Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory

Andrew I Port, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Peoples historyfocuses on the lives of ordinary people, with an eye to their struggles, everyday practices, beliefs, values, and mentalities. Inuenced by the Annales School and cultural anthropology, but reacting against traditional social historys emphasis on social structures and serial trends, its practitioners emphasize the importance of individual agency while trying to demonstrate the complexity of lived experience, the uidity of identity, and the subjective nature of meaning. Important types of people s historyinclude history from below,Alltagsgeschichte (the history of everyday life), and microhistory, all of which involve a dramatic reduction of historical scale, focusing on a single individual, community, or spectacular event.

The Origins, Characteristics, and Goals of ‘People’s History’

People s history marks a radical departure from traditional mainstream historiography, which long tended to concentrate on high-level politics and diplomacy, warfare, and the lives of great statesmen. The move away from this focus on the high and mighty began most systematically during the period between the two world wars. Trying to understand social dynamics and the ways in which societies change, the members of the French Annales School embraced an interdisciplinary, materialist approach that looked to the social sciences for inspiration. At the same time, they shifted their attention away from major events and powerful individuals to underlying structural forces, mentalities, and the masses. Similar concerns and methods inspired a group of Marxist historians active in the United Kingdom after World War II, as well as a number of historians working later in the United States. Turning their attention to the lives and struggles of ordinary people, they focused on social relations at the grass roots, popular forms of protest, everyday activities such as work and leisure, as well as attitudes, beliefs, practices, and behavior. This became known in the 1960s as history from below. It was out of this tradition, which signi cantly broadened the array of legitimate topics considered worthy of historio- graphical investigation, that new variations of people s history ’ – Alltagsgeschichte (the history of everyday life ) in Germany, microhistory in Italy and France emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite some differences in their method and use of sources, the two share a number of essential characteristics. In the rst place, their practitioners focus on the qualitative, quotidian, lived experiences of ordinary people, i.e., on the actions, practices, habits, values, beliefs, mentalities, and feel- ings of the oppressed, excluded, pauperized, and marginalized:

those who have traditionally been excluded from historical accounts and remained largely anonymous in history the namelessmultitudes in their workaday trials and tribulations ( Lüdtke, 1995 : 4). To that end, they dramatically reduce the scale of their historical investigation, con ning it to a single individual, small community, or seemingly obscure event which is then subject to painstaking microscopic analysis involving an intensive study of the available documentary material.

Immersing themselves like detectives in seemingly mundane sources related to themes such as everyday family life, gender relations, leisure activities, and popular culture, they search for and try to tease out the meaning of various clues, signs, and symptoms ’ – all in the belief that microscopic observation will uncover and explain the previously unobserved, as well as other revealing phenomena lost to the type of conventional analysis that takes a more comprehensive bird s-eye view ( Levi, 1991 : 97, 106; Brewer, 2010 : 97; Muir, 1991 : xvi xvii). The focus on spectacular stories and obscure people are, in short, devices to get at larger issues ( Lepore, 2001 : 144) while the lingering over mere details represents an innovative attempt to achieve the old dream of a total history, but this time recon- structed from the bottom up ( Steege et al., 2008: 375; Revel, 1995 : 497). Such histories usually fall into one of two categories: the episodic and the systematic (Gregory, 1999 : 102). The rst type, which tends to take a narrative approach and rely heavily on thick description, focuses on a single, spectacular episode or event usually involving one person or a small group of individuals such as the investigation of a heretical sixteenth- century Italian miller by Inquisition of cials ( Ginzburg, 1980 ), the elaborately staged murder of dozens of cats by disgruntled apprentice printers in Paris in the 1730s ( Darnton, 1984 ), or an antisemitic riot incited by accusations of blood libel in a small Prussian town in the early twentieth century ( Smith, 2002 ). The other type assiduously reconstructs the complex web of familial and extrafamilial social relations in a small community. Prominent examples include Giovanni Levi s study of social interaction in a village in the Piedmont in the 1690s – “a banal place and an undistinguished story, in the words of the author ( Levi, 1988) and David Sabean s dense studies of property, production, and kinship in the southern German village Neckarhausen from 1700 to 1870 (Sabean, 1990, 1998 ). The goals and value of such studies are manifold. In the rst place, they are at pains to demonstrate the ways in which ordinary people had agency and were not merely the victims of large, amorphous, impersonal forces, i.e., that they were the active subjects of their own lives not just the passive objects of history. A great deal of attention is thus paid to their ability to withstand hegemonic forms of dominance and control, i.e., to an individual s constant negotiation, manipulation, choices and decisions in the face of a normative reality which,

