The "New" Social History in the Context of American Historical Writing
Author(s): Laurence Veysey
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Reviews in American History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 1-12
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2700953 .
Accessed: 14/08/2012 22:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reviews in American History.
http://www.jstor.org
THE "NEW"SOCIAL HISTORY
IN THE CONTEXTOF AMERICANHISTORICALWRITING
LaurenceVeysey
Historiansaresubdividedinmorecomplexways thanmembersofmostother
academic disciplines-quadruply,by nationor regionof theglobe,by time
and so on), and by
period,by thematiccategory(social,political,intellectual,
sometimesbut not always tiedto a politicaloutlook
cognitivepredilection,
(e.g., Marxist,Freudian,or-perhaps still commonestof all-a naively
It is a mildlyshockingthoughtthatofthesefour
antitheoretical
empiricism).
kindsof division,timeperiod-our supposedreasonforbeing-may actually
strikemanyof us as theleast important.
Forabout a decade,fromthemid-1960sto themid-1970s,thecleavagethat
seemedto mattermostwas betweenleftistsand nonleftists.
And thisshock
wave has not yet died out. The presenceof colleagues who are vigorous
Marxistsmay stillset afirethedeepestpassions in us, greater,forinstance,
than those triggeredby the ritualizedsnobberiesof Europeaniststoward
Americanists.This is so because more orthodox historianssuspect that
Marxists,as also indeed some Freudians,are not cognitively"open" in the
same way as theyare. Of course in makingthis assessmentnon-Marxists
oftenexaggeratetheirown "openness," confusingit with the collective
of the choices theyhave made in termsof various kinds of
heterogeneity
intensespecialization.And, on the politicalplane, non-Marxiststoo easily
forgetthatliberalism,definedas faithin thebeneficent
powerof thefederal
to bringabout social justice,is itselfnow onlythepredisposition
government
ofa shrinking
ofAmericans,thoughtheyfrequently
minority
seekto present
it as "thetrendof history"to theirstudents,justas Marxistsdo in regardto
theirown agenda.
Therearesigns,however,thattheMarxistshockwave has beenincreasingly
In thelastfewyears
assimilated.It has lostsomeforceby internalsplintering.
varyingconceptionsof it among itspractitioners
have made thelabel seem
almostmeaningless.EugeneD. Genovesethrewout economicdeterminism;
ImmanuelWallersteinsoft-pedalstheonce fundamentaldistinction
between
industrialand preindustrial
capitalism,so as to invokea continuoushistory
ofexploitationby "core"nationsof theThirdWorld.1Whatis left,beyonda
strongemotionalidentification
withthe oppressed?In part,thisdeclineof
$01.00
0048-7511/79/0071-0001
Copyright0 1979 by The JohnsHopkins University
Press
2
REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / March 1979
dogmarecordsthesurreptitious
spreadofgreaterhistorical"openness"within
Marxistcirclesthemselves.Leftists
do notlike always to admitthattheyalso
are oftenpulledintoan excitement
over thecomplexitiesofthepast fortheir
own sake. A frequentpattern,notmuchtalkedabout,is forleftists
to merge
increasinglyinto the older scholarlyethos as timepasses. This mighthave
meanta victoryforliberalism,ifliberalismwerenot itselfso shaky.
PoliticallydefinedfactionsamongAmericanhistorianswillgrowless importantthelongerthecurrentage ofrelativepoliticalcalmcontinues.Instead
historicalscholarshipin the UnitedStates will again most importantly
be
sortedaccordingto thematiccategories-at thegrossestlevel,thethree-fold
splitbetweenpolitical,social, and intellectual.2
From thisstandpointthe singlemost importantline of divisionamong
Americanhistoriansseparates those who see all historicalparticularsin
termsoftheevolutionofsocial structures
fromthosewho do not.Amongthe
latterarepoliticalhistoriansofan olderoutlookand semipopularorientation
inmuchthesamespiritas teamsport,3
notinquiring
who treatpoliticalconflict
deeplyinto the social originsof the actorsor exploringthe ways in which
theirroutinizedconflictsmightbe illusory.4But one also findsintellectual
historianswho rejectthe centralityof the conceptof social structurefrom
theirown verydifferent
insistenceupon theindependence(fromeverything
else) of widelysharedpatternsof thoughtwithinmen'sminds.Perhapsthe
mostexcitingcontestnow occurringamong historiansin the UnitedStates
involvestheadherentsofthesethreepersuasions.In thisquiteself-conscious
struggle
duringthepastdozenyearssocialhistorians
have beentheaggressors,
whilebothpoliticaland intellectualhistorianshave been placed increasingly
on thedefensive.
Politicalhistoryhas always dominatedthe entirediscipline,in precisely
thosequantitativetermswhichsocial historiansadmireas evidenceof anything(coursestaught,books published).This has changedonly somewhat.
