John Tosh
History as description:
The historian tries to recreate the past through the illusion of direct experience, by setting a scene or
evoking an atmosphere. It requires the creativity of a novelist or a poet.
History as narrative: (how it was like)
To make reader feel what it was like to observe or participate in past events. Suspense and emotions.
Told in certain sense of time (hour to hour, day to day).
History as analysis: (how it felt)
Telling history by facts, causes, consequences, numbers. Less creative.
Narrative vs analytical: (why and what)
Narrative → assessing a historical event and their circumstances without going into detail
Analysis → less creative way to convey information, it does not address the imagination of the reader
Connection narrative with analysis: → connecting analytic insights with a creative narrative to catch
the reader’s attention.
-> Also, both try to convey the story in chronological order but narrative uses emotion and suspense
to tell a story and analytical uses straight facts to explain a narrative.
Analysing causes and consequences:
- To try and get a view of how something happened and what happened afterwards because of it.
- To get a chronological storyline of an event.
-> There is never one single cause or consequence of an event, there are always multiple. So,
depending on the one a historian focuses one can change the answer of a research.
Latent history:
Processes and events happening without intention, and were not noticed by people at the time but
only stand out when you look back on it. For example: demographic change or growth.
Geographic & temporal scope comparative history:
Geographic-> looking at connections between territories (cities, regions, countries, continents)
Temporal-> putting events in chronological order does not explain everything and is misleading
because saying B came after A indicates that A causes B which doesn’t have to be the case.
Challenges comparative history:
- Need to know multiple languages
- Difference in amount of sources (can be a factor on its own)
- Filter the sources you need
Advantages comparative history:
- Comparing two or more cases put things in a different perspective where you find things you may
not have noticed when only looking at one case.
- Comparing make research stronger and can give different results then initially thought. For
example, things assumed as similar turn out to be (slightly) different.
Synchronic (similar):
- Similar time span. Example: A comparison between Italy and France in 1920-1940.
- Describing the event over time without considering the development over time.
Diachronic (different):
- Different time span: A comparison between industrialisation/labour movement in two societies
(where it happened in different time spans).
- A development over time
! Difference between synchronic/diachronic analysis and synchronic/diachronic comparison
Source driven historical research:
Purist form of research.
-> First step is gathering primary sources, studying them and then make a research question.
Old way of research, not much used anymore.
Problem- orientated historical research:
-> Formulate question or problem and then search for sources to answer said question or problem.
,Stefan Berger
Individualizing comparisons:
Individualizing comparisons set out to demonstrate the uniqueness of one particular case by
comparing it with others. They tend to be asymmetrical in that they focus mainly on the one case it
tries to understand better.
- Asymmetrical
- Using various cases and compare them to one specific case to gain information about that one
specific case.
- Highlights uniqueness of a case.
-> Encompassing comparisons: Explaining differences in cases that share a commonality
(Nationalism studies) Charles Tilly
Universalizing comparisons:
Universalizing comparisons aim to identify similarities between cases
- Symmetrical
- All cases have equal weight and are compared to each other.
- Highlights similarities between various cases.
-> Variation-finding comparisons: Different cases understood as variations of one particular
phenomenon (Fascism) Charles Tilly
Encompassing comparison
-> Related to individualizing comparisons.
Concerned with explaining differences between cases that share an overarching
commonality.
Variation-finding comparison
-> Related to universalizing comparisons.
Different cases are understood as variations of one particular phenomenon. There is one
phenomenon and proceed to discuss its variations through place and time.
Implicit: not directly stated comparison.
Explicit: directly stated comparison.
Typology:
Combination of different ‘ideal types’.
Different ideal types (abstracted category from something bigger)
For example: Typology in cities -> Ideal types could be: trading city, industrial city etc
.
Reducing historical reality (Historical complexity):
- Historical reality is very complex => Reduction
- Reducing to essential elements necessary for the comparison
- Each case is taken to explain a bigger “social context”
=> no need for a detailed analysis of the greater historical background
The promises of Comparative History
- Could show how different societies dealt with the same problem
- Allows for the identification of problems not evident from observation of a single societal context
- Variables are isolated and causal relationships proven
- Differentiate good causal explanations from bad ones
- Comparisons are able to test existing models and explanations and create new ones
- Understanding that similar outcomes have different origins
Understanding that similar developments have different effects
- Viewpoint outside national patterns
The problems and pitfalls of Comparative History
- Finding comparable sources for different contexts
, - Different research traditions in secondary sources.