History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory


though pervasive, nevertheless offers many possibilities for personal interpretations and freedoms (Levi, 1991 : 94). This focus on obscure individuals and the business of coping ( Bucur et al., 2009 : 206) is also important because it vividly reveals the multiplicity and extreme complexity of lived experience, especially its more subjective dimensions in concrete life situations. Such close-up investigations which combine the warmth of the narrator s intimate glance and the coldness of the scientist s detached observation ( Ginzburg, 1993 : 16) lay bare the social production and construction of meaning by individuals themselves in ways that can hold up against the ruling discourses of a particular society, the ambiguities and contradictions of perceptions and behavior, as well as the way in which power relations are reproduced and challenged in everyday exchanges (Eley, 1989 : 315, 322323; Bucur et al., 2009 : 195196).

The Role of Agency and the Reaction against Structures, Serials, and Teleologies

Peoples historyin all its forms traces its intellectual heritage to Annales, but it is at the same time a conscious reaction against the work of that school, as well as against the type of interdisci- plinary social sciencehistory it inspired in France, the United States, and Germany beginning in the 1950s and 1960s. The latter, as practiced by leading historians such as Fernand Braudel in France and later Hans-Ulrich Wehler in Germany, relied heavily on sociological theories and techniques, focusing on aggregate trends and numerical series (e.g., births, marriages, deaths, prices, occupations) in an attempt to uncover long- term, large-scale, measurable regularities, formulate historical laws,and arrive at blanket generalizations about human behavior (Revel, 1995; Eley, 2005). Those who became disillusioned with this quantitative approach launched a multipronged critique. They objected, in the rst place, to the way it seemingly crushed all individuals to insigni cance under the weight of vast impersonal structures and forces (Muir, 1991 : xxi) and thus failed to take into account the agency of ordinary people. Instead of consigning the so-called masses to historical impotence, history from below tries to show how they themselves contribute to, appropriate, and shape broad supraindividual forces and structures. They see historical change and continuity, in other words, as the result of actions by groups and individuals who are simultaneously both objects of history and its subjects ( Lüdtke, 1995 : 68). In a sense, the way in which they problematize the rela- tionship between agency and the iron cage of structure is reminiscent of studies by so-called new cultural historians, who question Marxist claims about the primacy of the material and the social in the complicated relationship between base and superstructure (Hunt, 1989 ). That said, historians of everyday life and mirohistorians have been just as critical of postmodernism, which the new cultural historians have strongly embraced, as they have been of structuralism. Whereas the latter seemingly erased the role of individuals, the former has tried to kill off the subject completely (Steege et al., 2008: 377) and thus call into question all claims about human agency.

Those who practice various types of people s history also question the seemingly uniform, homogeneous way in which social science history has portrayed social life across different societies, as well as within any single society. They point instead to the great variety and complexity of social relations, experi- ences, behavior, and identities at the grass roots. This, they claim, is something that a focus on aggregate trends, large-scale processes, as well as overarching categories and groups (such as workers ) is, by its very nature, unable to grasp. They draw attention to other supposed weaknesses of social science history as well: its reliance, for example, on documents usually produced by those in positions of power containing material that can be serialized. What about documents and documented practices, they ask, that do not readily lend themselves to quanti cation, or those that are documentarily unique ’ – what François Furet has suggestively referred to as the hapax legomenon (Ginzburg, 1993 : 21). The claim here is that seemingly unique events and actions, as well as single cases or episodes, that violate norms can, in fact, illustrate underlying social structures, behaviors, and practices that would otherwise remain undetected. Besides criticizing the methodological shortcomings of quantitative social science history and its macro approach, which is seen as too deterministic and mechanistic, the prac- titioners of people s history have also strenuously objected to the way it embraces grand narratives of progress above all those associated with modernization theory and its single, linear progressive model . against which all societies are measured. The gold standard of development has been Western afuence and the triumph of modern consumer society (Brewer, 2010 : 93 94). By turning their attention to the ways in which the losers of history and the casualties of progress experienced modernity in all its facets, as well as to fragmentation, contradictions, and plurality of viewpoints, microhistorians and historians of the everyday look at social strategies and concrete experiences that buck general trends and thus fail to accord with the grand contours of history identi ed by those who take a more capacious view of historical developments. This allows them to emphasize the importance of contingency and uncover, furthermore, the social context in which an apparently anomalous or insigni cant fact assumes meaning, thus revealing the hidden incoherences of an apparently uni ed social system ( Levi, 1991 : 107; Lüdtke, 1995 : ix, 7).