Even today,thereviewsectionsof journalsrevealthatthegreatmajorityof
books publishedby historiansstilltreatconventionalpoliticalor diplomatic
topics.5Clearly,then,some other,nonnumerical,
standardis beinginvoked
in the common judgmentthat politicalhistoryis "threatened"or "on the
defensive"in comparisonwithsocial history.Indeed,thisstandardliesin the
nebulous,unquantifiedrealmof estimatesabout intellectualexcitement.6
Politicalhistory,itseemsfairto predict,willalwaysendure.Itis thekindof
historywith the broadest lay audience. Its deeply entrenchedfollowing,
whoseappetitea largesegmentofthehistoricalprofessioncontinuesto serve,
to thefascination
surrenders
ofobservingthenuancesofmoreorlessritualized
conflictsamong contendingpartiesor factions,both withinand between
nations.To makethesespectatorenjoymentsseemnotonlyfullyrespectable
VEYSEY / The "New" Social History
3
but even quite essentialto understand,we need onlyremindoutselvesthat
powerhave morepotentialthaneverforhelping
thewieldersofgovernmental
or harmingordinaryfolk.Traditionalnarratives,biographies,and psychobiographiesof suchleadersmay be expectedto go on rollingforthregardless
historians.A verylargeshareofthose
ofthecontemptofsocial or intellectual
currentlyteachingAmericanhistoryin our universitiesand colleges,for
ofsuch topicsas
instance,continueto believethata "proper"understanding
progressivism,and the New Deal deeply
Jacksonianism,
Jeffersonianism,
matters.What to outsidersmay seem at timesexquisitesquabblingsover
been duly appreciminutiae(has thisor that"strain"withinprogressivism
ated?)remaincentralitemsin thevocabularyand imaginationofwhatis still
the largestsinglefactionof historiansof the UnitedStates.7When a comparablypicayunishconcernis shown forthemutualrelationsof Roosevelt,
Churchill,and Stalin, only the most inhumanlyconsistentdevotee of the
to the storyof elitesmightbe
historyof anonymousmillionsin preference
cooperationwas alreadyso unlikelyin
foundto insistthatSoviet-American
historicalterms,outsideofa threatto mutualsurvival,as to make thewords
and deeds of individual statesmenand theiradvisers relativelyinconsequential. Similarly,at least this close to the events,it would seem very
difficult
to argue thatRichardM. Nixon was simplya man in the general
mold of Americanpresidents,only a shade distinguishablefromJohnF.
Kennedy or FranklinD. Roosevelt. To the degree that such points are
acknowledged,social historiansremainunable to convincetheirpeersthat
all historyshould be reducedto thestudyof largegroupsof people.
Some politicalhistorians,adoptingwhatis oftencalled the"new"political
history,seek in effectto retaintheirspecial concernwithelectoralpolitics
while makingit a branch of social history,particularly(in America) the
recordedact comparable
Voting,as a customarily
historyofethnicconflict.8
in thisrespectto beingbornor dying,is ofcoursehighlyamenableto quantitativetreatment
(thoughnot to thesamplingof individuals).So too are the
The relativelyfewyethighlyconbackgroundsof groupsof officeholders.9
of the "new" politicalhistorygained the prestigeof
spicuous practitioners
social historianswhile dealing with the most conventionalof historical
subjectmatter,thushavingit both ways.
An upstartpersuasion,
historyis verydifferent.
The situationofintellectual
widely launched in Americanuniversitiesonly in the 1940s and 1950s, it
thathas more
fora timemuchthesame spiritof freshexcitement
furnished
As an anti-Marxist
approachto history,
recentlycenteredin social history.10
into
arguingforthepowerofideas as thecauses ofevents,itfitappropriately
the climate of the Cold War and contributedto the ethos of holistic
nationalism.
4
REVIEWSIN AMERICANHISTORY/ March1979
Intellectualhistorywas moredemandingthantheearlierpoliticalhistory;
itssubjectmatterwas morerarefied;itrequiredthehistorianto be morelike
an intellectualhimself.For thislast reason it was oftenstronglydislikedby
politicalhistorians.Intellectualhistory,in sum,could be attackedas a rather
preciouscult. Yet it was politicallyverysafe,and-what usuallymattered
mostof all foritsadherents-it was deliciouslycomplex,takingseriouslyas
writingsof literate
historicalsourcessome of themostobscureand difficult
minorities.
historycame
Duringthedrasticallyalteredperiodofthe1960s,intellectual
thevalues
reflecting
of
the
wrong
kind,
"minority"
history
to be attackedas
so
Leftists
accusedit
commonly
elites
of
downtrodden
groups.
of
ratherthan
whilesocial and
(unlessitdealtwiththehistoryofadmiredradicalthinkers),
politicalhistoriansin generalwere ready to join in the effortto put down
what had long been regardedas a pretentiousinterloperwithinthe guild.
butuntenablein its
historyas highlyinteresting
Some criticssaw intellectual
those
ideas
associatedwith
for
of
at
least
ideas,
claims
thecausativepower
kind
For
others,
formalideas of
position.
culture.
