OK, so the folks who contributed to the
discussion about micro-history have earned a collective ‘prize’, because all of
them have contributed to a deeper understanding on my part of what
‘micro-history’ has meant, can mean and how it relates to this project (The Amazing True Imaginary Autobiography of Dick & Jani aka "my grandmothers book). You are all invited to my place for dinner to
convene for my famous lentil stew and an ongoing conversation. Jane, who instigated this conversation by
asking the question about ‘micro,’ is also invited as chief provocateur.
First to give credit for a suggestion for a
totally new name, ‘granular history” – a real writer's choice from a real
writer, Christian - who notes that granular data is that collected at the level
of individuals, that granular also implied grain and of course ‘grannies.’ I love the poetry of this, but have not
landed here…however, it got me thinking in the direction of evocative terms that are not only about size 'micro' but also substance...I also just thought of course of grainy photographs...like this one...(a personal favorite...)
 |
| Dick, Jim & George: 1939 - this picture just haunts me in all the right ways |
hmmm...maybe I will go back to this...but for now...
Comments about micro-history from Robin and a
historian, referred to the history of the term, which gained traction in the
1970s-80s amongst European academics and implies histories that either included
people who were not ‘major actors’ but also not ‘major events.’ Or “asks large questions in small
spaces.”
Robin looked
up the definition of micro, which was “conceded with minute detail” (which, she
noted, hardly means insignificant) in contrast to small, which was "not
great in amount, number, strength or power" (the last one was what struck
her). Therefore micro is not about small but about 'minute detail.'
The historian mentioned a book I know I should read, Nina
Gelbert's King's Midwife. She
suggested this because the author discussed how difficult it was to write about
a person who can only be discovered in traces. While I have a lot of stuff about both grandmothers, there are also a lot of gaps I need to fill, so this is valuable to consider.
John, who contributed the most in-depth analysis, saw
an analogy to micro and macro-economics, quoting the comedian P.J. O’Rourke who
said “microeconomics concerns things that economists are
specifically wrong about, while macroeconomics concerns things economists are
wrong about generally.” In other words,
one has to do with money on the ground and the other has to do with theories of
economic flows, models, etc.
John goes on to say that "the distinction being made with
micro-history is much more complex
than the economic model would suggest, because economics looks for necessary
relationships that can be mathematically modeled and history is about contingency.
Right from the start of your project, the differences between Dick and Jani's
lives illustrates that micro-history is not about correlations, nor about
differences-in-degree that can be measured: it is about choices and
consequences, about the differences-in-kind that compose historical events and
times....
"...Macro-histories show how people are caught
up in the sweep of history, but micro-histories show how each person makes
choices that distinguish them as individuals over and above the general flow of
the historical. The "big names" of state sponsored macro-narratives
may have changed the course of the historical, but in micro-histories
individuals are changing themselves and distinguishing themselves from the
dominant narratives of their time...
Further "...micro-histories create an ever larger sense of the historical: far from trivializing history, the micro-historical gives back to history the complexity proper to anything temporal in nature.”
So, given what we have seen in terms of grand narratives, I’m all pro-the micro in this context.
However,
John also drew a parallel between the way micro & macro works here and 'molecular'
& 'molar' works in the French philosophers Deleuze & Guattari. I am not going to summarize their work here, because that would be silly...but...
This led
me to consider a phrase I now like ‘molecular
history' – because molecular is a level that can only be perceived with a
micro-view - but, as we all know, nothing exists without being created by
molecules. If you could see any object
at the molecular level, you would see how vital even a seemingly inanimate
object is. This ironically, gets us closer to the complexity of the reality on
the ground as it were. Plus, molecules cannot be considered trivial in any way and are bound by strong, yet mutable, bonds...kinda like, well, life...
So...Whaddya think??
No comments:
Post a Comment