Political Sensibilities and Intellectual Influences

The foregoing suggests the political agenda of everyday history and microhistory, whose practitioners while highly critical of Marxist structural history share Marxist critiques of liberal conceptions of modernityand the steamroller effects of capitalism, industrialization, and bureaucracy on the downtrodden (Gregory, 1999: 101). Coming from a leftist background, their political sensibilities were (re)formed in the crucible of the 1970s, a period of political inertia and economic stagnation that not only marked the end of the trentes glorieuses in the West, but also called into question following the turbulence of the late 1960s Marxisms scienticpremises and promises about the progressive nature


History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory

and emancipatory power of the industrial proletariat (Bell, 2002). It was in this atmosphere, characterized by a new reticenceabout progress and modernity, that a certain nostalgia for the preindustrial past ourished. In fact, this backward-looking romantic opposition to capitalismand late modernity helps explain why so many pioneering microhistorical studies have looked at communities and mentalities during the early modern period (Ginzburg, 1993: 20). The critique of Western ethnocentrism that accompanied this rejection of modernist teleology re ects the strong in u- ence that cultural anthropology has had on the eld of everyday history. In fact, its practitioners self-consciously adopt a variety of ethnographic methods and insights, such as Franz Boas and Claude Lévi-Strauss s ideas about cultural relativism, as well as concepts such as Clifford Geertzs thick description, which emphasizes the importance of social context, signs, and symbolism in understanding the cultural meaning of human behavior and practices. Like ethnographers, they try, by way of written documents and other sources, to immerse themselves in the daily lives of those they study, with an eye to uncovering routine and repetitive acts that, they believe, reveal the dominant and underlying forms of a given culture. These are then decoded or read like any text, be it written or spoken, gestured or performed ( Highmore, 2002b ; Rosenhaft, 1987 ). As the practitioners of microhistory and the history of everyday life have pointed out themselves, there are a number of other pan-European inuences on their work from the literary practices of Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace to modernist authors such as Marcel Proust and Italo Calvino, from Siegfried Kracauers ideas about cinema and the supposedly discontinuous nature of reality to neorealistItalian lm. Other discernible inuences include sociologist Erving Goffmans theories about the performative aspects of everyday interactions, Pierre Bourdieus theory of practical action,Henri Lefebvres evocative work on everyday life in the modern world,as well as Michel de Certeaus ruminations on social practicesand the reappropriationof cultural objects in resistance to the rhythms and demands of consumerist modernity. Michel Foucaults work on persecution, madness, and the oppressive nature of modern institutions, as well as Sigmund Freuds attention to language and the way in which tries,’ ‘slips,and other insignicant detailscan alert us to hidden meanings, have been important as well (Levi, 1991; Brewer, 2010; Muir, 1991; Highmore, 2002b). Among historians the greatest in uence has undoubtedly been E.P. Thompson, the doyen of self-critical Marxist historians associated with the British New Left. His pioneering work The Making of the English Working Class effectively launched history from below in the 1960s, with its emphasis on consciousness, culture, and the everyday conditions and practices of those obscure individuals he hoped to rescue .from the enormous condescension of posterity. Equally important were Thompson s ideas about crowd rationality and the central role of experience in identity formation ( Thompson, 1963, 1971 ; Eley, 1989 :