This
was
a
relatively
"high"
explanatory
tools,in an
sort
Christian
dogma
as
as
were as repugnant
any
motivation
more
realistically
to
view
human
age whichhad longsincelearned
more
and therefore
skeptically.
Intellectualhistoriansthusemergedwithfewfriends.It is stilltoo soon to
tellwhetherintellectualhistorywill shrinkaway as a resultof itsnumerous
A muchdiscussedtacticofaccommodationto newer
kindsofvulnerability.1'
has been a shifttowardstudyingpopularcultureand values rather
strictures
thanthoseofcultivatedelites.Yetto do thisfromliterarysourcesis extremely
difficult,
and, like the "new" politicalhistory(exceptthatit is not usually
quantified),the resultis somethingclose to annexationinto an all-encompassingsocial history.Intellectualhistorymightdo as wellby remainingtrue
to itself,thoughwitha newhumilityas to thekindofextremespecializationit
Thereshouldalwaysbe roominthedisciplineforaustereexplorarepresents.
tionsof such subjectsas thehistoryof philosophy,even morethanthereis
room fortopicslike thehistoryof electricstreetcars.
What, then,finallyof social history-the aggressor-itself?The "new"
social historyemergedin the 1960s quite separatelyfromMarxisthistory,
thoughridingtheclimateof engagedinterestin thenonelitepopulation.Its
canons mightbe summarizedas follows:thathistoryshould be viewed in
thegreatmajorityofpeople aliveat anygiven
termsoftheprocessesaffecting
time,withspecial attentionto theanonymouslydowntrodden,thosewhose
standardof livingand prestigeare the lowest (thiscorollaryhelped build
a speciousbridgetowardMarxism),and thatthehistorianshouldbe intensely
skepticalof literarysourcesof evidence,always theproductof a smallelite,
VEYSEY/ The"New"Soaal History
5
insteadmakinguse of whateverbare quantitativedata existto assure that
one's conclusions are trulyrepresentativeof the social aggregatebeing
discussed.To be sure,mostsocial historianscontinuedto milkconventional
evidence as well, to help dramatizerealities,but only with the sternest
remindersthatone could not accept it apart fromthe backdropof careful
attentionto theproblemof typicality.
A curious aspect of the "new" social historyis that it is almost never
pursued as such. Instead,what is pursued is demographichistory,urban
history,the historyof the family,of women, blacks, Chicanos, or native
Americans,the historyof radical social movements,the historyof social
is
mobility.The society,in its overall dimensionsas an evolvingstructure,
hardlyever studied-so thatmany of the more myopic specialistsamong
social historiansmust themselvesbe counted on the side of the earlier
mentioneddividingline thatpays almostno heed to social structure!
A reasonforthisis clear.Social historiansemphaticallyrejecttheholismof
historiansand also thedualisticlinesofconflict(suchas
theolderintellectual
oftheolderpoliticalhistorians.Insteadthe
progressivesversusstandpatters)
inhabitantsof a given nation-stateare seen to forman extraordinarily
are verymuch unlikecountry-dwellers,
complicatedmosaic. City-dwellers
men unlikewomen,richunlikepoor, "permanent"familiesunlikethoseof
immigrantsof one backgroundunlike those of
transientsor immigrants,
have an utterlyseparate
another.Each elementin themosaicmusttherefore
into
history.And thereis littleincentiveto tryto piecethesehistoriestogether
a whole,aside perhapsfromusingtheslipperyrubricof "modernization,''12
construction
thewholeas an artificial
becausethepartsareseenas therealities,
sustainedby politiciansand financiers.
The "new"social history,greatlyinfluencedby theFrenchAnnalesschool,
itmostunevenly
has affected
has turnedoutto be verydiverse.Quantification
-least ofall in thehistoryofwomenand manyethnicgroups.Sometimesits
have beenquestionedby itscritics,who pointout
noveltyand distinctiveness
thatmuchthesame versionof historyhad been put forthby suchAmerican
figuresas JamesHarveyRobinson,undertheverylabel ofthe"newhistory,"
was morerhetoricalthan
in theearlyyearsof thiscentury.Yet thataffinity
real,forthesocial historiansofthe1960s,likethesocial activists,had forthe
firsttimeglimpsedthetrue"bottom"layerof thesocietyin a sustainedway,
genuinelybrokedeeperground.
and theirstandardsofevidenceand argument
That thisis so, butalso thatsocial historianshave introducedlimitationsand
biases of theirown, may be illustratedby turningto two possiblyfamiliar
Philadelphia
ofeighteenth-century
examples,thefirstinvolvingdescriptions
theseconda similarcontrastin thetreatment
by olderand youngerhistorians,
of immigration
and social mobilityin Boston.
