fM

$ut'tEi%/

(^ti

0"8

ifr:t'TTh'4tr-

L6- 9€n lLeg

.I-^/

7y16gEc.

F_y'tt c4'TTat4z

tqq,

I}OOK REVIBWS

UK.
on HistoricalWriting.Cambridge,
PeterBurke,ed.NewPerspectives
ISBN 0-7456-0501,
PolityPress,1991.254 pp.Index.Hardcover,
$ 13.95
ISBN0-271-00834-2,
$32.50;Softcover,
on Historical Writing, a bookeditedby PeterBurke
NewPerspectives
by tendifferentwriters
of elevenchapters
of theUnitedKingdom,consists
Collectively,the authorspresenta
(Burkehimselfwrote two chapters).
behindmodern
surveyof someof thethinkingandmethodology
fascinating
practices.The purposeof this book is to assessthe
historiographical
Of a few "relativelyrecentmovements,"or
strengthsand weaknesses
"new history"(p.
to whatBurkeandhis fellow authorscall the
approaches,
2).
In the openingchapter,Burkedefinesthe traditionalhistoriographic
paradigmas "Rankeanhistory,"afterthe work of the highly influential
GermanhistorianLeopoldvon Ranke.He statesthat
nineteenth-century
"has
often-too often-been assumedto be the way of
Rankeanhistory
doinghistory,ratherthanbeingperceivedasone amongvariouspossible
"new history" is difficult to define
to the past" (p. 3). The
approaches
thanwhatit does.However,Burke
it is moreaboutwhatit opposes
because
betweentheold andnewapproaches.
describes
sevenprincipaldifferences
mainlywith politics,including
First,traditionalhistoryis concerned
church and military affairs,with the arts and sciencestreatedonly
with almost
marginally.The new histofy,on the otherhand,is concerned
"[t]he
"human
activity."The Burkenotesthat
aspectof
everyimaginable
philosophical
foundationof thenewhistoryis theideathatrealityis socially
or culturallyconstituted"(p. 3). From 1900-50,the new historydealt
primarilywith the historyof ideas.Sinceabout1960,historianshave
"childhood,death,madness,
tackledsuchdiversetopicsas the historyof

203

BooxRwrnvs
the climate,smells,dirt andcleanliness,
gestures,
the body . . ., Femininity
. . ., reading. . ., speaking,and evensilence"(p.3).
The seconddifferencebetweenthe old and new paradigmsis that
traditionalhistoriansview historyas a "narrativeof events"(p. 4), whereas
new historiansdeal more with the structureof events.The third difference,
relatedto the second,is that traditionalhistory takesa view from "above,"
that is of greatmen-such as statesmen,generals,and the like-whereas
the new historytendsto look at eventsfrom "below."
Fourth, traditionalhistoriansrely heavily on official documents,
whereasnew historiansutilize a wide variety of materials,including
numericalsources,to gain insightsinto the "below" aspectsof history.
Similarly, traditional history focuses on the thinking and actions of
individuals,whereasthe new historydealsmore with collectivemovements
and trends.
Sixth, when historiographybecamethe provinceof professional,
largely university-basedhistoriansduring the nineteenthcentury, its
practitionersadoptedthe notion of objectivity from their scientificuniversity
colleagues.The new historians,on the other hand, believe that cultural
relativismpreventsunbiasedaccountsby any historians,traditionalor new.
Finally, althoughthe new history is not really new, during the 1970sand
1980s "its practitioners"became"extremely numerousand . . . they
refuse[dJto be marginalized"(p. 8).
After attemptingto definethe new history,Burke proceedsto discuss
four major problem areas encounteredby its practitioners.First, he
discussesproblemsof definitions,such as the fact that Westernersusedto
treat world history as Westernculrure on the one hand and all other history
on the other.As anotherexample,he askswhether"a history of medicine
from below" should "concern itself with folk-healersas opposedto
professionalphysicians,or with the patients'experiences
. . ." (p. l0).
"problems
Next, Burke treats
of sources,"which he deemsthe new
"greatest
historians'
problem" (p. l2). He declaresthat the use of
quantitative sources has been "[t]he greatest-and the most
(p. l4). Indeed,
controversial-innovation
in methodin the lastgeneration"

tsooxRrvrews

S

S

I

i ,

s

v
rl
d

v
is
o

v
ie
o
N

'f
. 1

rl,

I

205

q u a n ti fi ca ti o nh a s " p o lar izeId] the pr ofession into suppor ter sand
(p . l 5 ).
o p p o n e n ts"
Explanationsfor historical happeningsconstitutethe third set of
problemsconfrontedby new historians.Burke notes that economicand
social historiansof the 1950sand 1960swere attractedto "determinist
models of historicalexplanation"(p. l6), such as thoseMarxist scholars
and researchersin the fields of geographyand population movements
proffered.He suggeststhat elites and ordinary peopleface different choices
and act from differentmotivations.He believesthat "the most attractive
models" today, unlike Marxism and other early models, are those that
"emphasizethe freedom
of choice of ordinary people" (p. 8). The new
history also includes psychohistoryand its analysesof unconscious
motives, as opposedto traditional historical accountsof leaders,which
"overestimatethe importance
and rationality"(p. l6). He
of consciousness
"way
believesthat perhapsa
out" of the difficult questionof whetherpeople
act as groups or as individuals would be to "recognize the extent of
individual freedomwithin certainlimits set by the culture" (p. l7).Finally,
Burke discussesproblems of synthesiscaused by the proliferation of

subgroups
of historians
andtheexpandingfield of inquiry.

