MICROHISTORY IN THE SYSTEM OF “NEW HISTORY”: HISTORY, THEORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PRACTICE

Abstract

The article outlines the place of microhistory in the system of the “new history”, the main stages of its formation and its place in the modern historiographical process, theoretical and methodological principles of microhistorical research and its research potential. It has been found that through the efforts of renowned Italian (K. Ginsburg, J. Levі, M. Gribaudi), French (J. Duby, J. Revel), American (N. Zemon Davis) and other scholars, microhistory has refuted the characterisation of itself as “petty” or “inferior” history, which was widespread in the 1970s. Microhistory has emerged as a variant of “history from below” in contrast to “traditional” social history. It defined the history of the “ordinary person” or small social groups (family, community, etc.), whose historical, cultural, and psychological experience is used to explain broader historical and social processes, as its research subject. Despite the fact that microhistory has been developing for a long time, it has not developed clearly defined theoretical or methodological principles, remaining primarily a historiographical practice, often experimental and interdisciplinary. The essence of this practice is to reduce the scale of the view of a historical fact or phenomenon through microscopic analysis and intensive study of historical sources. At the same time, the set of methods and research techniques used in microhistory depends on the specific research subject. “Microhistorians” easily combine the scientific tools of established historiographical theories and practices with the methods of other sciences, even those not related to history, and microhistory itself often “cooperates” with folklore studies, ethnology, historical and cultural anthropology, biography, history of everyday life, social psychology, local and regional history, and other variants of “history from below”. This methodological pluralism of microhistory leaves the researcher a wide field for creative search, but often becomes a pretext for criticism and accusations of deviating from the “professional standards” of a historian. Nevertheless, microhistory is an original component of the “new historical science”, and due to its significant research potential, it occupies a significant place in the modern historiographical process.