Pregledni rad
What is New in American ˝New˝ History?
Mirjana Gross
Sažetak
In a notice intended for Yugoslav historians the author points out that the characteristic traits of the »new« American history seem to indicate the existence of two, perhaps incompatible, tendencies. The first is a break up of the science of history into a number of specialised »new« histories, with the attendant question of their methodological relationship to other social sciences. The second is the so-called »comparative« history, interdisciplinary in its approach to »case studies« which are systematically compared to yield general conceptual conclusions. The author discerns a fundamental issue at stake in the present situation, namely will these »new« histories merge with specific social sciences, or will they, together, create a »new« science of history.
The debate surrounding several branches of »new« history and their achievements is extremely spirited. It has been joined by historians who accept, in principle, the notion that American history must be re-thought and re-written. Those who stand between the »old« and the »new« are also vociferous: they protest, rightly, the outrageous claims made by »new« history taken over by non-historians who try to turn the science of history into a receptacle of data for their theories. Some forays of »new« history are quite sensational, in that their achievements depend for effect upon a complete negation of prevlous results. Conservative historians are not idle, either. They offer rebuttals of »new« positions from the standpoint of traditional history.
The author maintains that »new« history represents a development of traditions sovereign in the beginning of this century, although it grew to its full controversial stature in the sixties, in the climate of bankruptcy of the American myth about the melting pot when the vision of a homogeneous American nation disintegrated before a new awareness of the complexity of social structures and the multiracial nature of the US population. Inevitably, history began to investigate problems which had hitherto been exclusive preserves of other social sciences, and a host of new questions came to the fore: questions involving methodology, new subdisciplines of historical research, interdisciplinary nature historical research, in short, new definitions of history seem to be in order.
The author holds that the »new« in history is the result of a neopositivistically oriented social-scientific approach. The ideal is an exact empirical investigation as exemplified by case studies subjected to comparison. Source material is used to test hypotheses drawn from theoretical postulates of other social sciences. Quantitative methods carry a great deal of weight, but it is not possible to reduce the problematics of »new« history to questions of quantification, although a number of economists, psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists identify science with counting and measurements and deny the validity of »qualitative« history.
The author provides a survey of trends in social-scientific history. She believes that »new« history is merely a common name for a variety of special »histories«, and provides information about several »new« histories, such as economic history (Clio-metrics) and psychohistory, where economists and psychologists/psychiatrists endeavour to turn history into a laboratory for testing of their theories. She reports on the »new« political history, where changes seem to be of special import since political history used to be the central domain of conventional history. The »new« urban history and women's history, a result of a merger of the feminist movement and social-scientific expectations, are also dealt with. The author attempts to illustrate characteristics of »new« history using as evidence some of the papers read at the AHA Convention in December 1978, and asseses the difficulties and prospects of the profession facing a bleak employment situation.
Lastly, the author reports on the prolific historical writing in the USA, aided, no doubt, by the large number of specialised journals and reviews. She concludes that history in the USA is in a difficult and turbulent transition: there is evidence of significant achievement in social-scientific history, but it is pregnant with dangers to the existence of history as an independent discipline.
Ključne riječi
Hrčak ID:
219129
URI
Datum izdavanja:
3.9.1979.
Posjeta: 746 *