Kierner's Micro History

With Scandal at Bizarre, I will also be talking about the question of micro history because I really like the points that Meryn and Katie brought up. First, according to the quote which defines a micro history, this book is a perfect example. Kierner investigated a single event, which involved a group of families but also individuals, while putting agency on the three “main actors”, Richard, Judith and Nancy. I am in agreement with Meryn when she said “the book is “about” much more than that (meaning the scandal and Randolph family), especially cultural prescription, social reality, economics, changing family dynamics, honor, race, class and social order, legal culture, and gender.” However, I do not think that the book is really “about” these things but rather their relationship to the Randolph family and the scandal. It goes back to last week’s gender discussion about bringing attention to themes, such as gender, which are evident everywhere but are usually not talked about. The relationship of these themes to the Randolph family can allow you to infer a lot about these themes as separate factors of this society and during this time, but there are surely variations. This family’s connection to these themes may or may not be similar to their connection with other families. Therefore, I do think this book is a good micro history because it focused on a very specific topic but brought in context to demonstrate the foundation for which this event existed. When talking about historical change, I liked what Katie said about the use of information bringing on change. I think that Kierner was definitely trying to show that there are many things that create change. In past weeks we have seen how specific people can create change and how nature can create change, but here we see how people can create something, gossip, which in turn creates change. It is as if the actual information is acting.