313). History from belowsubsequently ourished in the United Kingdom and the United States, but it was in Italy and Germany that it assumed radical new forms. The main

practitioners in Italy were active in the northern part of the country, which, as a whole, did not have a strong social history tradition. Carlo Ginzburg, Giovanno Levi, and other Italian microhistorians coalesced around the Bolognese journal Quaderni storici , which began publishing specimens of the new genre in the late 1970s. Along with Lutz Niethammer, Göttingen historians Alf Lüdtke and Hans Medick established the practice of Alltagsgeschichte north of the Alps in Germany, where they published much of their own innovative work, as well as that of their colleagues, in the journal Historische Anthropologie . Though they share comparable concerns and re ect similar inuences, Alltagsgeschichte and microhistory are not entirely the same undertaking. Whereas the latter gravitates toward the spectacular and unique in order to get at lived experience itself, the former focuses on largely unconscious, routine, and repetitive acts in an attempt to reconstruct social relationships and daily transactions which, they believe, are themselves the key to understanding historical development ( Gregory, 1999 : 103 104). There are no American or French schools strictly speaking, but Natalie Zemon Davis, Robert Darnton, and a number of other scholars in the United States produced a series of path- breaking studies that belong to this eld as did the French historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, whose reconstruction of social life in a medieval village became a model of the genre ( Le Roy Ladurie, 1978 ).

Critiques of Microhistory and Alltagsgeschichte

In their classic studies Montaillou and The Cheese and the Worms , Le Roy Ladurie and Carlo Ginzburg both relied heavily on detailed interrogations of alleged heretics conducted by members of the Inquisition in France and Italy. Reading these sources against the grain, they picked out banal details and documentary fragments to get at larger historical issues as well as at more general socioeconomic and cultural patterns such as the complex relationship between elite and popular culture. Since the focus is on those who, as a rule, left behind few written documents themselves, other important sources have included reports by police and church of cials, teachers, physicians, and factory inspectors; personal correspondence and travelogues; parish registers, wills, notarial records, and protocols. The often ingenious use of seemingly mundane source material has been widely praised by other scholars. But this reliance on documents left by the rich and powerful to get at the lives of the poor and oppressed has also been a source of hefty criticism. For instance, many of these documents, such as legal ones used in court cases, were designed to deceive and distort reality in ways that some historians have supposedly failed to grasp ( Kuehn, 1989 ). The need for careful and the possibility of sloppy source critique is not peculiar to microhistory and the history of everyday life, of course. Still, its practitioners especially microhistorians have been especially sensitive to the potential dangers of using documents originally intended to convey information that is much different from the focus of their own scholarly pursuits. This is why many have consciously integrated their

History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory


research procedures and source analysis into the narrative itself. As Ginzburg and Levi explain, the obstacles interfering with the research, such as lacunae or misrepresentations in the sources, were constituent elements of the documentation and thus became an intrinsic part of the account. Similarly, the hypotheses, the doubts, the uncertainties, as well as the researcher s very procedure and point of view are all included in the narration ( Ginzburg, 1993 : 22 23, 28; Levi, 1991 :

Scholars working on everyday life in Germany during the Third Reich have, in fact, been especially adept at describing the ambivalences and ambiguities ( Eley, 1989 : 325) the dark side ( Port, 2013 ) of behavior at the grass roots, pointing out the ways in which ordinary Germans supported and pro ted from the regimes discriminatory policies at the same time that they bucked the system and pursued their own interests. Alf Lüdtke has aptly described this practice involving both complicity and resistance as Eigensinn ,

