I went to a Barnes & Noble yesterday and couldn’t help but notice that exactly none of the books on their microhistory table met the academic definition of microhistory as I was taught it. Now, there are some disagreements on how closely microhistory has to stick to the original Italian version, but I’m pretty sure that any academic definition would exclude Sapiens. Which was on the Barnes & Noble table.
I don’t remember the definition the table used, but the B&N website describes microhistory as “Read up on these wonderful, wild and weird slices of our world, from the everlasting hunt for cryptids to tiny creatures that shape our ecosystems to the backstory of our very own backsides. Impress your friends and family with fun facts they’ll never see coming.” https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/must-read-microhistories/. Goodreads calls it “Social Histories Of Just One Thing.” https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1058.Microhistory_Social_Histories_of_Just_One_Thing. All of these lists think that Salt by Mark Kurlansky and Stiff by Mary Roach are microhistories, despite their very broad geographic and chronological scope.
There isn’t a single academic definition of microhistory, but I think this from EBSCO is useful: “Microhistory is a historical approach that focuses on small, specific units of analysis—such as an individual, a community, or a singular event—to uncover broader themes and issues within history. This methodology, which emerged in Italy during the 1970s, was a response to traditional historical narratives that often emphasized sweeping statements and prominent figures. Microhistorians seek to reveal the complexities of everyday life, often highlighting ordinary individuals or marginalized voices, thus aligning with social history perspectives.” https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/microhistory.
From what I’ve seen, academic microhistory needs to either be geographically limited or to focus on a particular person or group. Chronological limitation is also preferred, but that’s not as necessary, or at least is more flexible. Microhistory should also focus on more marginal/ized voices in history: a biography of Henry VIII would not be microhistory.
I can sort of see how these academic definitions would lead to people seeing Salt as microhistory, since it focuses on something seen as “small.” Still, the extremely broad range of the title makes it obviously outside the scope of academic microhistory.
So my question is, how and when did this popular understanding of microhistory come about? What led to people saying their favorite type of history is microhistory, and just meaning that they like when a history book focuses on a single theme with a broad chronological and geographical range? Does anyone know this history of microhistory? I found an article by historian Rebecca Hill that shows professional historians are aware of this popular conception and have tried to combat it, but she doesn’t seem to know exactly where and how this understanding came about. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/this-is-microhistory
Sources:
Popular (mis)understanding of microhistory:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/must-read-microhistories/
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1058.Microhistory_Social_Histories_of_Just_One_Thing
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/this-is-microhistory
Academic definitions of microhistory:
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/microhistory
https://sites.duke.edu/microworldslab/what-is-microhistory/
Some actual microhistory books I’ve read:
The Cheese and the Worms by Carlo Ginzburg (The original Italian type of microhistory - narrow in chronology and place, seeking to disrupt larger Annales type narratives)
The Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Zemon-Davis (Anglophone microhistory, somewhat close to the Italian model)
The Voices of Morebath by Eamon Duffy (a model of microhistory as confirming a grand narrative instead of refuting one, at least how I remember it)