6
REVIEWSIN AMERICANHISTORY/ March1979
discussionof Philadelphia
Carl and JessicaBridenbaugh'schapter-length
in the age of BenjaminFranklin,publishedin 1942, has no explicitoverall
theme;it moves quite randomlyfromone subtopicto another,withlittle
sense of any connectedargument.A fewelementarystatisticsare brought
in.13The Bridenbaughs'tone is friendlytowardthecosmopolitanvalues of
eliteand towardhighculture(apartfromreligion).Theiraccount
themerchant
oflifeon thatlevelofsociety;itis concerned,
towardthe"amenities"
gravitates
buildings.The Bridenbaughs
forinstance,withtheaestheticsofcontemporary
familiar
to a comfortably
wereclearlyhappyto see theirsummarycontribute
imageof civicpride.Casually at theend,withno real evidence,theyremark
markedbothby materialthatPhiladelphiaat thattimewas an environment
ismand idealism,by individualismand social "communionand interchange"
(pp. 26-27).
Providinga summaryof roughlythesame lengthon thesame cityin the
same period,Sam B. Warner,Jr.,was concernedin 1968 withPhiladelphia
that
onlyas an instanceof "privatism"(his conceptforthekindofmentality
failsto lead to socialism).Most ofhisevidenceis tiedto thissingledominating
Indeed,one sensesthatWarnercares littleabout any possible
argument.14
uniquenessofPhiladelphia,thathe mightjustas readilyhave chosento write
about New York or Baltimoreto make thesame points.Warneris interested
only in types of cities;Philadelphia is merelya good illustrationof the
preindustrialkind. Warner also sees cities primarilyin termsof spatial
of"privatism,"
notaestheticsor mentalstates(beyondthementality
patterns,
whichdictatestheuse of space). Warner'sview is oftenopenlyretrospective
in standpoint;his aims throughouthis account are to identify
or presentist
typesand stagesin urbanhistory,lookingbackwardfromthepresent,and to
indictcapitalisticindividualismfor what it has given us in the twentieth
century.Yet,withone map, an extensiveuse of statistics,and some graphic
descriptionsof buildingand land use patterns,Warnergives us a farmore
vivid feelingof what it musthave been like formost people to be alive in
Philadelphiathanwe can ever receivefromtheBrideneighteenth-century
baughs. Finally,wherethe Bridenbaughshad lauded the public spiritand
Philadelphians,Warneraccuses
charitableworksof mid-eighteenth-century
and, by implicatheverysame people of havinghad nextto no government
littlepublicspirit.Warner'sview ofPhiladelphiais farmore
tion,extremely
structurally
precise,culturallyunspecific,and, above all, bleakerand less
flattering.15
The contrastbetweentwo studiesof Boston, Oscar Handlin's Boston's
The OtherBostonians(1973) is
(1941) and StephanThernstrom's
Immigrants
at least equally striking.Handlin'sbook is primarilya narrative.Its use of
statisticsis more than merelydecorative,but figuresare broughtin only
on an occasional basis to establishfacts.By a laterstandard,thereis a very
VEYSEY / The "New" Social History
7
offhandattitudeabout evidence.Handlin triesto strikea note of comprehensivenessby providingtidyrhetoricalsummariesof motivesand social
patterns:forexample,"Boston [in 1845] was a comfortableand well-to-do
cityin which the people managed to lead contentedand healthylives."'16
Today one cringesat such language. Handlin unabashedlyquotes an elite
literaryfigure,Ralph Waldo Emerson,to show "thefundamentalideas and
ofthesociety"
thesocialand economicstructure
permeating
basicassumptions
(pp. 20-21). But Handlin was less theoreticallynaive than Bridenbaugh,
theculturalanthropologyofRuth
embracing,forconceptualunderpinnings,
Benedict.17
book as a purerinstance
Many peoplewould regardStephanThernstrom's
ofPhiladelphia,because
ofthe"new"socialhistorythanWarner'sdescription
its textconsistsentirelyof a discussionof statisticaltables-how theywere
the shiftto
calculatedand what theyappear to mean. One mightinterpret
such a formatas anticipatingan entirelynew degreeof readerskepticism
about the adequacy of the evidenceand the diversionof just about one's
entireenergiesas an authorto theattemptto overcomeit. Thus historyhas
become farless obviouslyliterary.