106). By revealing their bag of tricks, they create a sort of Brechtian estrangement effect that defamiliarizes or


notoriously dif cult term to translate or even de ne

denaturalizes the seemingly familiar and thus offers an especially tting form for depicting the complexity of the everyday ( Highmore, 2002b : 21 23). Another weighty critique concerns the possibility that these

precisely, but one that draws attention to the sliver of autonomy ( Bucur et al., 2009: 190) enjoyed by the seemingly powerless and weak while, at the same time, rightly emphasizing the ambiguous and multivalent nature of

historians will interpret sources, persons, and events in an

most behavior ( Lüdtke, 1995 ). This draws attention, in turn,

anachronistic or ahistorical manner. The use of modern cate-


the way in which the everyday provides both a training

gories and discourses to describe and explain earlier experi- ences (instead of examining them on their own terms ), as well as the imposition of present sensibilities on the past, are all potential hazards of the enterprise but again, not ones strictly limited to the various forms of people s history. Still, the dif culty of interpreting past behavior and understanding the

ground of sorts for conformity, as well as a site where conformity can be evaded and acts of nonconformity can take place ( Highmore, 2002b : 5). Historians of everyday life and microhistorians have also had to contend with another criticism frequently leveled since local or case studies rst became popular in the 1960s: this

meaning(s) that historical actors ascribed to their actions is a staggeringly difcult enterprise (Bell, 2002 : 271). Microhistorians and historians of the everyday also run the risk, and have been faulted for, romanticizing the past, focusing on picturesque detail, and sentimentally celebrating ordinary people as heroes, proto-feminists, or freedom

involves the extent to which the individual, community, or event at the center of a given study are truly representative of larger trends. All persons, communities, and historical events are in some way unique, of course. But since the adoption of social science methods and insights in historical research, as well as E.H. Carr s calls in the early 1960s for a greater emphasis

ghters; others have accused them of trivializing the crimes


causation and sophisticated historical analysis (as opposed

committed by oppressive regimes such as the Third Reich by


mere narration), historians have been at pains to make

overstating the possibilities for resistance and nonconformity at the grass roots ( Lüdtke, 1995 : 10 12). All of this draws attention to one of the great philosophical debates that microhistory and the history of everyday life bring front and center: the relationship between structure and agency, between free will and determinism. In fact, one of the greatest challenges of the genre is navigating between the Scylla of blind historical forces that determine individual behaviors, and the Charybdis of a romanticized self-determination by radically free historical actors(Gregory, 1999: 105) i.e., not exaggerating or distorting the possibilities of agency in highly repressive societies (or in ones that used more rened methods of repression and surveillance in an effort to ensure conformity), or of downplaying the extent to which larger structures and institutional forces shape the lives of ordinary individuals. As Karl Marx famously put it in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under

larger analytical claims about the importance of their own often narrowly focused studies and relate the particular to the general, i.e., to larger historical trends and developments. Microhistorians have been especially cognizant of this thorny challenge, given the radically reduced scale of their investigations, as well as their resolute insistence on context. Some concede the need for a comparative dimension, i.e., the need to compare their ndings and conclusions to other similarly circumscribed studies. But they rightly insist that some issues can best be understood at the micro level and others, for that matter, at the macro level. Institutions and institutional power, for example, would fall into the latter category, intimate relationships within the family and the very uidity of identity in the other. A focus on formal power relations, institutions, and high-level policy often fails to comprehend or explain how and why things developed as they did on the ground often in ways not intended by authorities and elites, as recent research on everyday life in

circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances already existing, given, and transmitted from the past.But historians of everyday life try to show the ways in which collective phenomenaare themselves the very result of individual agency and the actions of ordinary people: The systems that presumably govern the world are not alien to everyday life but immanent in it; the living of everyday life itself is itself part and parcel of the process by which structure and ideology are reproduced and transformed.In other words, ordinary people themselves supposedly hold the lions share of responsibility for making that collective world

the Soviet bloc has revealed ( Port, 2007 ). In other words, the microphysics of power at the grass roots can effectively serve to undermine and mitigate against the power of larger structural forces and processes ( Steege et al., 2008 : 361). Still, integrating and relating those two levels in a meaningful manner balancing intimacy and distance, establishing causal connections is one of the greatest challenges faced by microhistorians and historians of the everyday. The following cartographic analogy is useful for making this point: it is a mistake to hand someone an architectural blueprint if he or she wants to drive to another city. The key

(Steege et al., 2008: 367368, 372).


