I believe that Kierner’s book Scandal at Bizarre is a microhistory. Based off the definition given by Kendra and Lee Ann from Magnusson it seems only appropriate. Kierner is examining a very specific portion in history that includes a single event (the sex scandal and infanticide) and a group of families (the Randolphs and their intimate friends) and also individuals (specifically Nancy, Richard, and Judith). This is of course in contrast to Bloch and Braudel who were writing long, broad annals of their interest. The narrative represents social standards of the day by describing reactions of the outside parties and how they received that information. I thought it was very interesting that for this case the white gentry were very keen on listening in and believing the bondpeoples gossip. It seems strange that in this one instance that their word was more powerful than that of the white master. Normally, Kierner explains that this would not be the case. Anything a bondperson said was not even taken into account. With this in mind, the great historical change for Kierner seems to be specific small points or events in the history which will indicate in the future a large amount of change. She is interested in how individuals use and manipulate information and use that information to create change in their own environments. Why was it at this time, the word of a bondperson became so appealing? Was the nature of the case that was so scandalous or did they have something more sinister in mind? People are the creators of change and people will do anything to better their situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment