History's peephole

Based on Scandal at Bizarre and Magnusson’s description that Kendra and Lee Ann posted, I think of microhistory as a peephole into a small room of history. I would contrast this with “macro history”—what I would call what Bloch and Braudel attempt to construct—is more of a window into a small room of history.  Both are only limited views, and the size of the room is the same, it’s just the aperture that differs.  Kiernan’s book is a good example of micro history because at first blush, the book is “about” the Randolph family and its scandal.  At the same time, though, the book is “about” much more than that, especially cultural prescription, social reality, economics, changing family dynamics, honor, race, class and social order, legal culture, and gender.  Kierner looks at themes that other historians would look at, but instead of starting with the theme and working back to individuals, Kierner starts with individuals and works outward.

In examining all of these categories, Kierner seems to be answering the “great historical question” of trying to pinpoint moments and indicators of social change.  She seems less interested in the causes or drivers of change, but gives a lot of attention to the power of individuals to resist social or cultural restrictions.  This theme of contrasting cultural prescription and social reality plays out in several aspects of Kierner’s history.  For example, Kierner’s examination of how premarital pregnancy rates were rising in spite of moral prescriptions against premarital sex; how financial debt and instability characterized the reality of landed families; how slaves influenced the scandal and used it to attack Harrison (their master’s) paternalism; and how Nancy was able to overcome the scandal and in many ways become the most successful of those involved in the scandal.