knowing which map we need in a particular instance, and


History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory

how to combine harmoniously maps of different scales ( Gregory, 1999 : 109). Siegfried Kracauer believed that Marc Bloch, one of the founders of the Annales School, offered

a venerable model in his two-volume Feudal Society

(1939 40), which provides a constant back and forth between micro- and macrohistory, between close-ups and extreme long shots( Levi, 1991 : 27). In response to the issue of representativeness, micro- historians in particular have embraced the concept of the normal exception, a term originally coined by Edoardo Grendi. These are forms of seemingly unusual behavior that defy prevailing norms, which is the very reason they leave traces

in the archives. But they do so on a regular basis, and though contrary to what those in power and other elites consider to be normal behavior are completely normal for ordinary individuals, especially those on the socioeconomic margins of society. Such transgressions are, in fact, perfectly representative of their own social milieu ( Muir, 1991 : xiv).

Of course, the ability to recognize something as a normal

exception in the rst place posits an a priori grasp of larger patterns only afforded by a macro view. The focus on that which fails to t into grand frameworks or narratives, that throws a wrench in the relentless search for regularity and predictability, highlights, in short, the complexity of reality,

of the really real ’ – which is, after all, what everyday life at

the grass roots truly claims to represent, or at least one signicant aspect of it.

The Future of ‘People’s History’

The history of everyday life and microhistory enjoyed tremen-

dous popularity in the 1980s. Alltagsgeschichte itself was hailed

at the time as the most important new departure in West

German historiography (Eley, 1989 : 297). But by the end of the following decade, it, along with social history as a whole, had been largely eclipsed by the new cultural history popular in the United States, which looked to the insights of post- modernism and the so-called linguistic turn for inspiration. Despite important differences in terms of method, assumptions, and intellectual inuences, all of these new approaches shared a certain afnity in terms of what they criticized about the older historiography s focus on major events, powerful individuals, and dominant institutions and then, with the rise of social science history, on the gothic structures and intangible historical forces associated with a steadfast materialist interpretation of how history works. Even though history from below, microhistory, and Alltagsgeschichte are no longer as popular as they once were, reports of their death have indeed been greatly exaggerated ( Steege et al., 2008 : 358). A number of historians in Europe and the United States continue to produce important speci- mens of this genre and continue to discuss its theoretical underpinnings and potential contributions for example, in writing about the states that made up the now-defunct Soviet bloc. By examining the complex relationship between state and society, their post-1945 history suggests the fruitful ways in which an understanding of life at the grass roots can help explain developments and trajectories that an investigation of institutions, parties, and high-level politics

cannot alone. It shows, in short, that even under regimes where the power relationship between the rulers and ruled was clearly asymmetrical, developments at the micro level could and did have a major in uence on those at the macro. It is a truism that contemporary politics can have a signi - cant effect on the types of history pursued by a given genera- tion, as well as on the research topics that interest its members. The sudden popularity of history from below in the 1960s especially the interest in ordinary people, social protest, and the behavior of crowds ’ – clearly re ected the political turmoil, social upheaval, and critical atmosphere of that decade. Changing political sensibilities and disappointments have since then marked a dramatic shift away from an interest in the plight of the working classes to that of other groups, including women, ethnic minorities, and colonial subjects. As Wendy Goldman has noted, Today, historians seem more interested in identity, nationality, ethnicity, globalisation, and transnational histories, which re ect in turn preoccupations of our contemporary world ( Bucur et al., 2009 : 199). That is undoubtedly true, yet recent political developments in a world increasingly dominated by global nancial institutions and structures seemingly beyond the control of ordinary individuals from the Arab Spring in the Middle East to the emergence of the Occupy Movement in the West might very well spark a renewed interest in people s history and the emphasis it places on the power and agency of ordinary individuals.

See also: Annales School; Anthropology and History; Boas, Franz (18581942); Cultural History; Ethnography; Everyday Life, Anthropology of; Family and Kinship, History of; Foucault, Michel (1926 84); Geertz, Clifford (1926 2006); Goffman, Erving (19221982); Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer: Bear and Leather Subcultures; Levi-Strauss, Claude (1908 2009); Life-style, History of the Concept; Materiality and Culture; Thick Description: Methodology.


