridge is... My father was a whig because... I like the Union Party because..."

Yet the soldier next to him could begin the conversation complaining about the food or the march or the local people, or reminisce about life back home, and interpret a soldier's daily life or the social history of a region.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

"It also seems to me that events are steering away from early war impressions to mid-late war. Could this also be seen as part of the shift due to Lincoln already being voted in and the south has seceeded, so the political fuss is over? (other than anti war demonstrations and draft riots, etc.) Just some more things to think about."

That may be just the magic appeal of the numbered "anniversary series."
Meaing there was an unsustainable "swell" in interest and activities when the "Civil War Centennial" rolled around in 1961, and the American Revolutionary War "Buy-centenial" in 1976. Leading to what some see as the start of the modern era of reenacitng with the start of the 125th Anniversay Series of events with Manassas 125 in 1986.
(But when the Appomattox 125 fizzled and died, the Civil War community took a severe loss in numbers and interests, followed by conversations like "Will will ever see a thousand men on a side events again?" Then came the magic of the "130th" followed by the mega-magic of the "135th's.")

In some ways, there is a reenacting historical tradition or progression caused by numbered "anniversary" observations as we "get to" 1861 first and 1865 last most times. Of course, in the EBUFU community, one is not as encumbered by the chronological marching of "years."

However, I think there is increasing thinking "outside of the box," and the reliance on ascending years is not as important as it once seemed to be. (Although we shall see what the 100th Aniversay or WWI Centennial will embrace....)

IMHO, "we" are not carving out bits and pieces as nibbles and bites. On the contrary, in some segments of the Civil War Community we are starting to understand that the everyday, common man lived his/her life in a complex, richly woven tapestry of inter-related short stories and events that need to be investigated to be better understood so that "we" can add and layer increasing richness and depth to our limited understanding, interpretations, simulations, emulations, and appreciation of Life in the Past.

Of course, that is just one chosen Mental Picture among many....

Curt

[guad42]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Personally I believe that in recent years the whole study of history really has changed and as such the entire outlook on the Civil War.

As others here have mentioned, the area of personal accounts, letters, diaries and the whole approach to the stories of individuals and people, rather than the politics and the generals, is still relatively untapped. Who knows what great accounts and stories still exist that have yet to be told?

The WWII study follows a similar line nowadays. Grandpa's or Dad's war is now the study of individuals, and small unit stories (Band of Brothers, etc) are what sell a lot of books, rather than bios on MacArthur, etc.

Likewise with the CW. Go into your run of the mill Borders or Barnes and Noble and chances are its the stories of people, or the greater social story that sells books. I went into a Borders last week that in just a few days sold all of its copies of the new "Republic of Suffering" book and yet those big tomes on the campaigns and the generals and the causes, etc. still remain on the shelves.

Sam Dolan

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

"I went into a Borders last week that in just a few days sold all of its copies of the new "Republic of Suffering" book and yet those big tomes on the campaigns and the generals and the causes, etc. still remain on the shelves."

On the other hand, how many times can the same "history" of battles and leaders be told (with a nod away from "revisionsim" or "apologism") in new books that we do not already have in some repeatitive multiple form on our book shelves? ;) :)

Curt