With Handlin, a readermightwell be mainlyconcernedover revealing
to use suchtermsas "pesthole,"
word choices;forinstance,is itethnocentric
"a brood of evils,"and, in a mostunclearcontext,"malignant
"slothfulness,"
growth"when describingIrishslums?With Thernstrom,one is primarily
The book is, fromstart
tryingto critiquehis reasoningabout theevidence.18
listingoftheparticular
to finish,an argument.It beginswitha self-conscious
questionshe intendsto ask of thepast. His aim is to answerthesequestions,
not to be comprehensive.On the otherhand, he wants his study to be
comparablewiththoseofothercities.LikeWarner,Thernstrom
systematically
in what is special about thecityhe is studying;he is
is not muchinterested
concernedwiththe cityand is, so to speak, "rooting"forthe typicalityof
Bostonis meantto be a buildingblock in a mosaic.19
Boston.Thernstrom's
willbringin culturalexplanationsforphenomUnlikeHandlin,Thernstrom
ena only reluctantlyand apologetically,as a last resort(p. 168). His view
ofhumanmotivationin theBostoncontextappearsto assumethatthedesire
to risein socialpositionwas centralto the"inner"outlookofmostBostonians
versionof
Perhapsforthesereasons,Thernstrom's
duringthepast century.20
the "new" social historyis farless tuned to conflictthan narrativesocial
Thoughclaimingto ariseout of a concern
historysuchas Oscar Handlin's.21
has
forthehistoryofnonelitemasses,quantitativehistorylikeThernstrom's
or
history,which is conflict-oriented
littlein commonwithleftist-inspired
is
at the veryleast tied to questionsof power and dominationand usually
in its approachto evidence.
antiquantitative
has won enormousattenQuantitativesocial historysuch as Thernstrom's
8
REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / March 1979
tionin recentyearsand gainedgreatprestige,
notleastfromdeservedrecognition of the arduous characterof theresearchit entails.It is now just about
universallyconcededto offer,in theory,a greatlyenhanceddegreeof likeliit can tryto establish.(But
hood concerningthekindsof factualstatements
these are limitedby the survivingrecords to a rathersmall numberof
questions.In a spectacularrecentcase, whenhistorianstriedto use quantitativetechniquesinan area thathad onlyscatteredsurvivingwispsofevidence,
thehistoryof slavery,theystumbledverybadly.22)
As social historyhas shiftedmoreand moretowardan argumentoverthe
meaningof evidence,fallaciesin historicalreasoninghave come to be more
Widelyand forcefully
perceived.23Oddly thishas meantthatquantitative
history,despite its high prestige,has become surprisinglyvulnerable to
in specificinstances.Logicalobjectionscan veryoftenbe
counter-suggestion
raised,not only as to how the evidencewas gatheredor sampled,but to
centralaspects of the ultimateinterpretation.
For instance,Thernstrom's
book discernsa surprisingly
high rate of upward social mobilityin latenineteenth-century
Boston.Yet,as he once brieflyadmits,thefigureslargely
derivefromthe more settledspectrumof the populationwherefathers'as
well as sons' occupationsappear in therecords(p. 80). The othermajorpoint
of Thernstrom'sbook was to establishan enormouslyhigh rate of sheer
geographicalmovement,thatis,theexistenceofa large,predominantly
poor
floatingpopulation.If transientsare leftout of thesocial mobilitystatistics
Thernstrom
has put togetherwithsuch greatpains, thena skepticalreader
mightwell argue that thoselatterstatisticsare so biased upward as to be
meaningless.
Surprisingly
oftenquantitativehistoryis brittleas well as rigorous;it sits
likean enormousskyscraperofenterprise
whichcan all too easilybe toppled,
or at leastpartlyundermined,
witha crowbarsuppliedfromthearsenalofits
own kindof logic. Ifthisis so, it may well stemfroma genuinelyimportant
risein thecriticalstandardsapplied to worksof historyin theUnitedStates
over thepast fifteen
thesestandardsrevealthemselves
years.Intermittently
in publishedreviews.Neverhas so muchattentionbeenpaid to suchissuesas
theadequacy ofevidence,theneed forprecisionover theexactnatureof the
social aggregatebeingdiscussed(such as "Americans,""black Americans,"
"middle-classwomen"), and the strengthor weakness,in logical terms,of
particularexplanations.Our capacityto criticizeworks of historyas they
comeforthhas outrunour capacityto writethemintermsthatwillwithstand
suchcriticism.
in themoredemandingcircles,may be in
Historicalcriticism,
much bettershape in the contemporaryUnited States than substantive
historicalwriting.24
Yet withall thisgreatersophistication
about historicalarguments,
thevery
VEYSEY / The "New" Social History
9
highestamountofprestigemaystillbe awardedto an historianwho uncovers
some incontestableyetpreviouslyunknownfactof major importance.Discoverymaystillcounttheverymost;consider,forexample,StephanThernstrom'sand Peter Knight'sdisclosureof the previouslyunsuspectedhuge
numbersof transientsin nineteenth-century
Americancities,Tamara K.