- Familiarity with more than one social context is needed
- Danger of over-contextualization
- Use of borders as a geographical unit in comparison
- Usefulness of the research
- Excess of information
Preconditions for successful comparison
1. close familiarity with more than one social context
2. reflect on spatial and time constraints
3. consider theoretical and conceptual frameworks
4. pay attention to linguistic pitfalls
- close familiarity with more than one social context
to compare your work with multiple contexts and therefore it is important to know all
your contexts/ cases. It takes a lot of work to get to know each case and there is a big
need for (archival) sources which are not always easy to find. Especially to find the
same amount/ types of sources for all cases. With the use of secondary sources you
need to look critically into the writer.
- reflect on spatial and time constraints
clear geographical and spatial boundaries. Justify choice.
Also justify choice of period and time.
Spatial micro – meso – macro?
Time synchronic or diachronic.
- consider theoretical and conceptual frameworks
must choose cases that fit the question. The cases are the basis for the framework of the
research. Therefore we need to know the origin of the concepts used in the research.
- pay attention to linguistic pitfalls
pay attention to the fact that translations can be not correct because a certain word does not
exist in another language or could have a different meaning
Difference comparative history & history of cultural transfer
Similarities in cases arise because of contact within societies (cultural transfer)
Question for CH?: What are differences and how did it transfer.
- Cultural transfer studies do not look for differences and similarities in social contexts.
- Cultural transfer tries to break up constructed differences and works against homogenous
identities.
-> CH constructs homogeneous spheres in order to compare.
-> CH alienates single units in order to compare
- Cultural transfer criticizes CH for ignoring cultural transfers in their studies and making artificial
comparisons.
Such studies look at the process of selective appropriation of indigenous and foreign elements that
result from the interaction between two cultures. This breaks up the static image of a nation being
completely separate from others.
This is achieved for example by investigating what was exchanged between two cultures and what
was rejected, or what role borders played.
History as description:
The historian tries to recreate the past through the illusion of direct experience, by setting a scene or
evoking an atmosphere. It requires the creativity of a novelist or a poet.
History as narrative: (how it was like)
To make reader feel what it was like to observe or participate in past events. Suspense and emotions.
Told in certain sense of time (hour to hour, day to day).
History as analysis: (how it felt)
Telling history by facts, causes, consequences, numbers. Less creative.
Narrative vs analytical: (why and what)
Narrative → assessing a historical event and their circumstances without going into detail
Analysis → less creative way to convey information, it does not address the imagination of the reader
Connection narrative with analysis: → connecting analytic insights with a creative narrative to catch
the reader’s attention.
-> Also, both try to convey the story in chronological order but narrative uses emotion and suspense
to tell a story and analytical uses straight facts to explain a narrative.
Analysing causes and consequences:
- To try and get a view of how something happened and what happened afterwards because of it.
- To get a chronological storyline of an event.
-> There is never one single cause or consequence of an event, there are always multiple. So,
depending on the one a historian focuses one can change the answer of a research.
Latent history:
Processes and events happening without intention, and were not noticed by people at the time but
only stand out when you look back on it. For example: demographic change or growth.
Geographic & temporal scope comparative history:
Geographic-> looking at connections between territories (cities, regions, countries, continents)
Temporal-> putting events in chronological order does not explain everything and is misleading
because saying B came after A indicates that A causes B which doesn’t have to be the case.
Challenges comparative history:
- Need to know multiple languages
- Difference in amount of sources (can be a factor on its own)
- Filter the sources you need
Advantages comparative history:
- Comparing two or more cases put things in a different perspective where you find things you may
not have noticed when only looking at one case.
- Comparing make research stronger and can give different results then initially thought. For
example, things assumed as similar turn out to be (slightly) different.
Synchronic (similar):
- Similar time span. Example: A comparison between Italy and France in 1920-1940.
- Describing the event over time without considering the development over time.
Diachronic (different):
- Different time span: A comparison between industrialisation/labour movement in two societies
(where it happened in different time spans).