Bell, D.A., 2002. Total history and microhistory: the French and Italian paradigms. In:

Kramer, L., Maza, S. (Eds.), A Companion to Western Historical Thought. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA and Oxford, pp. 262 276. Brewer, J., 2010. Microhistory and the histories of everyday life. Cultural and Social History 7 (1), 87 109. Bucur, M., Gavrilova, R., Goldman, W., Healy, M., Lebow, K., Pittaway, M., 2009. Six historians in search of Alltagsgeschichte. Aspasia 3, 189 212. Darnton, R., 1984. The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. Basic Books, New York. Eley, G., 1989. Labor history, social history, Alltagsgeschichte : experience, culture, and the politics of the everyday a new direction for German social history. The Journal of Modern History 61 (2), 297 343. Eley, G., 2005. A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. Ginzburg, C., 1980. The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Anne Tedeschi, Trans.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Ginzburg, C., 1993. Microhistory: two or three things that I know about it. Critical Inquiry 20 (1), 10 35. Gregory, B., 1999. Is small beautiful? Microhistory and the history of everyday life. History and Theory 38 (1), 100 110. Highmore, B., 2002a. Everyday Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction. Routledge, London and New York. Highmore, B., 2002b. Introduction: questioning everyday life. In: Highmore, B. (Ed.), The Everyday Life Reader. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1 34.

History from Below, the History of Everyday Life, and Microhistory


Hunt, L., 1989. Introduction: history, culture, and text. In: Hunt, L. (Ed.), The New Cultural History, pp. 122. Kuehn, T., 1989. Reading microhistory: the example of Giovanni and Lusanna. The Journal of Modern History 61 (3), 512 534. Le Roy Ladurie, E., 1978. Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in an French Village (Barbara Bray, Trans.). Scolar, London, pp. 1294 1324. Lepore, J., 2001. Historians who love too much: reections on microhistory and biography. The Journal of American History 88 (1), 129 144. Levi, G., 1988. Inheriting Power: The Story of an Exorcist (L.G. Cochrane, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Levi, G., 1991. On microhistory. In: Burke, P. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Writing. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 93113. Lüdtke, A., 1993. Eigen-Sinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik vom Kaiserreich bis in den Fascismus. Ergebnisse Verlag, Hamburg. Lüdtke, A., 1995. Introduction (W. Templer, Trans.). In: Lüdtke, A. (Ed.), The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 340. Muir, E., 1991. Introduction: observing tri es. In: Muir, E., Ruggiero, G. (Eds.), Microhistory and the Lost Peoples of Europe. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, pp. vii xxviii. Port, A.I., 2007. Con ict and Stability in the German Democratic Republic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Port, A.I., 2013. East German workers and the dark side of Eigensinn: divisive shop- oor practices and the failed revolution of 17 June 1953. In: Berghoff, H., Balbier, U. (Eds.), The East German Economy, 1945 2010: Falling Behind or Catching Up? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 111128. Revel, J., 1995. Microanalysis and the construction of the social. In: Revel, J., Hunt, L. (Eds.), Histories: French Constructions of the Past. The New Press, New York, pp. 492502.

Rosenhaft, E., 1987. History, anthropology, and the study of everyday life: a review article. Comparative Studies in State and History 29 (1), 99105. Sabean, D.W., 1990. Production, Property, and Family in Neckarhausen, 1700 1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Sabean, D.W., 1998. Kinship in Neckarhausen, 1700 1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Smith, H.W., 2002. The Butcher s Tale: Murder and Anti-Semitism in a German Town. W.W. Norton & Co., New York. Steege, P., Bergerson, A.S., Healy, M., Swett, P.E., 2008. The history of everyday life:

a second chapter. The Journal of Modern History 80 (2), 358 378. Thompson, E.P., 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. Vintage Books, New York. Thompson, E.P., 1971. The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present 50, 76 136.

Relevant Websites

www.microhistory.org Microhistory.org. www.microhistory.eu/bibliography.html Microhistory.org Bibliography. www.mulino.it/edizioni/riviste/issn/0301-6307 il Mulino. www.werkstattgeschichte.de History Workshop.