Hareven'srevelationof kinshippatternsaffecting
work assignments
among
New Hampshiretextileworkers,or HerbertG. Gutman'sdiscoveryofnaming
practicesamong some slaves whichrevealtheircontinuingautonomyfrom
whiteculturein certaincrucialrespects.25
On thismostfundamentallevel,
standardsof historicalscholarshipmay not have changedall thatmuchin
the last hundredyears,and the major recentdiscoverieshave come in the
fieldof social history.
Genuinelynew,however,ifnotwellillustrated
by Thernstrom
or Warner,
is the shiftin Americansocial historytoward the introductionof outside
pointsofreference,
thatis,to analogousphenomenalyingbeyondtheisolated
case beingdiscussed,and acrossinternational
boundaries.Thisperhapsbegan
with the interestthat developed among Americanistsover the natureof
slaveryinBrazil.Itcontinueson manyfronts,
as, forinstance,whenhistorians
of theNew Englandtown show familiarity
withequivalentcommunitiesin
England,France,and Sweden.
The extremely
importanttrendis towardplacinganysinglenation,suchas
theUnitedStates,in context,bothstructurally
and intellectually.
Our minds
recedefurther
and further
fromit,as ifwe startlookingat itfroma stationin
space, while on a different
level we retainour intimatefamiliarity
withit.
This extremeduality of perceptionis what gives the best contemporary
Americanhistoricalwritingitsstrength.
A consequencemustbe thequestioningofpreviouslyunexaminedassumptionsabout Americanuniqueness.The internationalism
of basic historical
processesin the modernworld,in politicalas well as economicand social
realmsof life,growsmore obvious. Despite the possibleinadequacy of the
I hope thatthisinsightwillbecometheprimary
conceptof "modernization,"
historicalthemeof the near future,drawingUnited States historiansstill
further
out of theirisolationand theirsometimesnearsighted
preoccupation
withlocal trendsand eventsthatwerenot all thatdifferent
fromthosegoing
on in some otherpartsof theglobe,ifat slightlylaterdates.
The "new" social historyhelpedto producethisbroaderperspective,
but,
likeMarxisthistory,it now shows signsoflosingitsinitialthrust.Thoughit
has spawnedvast projects,it has oftenleftitspractitioners
strangelyweary
aftera fewyearsof immersionin it. Leadingfiguresin themovementsometimesconfesstheirdesireto go back towardconventionalsources.They can
admitto being overwhelmedby the Pandora's box of interpretations
they
10
REVIEWSIN AMERICANHISTORY/ March1979
have opened up. One hopes thattheircentralmessage-the need forevery
historianto be consciouslyconcernedwithproblemsofrepresentativeness
in
evidence-will notbecomeblurred,forin itlies thegreatestsinglehope of a
generallyimprovedstandardin historicalwritingsince the emergenceof
Germanicscholarshipin thenineteenth
century.It would be too bad to see
thisinsightshrinkaway in thedoldrumsof a morning-after.
As our universities
entera periodofstasisor decline,thereis a realdanger
thatscholarlyenergywilldissipatethrough
loweredmoraleand thathistorical
writingwill now become more aimlesslyeclectic,less exciting,than it has
been at itsbestinAmericaduringthepastquarter-century.
Excitement
comes
whenthereis a definite
intellectual
cuttingedgewithinthediscipline,
arousing
controversyand also promisingdiscovery.(We need not be believersin
dialecticto admitthat.)A seriesofwaves-intellectualhistoryin the1950s,
thenMarxism,and alongsideit themorediverse"new"social history-have
furnished
thesecuttingedges.Could theoutright
ofAmerican
transformation
historyas we have customarily
thoughtofit,itsmergerintothehistoryofthe
modernindustrialworld at large, furnisha new visionarymatrix,giving
meaningto our various extremespecializations?26
Then the "new" social
historywouldhaveled towardsomething
lyingbeyonditsowninitialimpulse.
But, alas, in the trainingand energyrequired,thiswould be the most demandingkindof historyof all.
ProfessorVeysey,Board of Studies in History,Universityof California,
Santa Cruz, has adapted this essay fromone on historicalwritingin the
UnitedStateswhichwillappearin Contemporary
DevelopmentsinHistorical
Studies,ed. GeorgG. Iggersand Harold T. Parker(1979).
1. EugeneD. Genovese,In Red and Black (New York: PantheonBooks, 1971), pp. 315-53;
ImmanuelWallerstein,The Modern WorldSystem(New York:Academic Press,1974).
