Social History and the Voice of the Common Person

I thought both Hexter and Eley’s articles were informative and they have given me a much better grasp of this phase of historiographic development.  I found Eley’s article to be the most useful; I really enjoyed and appreciated his clear articulation of the three sources of social history.  Like Meryn, I was stuck by the move to a more integrated and holistic approach to history.  As a Latin Teacher and a budding Folklorist, I feel right at home with this interdisciplinary and comparative approach which includes not only the more “scientific” fields such as economics, sociology, and anthropology, but also poetry, art, and literature.

In particular, I saw the development of these methodologies when I compared the sources used by Bloch and Thompson.  Both Bloch and Thompson have clearly moved away from Prescott’s idea of the “great man” initiating change in history and they both focus more on social structures and material need.  I recently criticized Bloch for not representing the serfs in his discussion and thereby silencing the largest portion of the society.  While I still stand by my critique of Bloch, after reading Thompson I see how Bloch was the necessary step between Prescott’s focus on an individual and a series of events to a historian like Thompson who looks at the society more holistically and not as a series of events spurred on by one person.  Without Bloch’s initial shift from the individual to the society, we may not have gotten to someone like Thompson who seems to take social history to the next logical step: looking at the common person.  I was pleased to see Thompson include the voice of the common person in his articles through the use of personal diaries and letters, songs, poems, and pamphlets.  Thompson also includes the voice of women and children, two groups which have been underrepresented or unacknowledged up to this point. 

And while this may not be an earth-shattering revelation (I’m afraid I may have peaked with my Cortes as an epic Roman hero metaphor), but for me this a significant connection.  I am finally really seeing the influence and importance of economics.  I have always shied away from economics and tried to dismiss it as not critically important (I’m still bitter that the only bad grade I got as an undergrad was an economics course).  However, through Bloch’s connection of economics to feudalism in France and then Thompson’s connection to the industrial revolution in England, I am really starting to “get” that economics is a vital component to the holistic picture of social history and I cannot ignore or dismiss.

Personally, I really enjoy this interdisciplinary and integrated approach to social history.  I found Thompson’s articles to be very engaging and thought-provoking; at times he seemed to me to be almost philosophical, particularly in his discussion of time and work-discipline.  I admit I spent some time reflecting on my own attitudes towards time, work, and the attitudes and issues surrounding task-completion and hourly payment.  I am looking forward to what comes next (as long as it isn’t too much economics)!