Donald M. MacRaild

Theories and concepts

despite this somewhat gloomy assessment, historians today increasingly recognise the importance for their discipline of theoretical developments and conceptual innovations in the social sciences. The practice of history has come a long way from Acton’s exhortation for historians not to submit past human life to ‘the crucible of induction5. There are, of course, traditional historians who, like Elton, would have supported Acton’s emphasis upon people and story-telling in the grand narrative tradition; most, however, accept the utility of applying some organising principle to history. This does not mean that empiricist sentiments are dead: far from it. The typical historian still searches out facts and records in an effort to paint a likeness of the past; history has not become pure theory, nor has it returned to the vast speculative philosophies which typified eighteenth-century social theory. The collapse of the grand intellectual enterprise of Marxism has hit theoretical accounts, especially in formerly Communist states, although the tradition lives on in China. Even before the Berlin Wall came down, and the positivism of Marxism was brought fully into question, E. P. Thompson, perhaps the foremost Marxist historian in British history, described himself as a Marxist empiricist. Thompson also worked extensively on archival material. History has become

Approaches to history: sources, methods and historians

the reasons why we study the past are innumerable; the range of sources available to historians is also immense. Today, all aspects of past human society are regarded as legitimate areas for historical inquiry. Despite multifarious changes in attitude and approaches over the past 100 years, however, historians are still source-based creatures; even those most ‘modern’ in outlook seek to re-read and reinterpret sources; none would claim to do without them, although the nature of sources has changed greatly over the last century.

Writing history (ii): the dissertation

the dissertation is the longest piece of work you have to write for a degree in history. Dissertations vary in length, up to 15 000 words, with 10 000 being the norm. For the dissertation, unlike other written assignments (such as essays and reviews), you will be asked to choose the topic and define the question(s) answered. Most institutions require students writing dissertations to work on primary material. These might be reasonable criteria for a dissertation:

The scope of history

most people see history in terms of separate periods (whether, for example, classical, medieval or modern), with each typified by a different way of life. At the same time, the study of history is often characterised as solely concerned with recovering facts about the past. Seen in this way, history is like a book, with each chapter charting a different phase or epoch of human development: the rise and fall of Greece and Rome; the emergence of the Catholic Church; the heraldry and Crusades of the Middle Ages; the Renaissance and Reformation; or the technology and social change of the Industrial Revolution. In similar fashion, popular perceptions of the process of historical change are founded on the idea of progress, a belief that each new era brings to human society a more sophisticated sense of being.

Varieties of history (i): ‘traditional history’

modern historical scholarship emerged in the nineteenth century, although the history written during this period was of a very particular sort. In France, Germany and Britain, the principal mode of operation was empirical, by which is meant the scientific interrogation of sources. Prior to this period, history writing generally took on grand themes, written from the perspective of charting human progress or the emergence of civilisation. History was the remit of a variety of thinkers, writers and commentators, but, in the eighteenth century and before, it was based more on creative observation, or some master plan (such as the presence of God’s will on earth and the improvement and perfectibility of the human spirit), than upon the rigorous interrogation of primary materials. During the twentieth century, the empirical school of historiography — personified by Ranke, the nineteenth-century father of this approach — came under fire. The period from the 1880s in Britain saw the growth of an embryonic interest in social and economic history. From about the same time, on the Continent, the theories of Karl Marx, and later those of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, influenced the reassessment of history, and its shaping into a social science, rather than humanities, discipline. In Britain, however, despite the work of many historians and social commentators, the empirical mode continued to flourish.

Varieties of history (ii): ‘the New History’

it is fallacious to see historiography as falling into sealed chronological units in which can be found just one ‘style’, ‘school’ or history. While certain eras were dominated by certain assumptions about the past, other modes of operation still went on in tandem, although perhaps below the surface and away from the public eye. Thus we saw in the previous chapter that, although empiricism represented the modus operandi of Victorian scholarship, there were other strains of opinion — alternative ideas and agendas — floating around the university-based orthodoxy of Ranke, Mommsen and Acton. The Victorian age might have been characterised by ‘Great Men’ and administrative-political subject matter, but it was also the time when many other practitioners began to ply their alternative trades. In France, we have seen, there was the invitation for historians to write synthesised histories issued by Henri Berr, as well as the geopolitical method encouraged by Vidal de la Blache. In Germany and Britain, concerns with the social world were beginning to emerge long before Acton edited his Cambndge Modern History. In America, Frederick Jackson Turner’s ‘Manifest Destiny’ was capturing imaginations and exciting responses. The maturing South American polities were coming of age with their own nationalist (as opposed to Europeans’ national-type) histories. At the same time, local historians were co-operating to chart their own communities’ development, sometimes in puff-chested displays of civic pride. We might look to Ranke or Acton for the emblems of this grand and self-referential age, but theirs were not the only stars in the constellation.

Writing history (i): the essay

having considered, in the last chapter, how to make the most of the learning environment and to improve your own study skills, we now move on to the next stage: writing history. In general terms, most historians, even the seasoned old pros, find writing a tortuous and draining affair. While research and reading can be relaxing and fulfilling, as well as enlightening, putting the latest review, article or book into the right words can be frustrating and time-consuming. Most historians say that research is the ‘fun’ bit and that writing is a struggle. It stands to reason, therefore, that we all — professional historians and students alike — must take care with what we write and how we write it. As a rule, however, teachers find that students spend too little time thinking about, planning, drafting and redrafting essays; most students’ assignments would benefit from a second draft. This is a common failing and does not just apply to weaker students or those who do not try. Academics will tell you that it is not uncommon for their writings to undergo five or ten drafts before the final copy is ready for publication. While you do not have time for ten drafts of your essay, there is a salutary lesson here: writing takes time. History essays are an art form, but they also benefit from an underpinning of scientific method: that is, they benefit from your development of a logical and reasoned approach to writing, construction and organisation. These issues will be discussed in this chapter.