2. Of course various otherkindsof history(diplomatic,economic,legal,psychohistorical)
mightfairlyclaimautonomyon a partwiththesethree.Yet I believethesethreelabelsdo reflect
themostconspicuouselementsor factionswithinAmericanhistorydepartments.
Psychohistory
strikesme moreas a curiouslydelayedspin-off
fromtheclimateof the1950s,whenFreudwas
so muchin vogue,thanas a major new directionin historicalwriting.
3. ArthurM. Schlesinger,Jr.,is no doubt themostdistinguished
example.
4. Years of discussionover the celebratedissue of "consensus"or conflictas the key to
Americanpoliticsand culturehave abated,itnow beinggenerallyrecognizedthatconflicts
have
been too centraland numerousto allow forthekindof argumentagainsttheirimportanceput
forwardbyDaniel J.Boorstin,TheGeniusofAmericanPolitics(Chicago:University
ofChicago
Press, 1953), but that,on the other hand, the most importantconflictshave been ethnic,
regional,or even (in therealmoflabor history)class-oriented,
ratherthaninvolvingthelection
strugglesof Republicansand Democrats.
5. Althoughwhenthecountingis shiftedto titlesof dissertationsin progress,social history
(in all itsphases) now emergesas theclear winner.FromthelistoftheminJournalofAmerican
History64 (1977): 285-308,I count 121 in politicalhistory,152 in social history,and 64 in
intellectualhistory.Those, however, that can be called social historyare overwhelmingly
VEYSEY / The "New" Social History
11
on rathertrivialor conventionaltopicsnotinspiredby themethodsofthe"new"social history.
The "new" social historyis practicedby a tinyelitewithintheprofession.
6. For a lamentat theloss ofprestigeofpoliticalhistorywithinthediscipline,see Gordon A.
Craig, "Politicaland DiplomaticHistory,"in HistoricalStudies Today, ed. FelixGilbertand
StephenR. Graubard(New York: Norton,1972),pp. 356-57.
7. For a recentexample of a highlytraditionalsummarynarrativeof Americanpolitical
history(inspiringone commentatoron it to remark,"those textbooksof the 1940s were not
puttingus on"), see RobertKelley,"Ideologyand PoliticalCulturefromJefferson
to Nixon,"
AmericanHistoricalReview82 (1977): 531-62,and commentson it,pp. 563-82.
8. Lee Benson,The ConceptofJacksonianDemocracy(Princeton,
N. J.:PrincetonUniversity
Press,1961),is widelycreditedwithhavingmovedAmericanpoliticalhistoryin thisdirection.
9. A recentinstanceofa vastprojectofthiskindis AllanG. Bogue,JeromeM. Clubb,Carroll
R. McKibbin, and Santa A. Traugott,"Members of the House of Representativesand the
Processes of Modernization,1789-1860,"Journalof American History 63 (1976): 275-302;
unfortunately
thelabors seemfarmoreremarkablethantheresults.
10. For a recentaccount of the growthof intellectualhistoryas a historicalsubfield,see
Felix Gilbert,"IntellectualHistory:Its Aims and Methods,"in HistoricalStudies Today, ed.
Gilbertand Graubard,pp. 141-58.
11. For an extendedappraisalof intellectualhistoryin the contextof its recentlydeclining
popularity,see LaurenceVeysey,"IntellectualHistoryand the 'New' Social History,"in New
Directionsin IntellectualHistory,ed. Paul K. Conkin and JohnHigham(Baltimore,Md.: The
JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1979).
12. The attemptto applymodernizationtheoryto UnitedStateshistoryculminatesso farin
RichardD. Brown,Modernization:The Transformation
of AmericanLife,1600-1865(New
York:Hill and Wang,1977). Buttheconceptof modernization
has been attackedas vague,or as
undulydeterministic,
and itsuse mayhave reacheditspeak. Itsgreatvirtuehas beentheway in
whichit has worked againstnationalisticparochialismby attempting
to see thehistoryof the
modernworld as a unitand thenationslargelyas illustrations
of universalprocesses.It is to be
hoped thatthisinternational
perspectivecan be retainedeven ifhistoricaltrendsare looked at
with less reductionismthan the concept of modernizationpossibly imposes; see the closing
paragraphsof thisessay.
Rebelsand Gentlemen:Philadelphiain theAge of Franklin
13. Carl and JessicaBridenbaugh,
(New York:OxfordUniversity
Press,1965;1st published1942),pp. 1-28.In one briefinstance,
thetrendtowardirreligion(p. 18), shrewduse of figuresis made.
14. Sam Bass Warner,Jr.,The PrivateCity: Philadelphiain ThreePeriods of Its Growth
forexample,
of PennsylvaniaPress,1968),pp. 3-21.The Bridenbaughs,
(Philadelphia:University
but Warner(p. 3) sees itas directlyovercome
had seen religionas merelyfadingintoirreligion,
by greed.
