Social history and new history movements

Social History/'New History'

New history and multiculturalism: a British context

The conception of 'new history" or 'history from below' has its foundations in a wide range of connected disciplines and contemporary theoretical trajectories and stances. Stated somewhat simplistically, the foundation of 'history from below' lies in the questioning of the hegemony of old and more elitist views of history and the context of historical reality. As one study states on the subject

Until recently, history was often regarded as solely a matter of what the powerful, the famous, and the wealthy thought and did. It was "history from above." What ordinary people felt and what they tried to accomplish was regarded as insignificant, not even worth regarding as part of history

Brecher)

Therefore, the intent and fundamental objective of 'history from below' is to adjust this bias and to bring the history of the ordinary people into view.

Consequently, in recent years there has been a shift in the view of history towards a more symbiotic relationship between history and other social and political disciplines; which is evident in both 'sociological' history and 'historical' sociology. (Kaye 167) as a result there have been numerous studies on social history and 'history form below' since the 1960s. (Harrison) succinct description of this form of historical study and theory is as follows:

It denotes a shift in viewpoint, from writing history from the perspective of political elites, using the documentary record that they left behind, to writing history from the perspective of social groups who had previously been largely hidden from history, including industrial workers, peasants, racial and ethnic minorities and the urban poor.

Harrison)

At the same time the understanding of 'new history' can be extended to postmodernism and post - structuralist forms of thinking in terms of the relativity of history and historical viewpoints, as well as the recognition of various marginalized histories. This also relates to the view of "hidden history" and the postcolonial interrogative stance which seeks to unmask the master narratives that lie unseen and hidden in the historical process and in the methodology and assumed objectivity of history as a discipline.

Therefore, in brief, one could say that new history is a result of the interaction and the communication between various disciplines, such as politics and sociology with the aim and intention of a more relevant and truthful historical analyses and process. It is an awareness of the deeper political and social forces that move within the larger more obvious processes of human history. As such it is preeminently a view of history that takes cognizance of multiculturalism and the previously disenfranchised - and this is particularly the case with the development of historical studies in Britain.

New history or 'history form below' has often been described as the history of "ordinary people." This implies that previous views and historical theory had failed to take into account the histories of those who are not the elite movers and makes of great and singular historical events. The contemporary 'new history' is a stance that take into account the history of the marginalized aspects of social history and of those people, groupings and categories that were relegated to the lesser- known part of the historical process. This also means that the 'new history' is focused particularly on the issues of race, class and gender as primary areas of neglect in terms of the understanding of the "other" in social history. As Nelson (2001) states:

In the academic world, historians now view the past mostly through the lenses of race, class, and gender. Grants are won (and tenure gained) by those who write "history from below" -- that is, the history of ordinary people -- as well as the history of the marginalized "Other."

Nelson 36)

New History is therefore seen as the "hidden history" that until fairly recently has been largely ignored and relegated to the sidelines of historical investigation and scholarship. This very contemporary view of history began to achieve recognition in the early 1970s and in "...1990 the new approach was triumphant among college faculties" (Nelson 36). The shift in focus that was heralded by 'new history' was "... from "elites and the powerful" to "popular culture"; to the history of prisons, hospitals, villages, cities and churches." (Nelson 36) in essence the 'new history' is closely linked to the democratic tradition and the acceptance of all and against elitism and prejudice.

Furthermore, these new historians are interested in history as it relates to multiculturalism and identity politics. As Windschuttle (1998) states of 'history from below';

In other words, the concepts embodied in what conservatives have seen as political correctness, identity politics, and multiculturalism represent not merely the dominance of the Left within the education system but how mainstream classroom instructors now conceive of the writing and teaching of history today.

Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22)

The rise of this multicultural approach to history began in the early 1990s when there was a perception in the educational leadership and governments of both Britain and the United States of a need to reshape and redefine the study of history. A central reason for this change of view was that it was felt that in the light of the prevailing trend in current thinking about Western decline and colonialism, there was a need for a reappraisal of intellectual 'gaps' or biases in history, as well as in many other subjects. This new approach was known as 'social history' and 'history form below', and focused on the perspectives and point-of-view of the ordinary individual in society and on groups or areas of society that had bee previously marginalized.

British multiculturalism

In view of the tenets and the fundamental objectives of new history or 'history from below' as discussed above, the emphasis in Britain has been on democratic history and multiculturalism. This focus is very possibly related in many instances to the colonial and imperialist past of the country. When British colonialist influences around the world began to decline and eventually disintegrate, starting with India, English society was faced with ethical and moral questioning, that was reflected in academic theory and praxis as well in English literature and literary criticism. This was linked to problems pertaining to the legacy and the causative factors of colonialism; and this, it is suggested by some, is the underlying reason for the focus on multiculturalism and issues related to class, gender and ethnic disparities in much of British theory.

While this may be the case, the foundations of multiculturalism and 'history from below' as well as social history in Britain are rather the outcome of larger philosophical changes in Western thought in general which philosophically radiated from France and the demise of modernist thinking in Europe. This was to lead to the rise of postmodern and post-structuralist movement in all academic disciplines and to the investigation of the master narratives of colonial rule and capitalism and their deconstruction by thinkers such as Derrida in France.

