Enjoyed this glimpse into your writing/thought process. What would you describe as “the variety of legitimate historiographical schools and their competing sets of techniques for examining the past”? I’m just curious what a historiographical school *is*. Is your syllabus for this historiography course available? Thanks!
I'll search for the syllabus. Not everyone agrees with me on this, but I like to teach historiography as both an exploration of the various interpretive traditions and how they changed over time, but also to have students read representative works from these different traditions. So, for example, a social history article by E.P. Thompson, then a chapter out of an environmental history monograph from someone like William Cronon. An economic history article from Naomi Lamoreaux, and maybe a glimpse at her argument in the journals with Martin Bruegel over microhistory. The arguments and personalities are a bit interesting, I think, if you're planning on becoming a historian. But they're much less important than the different evidentiary techniques and analytical tools the different schools bring.
Hollywood adapted the Martin Guerre story for the film "Sommersby", but they naturally changed the setting to the U.S.
Enjoyed this glimpse into your writing/thought process. What would you describe as “the variety of legitimate historiographical schools and their competing sets of techniques for examining the past”? I’m just curious what a historiographical school *is*. Is your syllabus for this historiography course available? Thanks!
I'll search for the syllabus. Not everyone agrees with me on this, but I like to teach historiography as both an exploration of the various interpretive traditions and how they changed over time, but also to have students read representative works from these different traditions. So, for example, a social history article by E.P. Thompson, then a chapter out of an environmental history monograph from someone like William Cronon. An economic history article from Naomi Lamoreaux, and maybe a glimpse at her argument in the journals with Martin Bruegel over microhistory. The arguments and personalities are a bit interesting, I think, if you're planning on becoming a historian. But they're much less important than the different evidentiary techniques and analytical tools the different schools bring.