15. Warner'sjudgmentthat eighteenth-century
Philadelphiawas practicallyungoverned
seems to stem from a planning-orientedperspectivein the mid-twentieth
century.These
conflicting
standpointslead to a highlyrevealingfactualclash.The Bridenbaughshad described
how "at intervalsalong [all] these thoroughfares[of Philadelphiain the 1770s] some five
hundredpublic pumps supplied the citizenswith theirwater,and never failed to make an
impressionon visitors"(Rebels and Gentlemen,p. 11), while Warnerstates: "therewere no
public schools, no public water,and at best thincharity"(PrivateCity,p. 10). For Warner,
eighteenth-century
Philadelphiawas a "community"
onlyin thelimited,literalsenseofoffering
a highdegreeof face-to-face
contactsamongits inhabitants.
The mainsimilarity
betweentheBridenbaughsand Warner,as social historians,liesin their
commonawarenessof theimportanceof economicconditionsand such factorsas social class,
social mobility,and ethnicity.On topics of thiskind the two accountsoverlap a good deal,
althoughtheBridenbaughsemphasizetraderouteslinkingPhiladelphiawiththeoutsideworld
(theireffectin creatinga culturalcosmopolitanismis an implicitthemeof theirchapter),while
Warneremphasizesartisans'work and livingpatternswithinthecityitself,sincetheyformed
thebulk of thepopulation.
12
REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / March 1979
16. Oscar Handlin, Boston's Immigrants:A Study in Acculturation,rev. ed. (New York:
Atheneum,1974; 1st published1941),p. 20.
17. Or at least of thatgenerationof anthropologistsmore generally.The subtitleof his
book (ibid.) revealsthis.
18. Questions of language, however, returnin Thernstrom'sbook at the level of word
choicesmade to describeparticularstatisticalresults-e.g., thatBostonianshad "good chances"
to rise (StephanThernstrom,The Other Bostonians:Povertyand Progressin theAmerican
Metropolis,1880-1970[Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1973], p. 73)-because
each such summarystatementconveysa givendegreeof optimismor pessimismin viewingthe
workingsof Americansociety.Any book containingwords as well as figuresno doubt will
retainthisdimension.
thanHandlin's,
imageof a citysuchas Bostonalso seemsmoremechanistic
19. Thernstrom's
as whenhe calls Boston"a major importerand a majorexporterofhumanraw material"(ibid.,
p. 29).
20. In fairness,this is only an inferencefromThernstrom'sgeneral silence about inner
mentalstates,togetherwithhis decisionthatsocial mobilityis a centrallyimportantthemeto
explore.
21. Of coursethisis ironic,sinceHandlinexplicitlydislikesethnicconflict(e.g.,see Boston's
of blacks (The OtherBostonians,pp. 176-219)Thernstrom
Immigrants,
p. 229). In his.treatment
ofthegroup,reenforcing
sourcesto emphasizethebleaknessofthelife-chances
useshisstatistical
a highlycriticalview of whitedominationin Americansociety.This is in strikingcontrastto
pp. 179-80,212-13)ofblack prospects
rosyview (Boston's Immigrants,
Handlin'sastonishingly
in a lightlyearlierBoston.
22. It is now oftenimpliedthatRobertW. Fogel and StanleyM. Engerman'sTime on the
Cross, 2 vols. (Boston:Little,Brown,1974), containsso many suspectgeneralizationson the
(thoughtechnicallyquantitative)evidencethatthebook
basis of scantyand unrepresentative
oughtnotto have beenpublished.See Thomas Haskell,"The True and TragicHistoryof 'Time
on theCross,"' TheNew YorkReviewof Books,Oct. 2,1975,pp. 33-39;and Paul A. David etal.,
ReckoningwithSlavery(New York: OxfordUniversityPress,1976),especiallypp. 339-47.
23. Symptomaticof thistrendis David HackettFischer,Historian'sFallacies (New York:
Harper & Row, 1970).
24. A suggestionrecentlymade by HenryF. May in conversationwiththeauthor.
25. StephanThernstromand PeterR. Knights,"Men inMotion,"inAnonymousAmericans,
ed. Tamara K. Hareven (Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall,1971), pp. 17-47; Tamara K.
Hareven, "FamilyTime and IndustrialTime: Family and Work in a Planned Corporation
Town, 1900-1924,"Journalof UrbanHistory1 (1975): 365-89;HerbertG. Gutman,The Black
Familyin Slaveryand Freedom,1750-1925(New York: PantheonBooks, 1976),chap. 2
26. For an extendeddevelopmentofthisargument,see LaurenceVeysey,"The Autonomyof
in AmericanQuarterly.
AmericanHistoryReconsidered,"forthcoming