Nothing Bizarre Here

My understanding of what makes a micro-history is based off of the definition offered by Magnusson in his work, What Is Microhistory?: Theory and Practice. Therefore, I was delighted when I saw this prompt, and knew that my underlying thoughts for reading Scandal at Bizarre were shared by others. That being stated, I would agree that Kierner’s work does serve as a wonderful and insightful mode of microhistory. The ability (for both research’s sake and writing’s sake) to encompass a nationally felt pressure through a localized one is a difficult skill for a historian. A micro-history, at its most essential point, is a case study of sorts. The micro-history serves to test large scale histories, as an experiment to qualify assumptions or claims to every day life. In this case, Kierner assesses the rather shaky foundation of wealthy Americans who found themselves in financial crunches based off of debts to British merchants, high taxes from a wartime economy, soil exhaustion (in the Virginia area for the Randolph’s case), and especially the instability of the tobacco markets. By taking these known national problems which came post-revolution, Kierner uses the Randolphs to personify economic toil, political hardships, and the overall insecure social relationships among the powerful families of early America.

Kierner’s microhistory takes on big topic issues for history such as social strata and gender. Through Nancy Randolph’s accounts and a primary source driven analysis, Kierner delivers a convincing example of microhistory at work. In her introductory pages, Kierner offers what she expects to accomplish in her book, and she does not disappoint. She “…aims not only to tell the Randolph’s story but also to provide a glimpse into the world they inhabited.” (7). This sentence, in effect, is what makes a microhistory.

However, I do have one concern with the usage of microhistory and it has nothing to do with the work of Kierner. Kierner’s book, for a work of microhistory, was excellent to me. But, collectively, where do microhistories stand in the bigger picture of historiography? I am curious as to how these styles of analysis would be viewed in a more antiquated world of academic historians. Despite Kierner being an interesting read, what place does the microhistory have when stacked up against the more pronounced schools our lectures have highlighted?

All together, Scandal at Bizarre was an interesting read and an excellent example of how a microhistory can be executed and be relevant to “big picture” history. The analysis offered by Kierner is different because she creates a narrative off of the Randolph’s story but uses the looming (and ever changing) pressure of high society social life as an engine of change.