However what is important to recognize in terms of the British experience and the history of multiculturalism, is that prior to the deconstructionist and post-structural intervention in contemporary thinking in the Twentieth Century, there was already a tendency to critique and question established assumptions and prejudices in the academic world. As will be discussed, this change in thinking about history in the British context was largely a result of earlier Marxist theorists and theory in the country and the interrogation of the society.

Prominent early theorists in the field of "new history' such as Nash, Crabtree and Dunn talk about history in terms of "...a history education that is fit for a democratic society" which at the same time "represents a commitment to multiculturalism" (Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22). This was to be a call to a more valid multicultural approach in historical analysis and research and is intimately linked to the concept of 'history form below" and social history. This is evidenced by the trend that Nash, Crabtree and Dunn note. "...the last few decades have witnessed...a remarkable effort to broaden the scope of history education to ensure that the experiences of all classes, regions and ethnoracial groups, as well as both genders, are included in it." (Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22) This view is in essence the multicultural and 'democratic' view and relates to the philosophy of ' history from below'; which stated that that the theory and praxis of history should not only deal with issues relating the elite and the leaders of the day, but should reflect the...experiences, contributions, aspirations and travails of all the nation's people." (Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22)

As has been referred to, the trajectory and impetus for much of the contemporary view of multiculturalism and 'new history' in Britain was formed and promulgated by British historians who took cognizance of Marxist theory. Among the most well-known of the originators of this form of social critique was the British Marxist historian Edward Thompson, author of the Making of the English Working Class. Another important theorist and historian was Eric Hobsbawm, who was well-known and respected for his work on the history of British labor movement. These and other theorists, particularly those who dealt with the history of the labor movement in the country, provided the groundwork and the historical insight that was to lead to the later more widespread acceptance of multiculturalism and social history

In Britain therefore the Marxist historians and theorists provided an important part of the foundational structure of modern multicultural history. The importance of Marxism for social history is relatively easy to discern. Marxism is essentially an analysis and a critique of the structure of the ruling capitalist elite and privileged classes and this theoretical stance emphasizes the historical reality of the ordinary individual and worker in society. This can be seen in the title of Friedrich Engels' work, the Condition of the Working Class in England (1845)

Historians like Thompson, while they used the analysis and standpoints of the Marxists, were however not mere political promulgators of this theory. "Thompson and Hobsbawm brought far more than the usual Marxist theoretical dogma to their work, displaying considerable sensitivity to the lives of ordinary people, discovering some genuine working class heroes, and colouring their work in warm romantic hues." (Windschuttle, 2000, 22)

Historians like Thompson therefore created a history of the English people that transcended political and sociological interpretation and identified the groundwork of what was to become known as 'history from below." As Windschuttle states, while is it is true that by the late 1980's the theories of Marxism, at least in their fundamental form, had lost much of their appeal and academic popularity, yet the methodology and the style of historical research that had been initiated by historians like Thompson served to include a wider range of topics and subjects, as well as sociological and political elements into historical research and writing. (Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22) This led to the concept of "history form below' becoming mainstream as well as to the inclusion of the importance of multiculturalism into this form of thinking about history. Windschuttle goes on to provide a very crisp and incisive overview of the type of writing that was to result from the work of these historians. He describes the fundamental impetus of 'history from below; as; an examination of vast dimensions of the human experience heretofore unnoticed. Why should a democratic people dedicated to equality not applaud the attention now given to the roles in history of women...working people, religious & nominations, and other groups relatively powerless in the formal political sense?

Windschuttle, "The Problem of Democratic History," 22)

Therefore this stance is in a broad sense a theoretical standpoint that seeks to expose the biases of a mono-culturalism and in its analysis and historical description to take account of the multicultural and multivalent structure of society. In other words, this movement in historical thought takes cognizance of the various levels of class and culture that has previously been ignored in mainstay historical research. This included the histories of immigrant to the country such as influx of Asian and Pakistani workers as well as other ethnic and racial minorities that formed part of the complex structure and substructure of the society. These were histories that in the view of "new history "... deserved to be uncovered and made known" (Brecher). In short this contemporary form of history was intimately involved with the history of other cultures and subcultures in the society. "The movement for history from below has challenged not only the elitist conception of who history is about, but also elitist notions of who history who should do history and who it should be for" (Brecher). For example in England, "...thousands of people have participated in local "history workshops" which explore the history for particular neighborhoods" (Brecher).

There are a number of other theorists and historians who should be included in the development and writing of histories from below. One could include Rodney Hilton and Christopher Hill in this respect. As Kaye (1983) states: "...they have taken seriously the historical experiences, actions and struggles of the 'lower classes or orders,' recovering the past which was actively made by them but not written by them" (Kaye 168). For example on the work of Hilton there is the recognition that the peasant class experience in Britain has not just been economic or political but that there as a further depth and range of experience of these people that had not been adequate recorded or historically researched. Hilton (1975) for example stated that "...medieval peasantries must be understood not only as "peasantries" but in the context of the institutions and culture of medieval feudal society" (Hilton 13).