- A development over time
! Difference between synchronic/diachronic analysis and synchronic/diachronic comparison
Source driven historical research:
Purist form of research.
-> First step is gathering primary sources, studying them and then make a research question.
Old way of research, not much used anymore.
Problem- orientated historical research:
-> Formulate question or problem and then search for sources to answer said question or problem.
,Stefan Berger
Individualizing comparisons:
Individualizing comparisons set out to demonstrate the uniqueness of one particular case by
comparing it with others. They tend to be asymmetrical in that they focus mainly on the one case it
tries to understand better.
- Asymmetrical
- Using various cases and compare them to one specific case to gain information about that one
specific case.
- Highlights uniqueness of a case.
-> Encompassing comparisons: Explaining differences in cases that share a commonality
(Nationalism studies) Charles Tilly
Universalizing comparisons:
Universalizing comparisons aim to identify similarities between cases
- Symmetrical
- All cases have equal weight and are compared to each other.
- Highlights similarities between various cases.
-> Variation-finding comparisons: Different cases understood as variations of one particular
phenomenon (Fascism) Charles Tilly
Encompassing comparison
-> Related to individualizing comparisons.
Concerned with explaining differences between cases that share an overarching
commonality.
Variation-finding comparison
-> Related to universalizing comparisons.
Different cases are understood as variations of one particular phenomenon. There is one
phenomenon and proceed to discuss its variations through place and time.
Implicit: not directly stated comparison.
Explicit: directly stated comparison.
Typology:
Combination of different ‘ideal types’.
Different ideal types (abstracted category from something bigger)
For example: Typology in cities -> Ideal types could be: trading city, industrial city etc
.
Reducing historical reality (Historical complexity):
- Historical reality is very complex => Reduction
- Reducing to essential elements necessary for the comparison
- Each case is taken to explain a bigger “social context”
=> no need for a detailed analysis of the greater historical background
The promises of Comparative History
- Could show how different societies dealt with the same problem
- Allows for the identification of problems not evident from observation of a single societal context
- Variables are isolated and causal relationships proven
- Differentiate good causal explanations from bad ones
- Comparisons are able to test existing models and explanations and create new ones
- Understanding that similar outcomes have different origins
Understanding that similar developments have different effects
- Viewpoint outside national patterns
The problems and pitfalls of Comparative History
- Finding comparable sources for different contexts
, - Different research traditions in secondary sources.
- Familiarity with more than one social context is needed
- Danger of over-contextualization
- Use of borders as a geographical unit in comparison
- Usefulness of the research
- Excess of information
Preconditions for successful comparison
1. close familiarity with more than one social context
2. reflect on spatial and time constraints
3. consider theoretical and conceptual frameworks
4. pay attention to linguistic pitfalls
- close familiarity with more than one social context
to compare your work with multiple contexts and therefore it is important to know all
your contexts/ cases. It takes a lot of work to get to know each case and there is a big
need for (archival) sources which are not always easy to find. Especially to find the
same amount/ types of sources for all cases. With the use of secondary sources you
need to look critically into the writer.
- reflect on spatial and time constraints
clear geographical and spatial boundaries. Justify choice.
Also justify choice of period and time.
Spatial micro – meso – macro?
Time synchronic or diachronic.
- consider theoretical and conceptual frameworks
must choose cases that fit the question. The cases are the basis for the framework of the
research. Therefore we need to know the origin of the concepts used in the research.
- pay attention to linguistic pitfalls
pay attention to the fact that translations can be not correct because a certain word does not
exist in another language or could have a different meaning
Difference comparative history & history of cultural transfer
Similarities in cases arise because of contact within societies (cultural transfer)
Question for CH?: What are differences and how did it transfer.
- Cultural transfer studies do not look for differences and similarities in social contexts.
- Cultural transfer tries to break up constructed differences and works against homogenous
identities.
-> CH constructs homogeneous spheres in order to compare.
-> CH alienates single units in order to compare
- Cultural transfer criticizes CH for ignoring cultural transfers in their studies and making artificial
comparisons.
Such studies look at the process of selective appropriation of indigenous and foreign elements that
result from the interaction between two cultures. This breaks up the static image of a nation being
completely separate from others.
This is achieved for example by investigating what was exchanged between two cultures and what
was rejected, or what role borders played.
