The shift from Political History to Social History

[guad42]

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

Curt,
You're quite right. Once all of the Cattons, Rheas, and Sears and countless others have covered these battles, in some cases many times over, most readers or even serious buffs have had their fill. Then comes the aspects of battles, or stories within them not yet told, which can be good study and good reads, in addition to all of the other social history studies that come along. I can remember even Rhea did this with the lifestory of an individual soldier at Spottslyvania (title escapes me now).

Certainly there are still battles and campaigns that need revisiting or in some cases still call for the definitive book, but I think the future of CW history will be in the continued and growing focus on the "people" of those times, soldiers and civilians alike.

Sam Dolan

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

Yup, at some events I hang out with Rick Baumgartner of Blue Acorn Press, watching the new generation of books fly off the table (sometimes). :)

Curt

[1stOVIGuard]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Very true! The ACW was such a well documented war and the interest was world wide, almost to the point of being a World War (completely other debatable subject:D). We have photographs, correspondance, orders, and reports. We can clearly see what happened at the larger battles and midsized engagements due to the documentation so "it is what it is". Is it also on our shoulders to develop other's knowlege on the political side of the Civil War, I would say that it is a personal choice and left up to the individual's personal impression and what they can do with that impression.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

"...I would say that it is a personal choice and left up to the individual's personal impression and what they can do with that impression."

Yup, I have been told what to do with my impression many times. ;) :) :)

Curt

[flattop32355]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Once all of the Cattons, Rheas, and Sears and countless others have covered these battles, in some cases many times over, most readers or even serious buffs have had their fill. Then comes the aspects of battles, or stories within them not yet told

For a long time, history study covered mostly the "big" picture. Once that had been well worn, we started looking at some of the larger components of the "big" picture. Then we started noticing the interweaving of the smaller aspects to that "big" picture. Now some are delving into the personal and small group levels, as well as mixing in the surrounding cultural and social aspects of a given time.

It seems a natural progression that, as we develop a working knowledge of some part of history, we are drawn to the next deepest way of viewing those events, down to the basic levels in some cases by some folk. And since the pool of those studying the subject is continually being renewed, it continues to flow over some of the same ground until it reaches new territory for a given, particular individual.

[Abrams]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

I think its the natural progression of knowledge. Every time I learn something new, the new knowledge points me towards two or three new things I know nothing about, and did not realize interested me. My interest piqued, I learn about one or two of those new things, which points me to even more new things I did not know anything about. The more I learn, the more I realize I do not know.

I cannot follow every path my ignorance presents to me, therefore I choose what to learn next. This necessarily limits what I can know about any topic. Maybe the tactics of battle interest me, so I can become an expert in that. But while learning that, I did not study tin-smithing, so I remain ignorant on that. There's simply no way to learn it all. So we specialize.

Maybe the social aspect is just being covered more now that the political side has been so exhaustively written about. That directs ACW interest in a new way, because its the "newer" knowledge to be gained perhaps. And then it starts following the new knowledge/ignorance tree, and we get more books on topics we did not even know that we did not know about. The letters home. The book about a Private, instead of the General. The life of the people left back at home, and the trials they endured.

Slow day at work, and I ramble. :)

[Hank Trent]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

This brings up something I've wondered about...

I totally agree that it seems a logical progression. When the great leaders and events have been scrutinized endlessly, the common man and the smaller events are the next logical step.

But is it actually logical and inevitable, or does it only seem so because that's what happened?

A parallel situation is the American Revolution. If it's inevitable, at some point people must have become over-saturated with biographies of the founding fathers and analyses of the great battles. If the same amount of time passed, it would be around 1920 that people should have become more interested in daily colonial life than studying more about Washington and Jefferson.

And sure enough, there was a colonial revival in full swing then. In a bad omen for our hobby, though, it was about ready to lose the head of steam provided by the centennial, and start to fade away.

However, I don't know enough about the study of the Revolutionary War to judge whether there was the same kind of major shift in focus toward the common man--though the emphasis on craftsmen and their products in the colonial revival might indicate so. Anyone who's read more on the history of studying the Rev War care to comment?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

Hallo!

"However, I don't know enough about the study of the Revolutionary War to judge whether there was the same kind of major shift in focus toward the common man--though the emphasis on craftsmen and their products in the colonial revival might indicate so. Anyone who's read more on the history of studying the Rev War care to comment?

IMHO, a true "chicken and the egg" puzzle.... :)

Which has come "first?"

Part of me, perhaps the academic side with a degree in 18th and 19th century American history with specializations in the era of the Rev War and the Civil War, wants to credit this shift or shifts to the changing discipline of history, historiography, and the Historical Method.
Part of me, perhaps the "living history" and "experimental archeology" that applied the academic to what had been (for me) recreational pageantry and powder-burning battle reenactment, wants to credit this shift to we "serious hobbyists."

What complicates both sides, is IMHO, that the evolution of so-called "reenacting" whether (and not limited to) the F & I War, Rev War, War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, and WWII is being driven by the same shifts in history and historiography at the formal and academic levels.

And while we as a people and we as hobbyist sub-set, differ, argue, and fight over the issue of who has legitmate ownership of "history" (Academia, Hollywood, published authors, reenactors, lay-people, etc.,) I actually, heretically, credit the Rev War folks with the initially stated and then (partially) realized paradigm-shift that can be found in a paraphrasing ofthe Brigade of the American Revolution's banner-line:

"Preserving the life and times of the common soldier of the Revolutionary War."

Chicken or the egg? ;) :)

Curt

[Hank Trent]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

What complicates both sides, is IMHO, that the evolution of so-called "reenacting" whether (and not limited to) the F & I War, Rev War, War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, and WWII is being driven by the same shifts in history and historiography at the formal and academic levels.

Ah, but that's my point.

If everything is working in tandem--reenacting, academic history, museum interpretation, popular interest, etc.--the change should occur all together, and we should see the history of all wars shifting toward an interest in the common soldier in the last 40 years. The amount of published material and the length of time since the war would be irrelevant.

If each war goes through a cycle of political history followed by social history, then each well-studied war should follow the same pattern of first the political histories, then the social histories.

Personally, I think the former is true, even though it's tempting to look for more specific reasons, such as a glut of political history. There's been a shift from political to social history across the board, and it just happens to be affecting the Civil War, as well as all other eras under study, regardless of how many or how few political histories have been written about them.

What caused that shift is hard to say, but whatever it is, it would be broader and deeper than the study of the Civil War alone.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[guad42]

Re: The shift from Political History to Social History

I trully feel that it is a large scale shift of focus, not just with Civil War topics, but with nearly all aspects of American/Military History.

The reader, the audience, the casual buff, the stalwart reenactor - most everyone wants to connect to something on a personal level.

I think more and more academics are shifting in this direction as well. The Rev War even has another "Band of Brothers" type of book in the form of Mark Urban's "Fusillers".

-Sam Dolan