In the secondchapter,"History from Below," Jim Sharpetracesthe
origin of that term to a 1966 London TimesLiterary Supplementarticle
written by a Marxist-influencedhistorian.He then discussesproblemsof
evidencehistoriansfacewhen attemptinghistory from below, such as the
fact that, in general,sourcesfor ordinary people are sparsebefore the late
eighteenthcentury.Sharpealso says that notions about "the people" as a
unitary group are not valid becausesince the sixteenthcenturythey have
tendedto be "a rathervariedgroup" (p.27). Essentially,history from below
can be accomplishedfrom quantitativesourcesand from in-depth accounts
of individuals such as thosefound in diaries and memoirs.He concludes
that history from below has been attempted on a wide variety of
geographicalregionsfrom the thirteenththroughthe twentiethcenturies,and
that is "has provedunusuallyfruitful" (p. 35). In the end, though,Sharpe
statesthat "history from below has so far had comparativelylittle impact on
mainstreamhistory or on alteringthe perspectivesof mainstreamhistorians"

206

Boor Revmws

(p.37), whosehistoryhe definesaspoliticalhistory,at leastaspracticedby
Britishhistorians.
In th e ch a pter on women' s histor y Joan Scott uses the ter m
"movement"becauseduring the past two decadeswomen's studieshave
" c r os s ta ke n o n a " d yn amic quality" that is "cr oss- national"and
disciplinary"(p. 42). She notesthat althoughthe United Statesprovides
much of the leadership,this movementis internationalin scope.Scott
tacklesthedifficult issueof thepoliticalnatureof the women'smovementin
generaland of the women's studiesmovementin particular.She states
directlythatboth are innatelypoliticaland centeron issuesof power.For
example,shesaysforthrightlythat:
Many of thosewriting women'shistoryconsiderthemselvesinvolvedin a highly
political effort to challengeprevailing authority in the professionand the
universityand to changethe way historyis written(p. a3).

Scottnotesfurtherthat "we needto think aboutwomen'shistoryas a
(p.44).
production"
dynamicstudyin thepoliticsof knowledge
"Overseas
HenkWesseling's
chapter,
History,"tracesthe originsof
the term to post-WorldWar II British and Europeanstudiesof colonial
history.DespiteWesseling's
bestefforts,thischapterbetraystheparochial,
He lists
historians.
attitudesstill heldby mostmainstream
Euro-centric
world
history
problemswith periodization,
sources,and synthesisin
in additionto overcomingtraditionalviewsto the effectthat
approaches,
peopleshaveno realhistory.
non-European
"Microhistor),"thesubjectof the nextchapter,arosein the 1970sasa
paradigms
to explain
reactionagainst
theperceived
failureof socialscience
of positivist
groupbehavior.In attributingthis failureto the inadequacies
research,
GiovanniLevi seemsto equatepositivismwith scholarlyMarxist
models,whenin realitythelatteris but a subsetof theformer.The alleged
moreto
failuresof pastpositivisthistorical
explanations
shouldbe attributed
thanto positivismper se. Nevertheless,
ideology-driven
Marxistresearch
for in-depthstudiesof
Levi makesclearand convincingarguments
particularaspectsof history,an approachcalled"microhistory,"to

lbv
erm
l ave
OSS-

'ides
i cott
nt in
tates
For

ly
te

asa
r s of
>nial
hial ,
l i st s
;tory
that
asa
plain
tivi st
rxist
eged
)reto
:l ess ,
:S Of

"to

compensate
for theshortcomings
of socialhistorydeterrninistic
modelsthat
missthe specifics,andthoseof anthropological
(qualitative)
approaches
that
rely so heavilyon relativisticnotionsthatthey missthe generalizations.
The strongchapteron microhistoryprecedesa relativelyweak oneon
oral history.Gwyn Prinsdoesmakethe casethat oral historycould andhas
beenusedas a meansof overcomingtraditionalhistorians'biasesagainst
non-literateculturesasbeing"history-less"becauseof their failureto record
significanteventsin writing.Indeed,prominenthistorians,evensomein the
secondhalf of the twentiethcentury,have stated,essentially,that African
and Native American Indian tribes are without history and therefore
unworthy of study. In the end, Prins agreeswith thosewho criticize oral
history for being "trappedin the small scale" (p. l3a). She fails to describe
a wide enough array of successfulcasesoral history applicationsto
convincethe readerof its efficacy, somethingthat could have been done
readily. Instead,Prins seemsto view oral history mainly as a meansfor
checkingthe validity of other sources,an approachthat still does nothing
for non-literatecultures,including defacto non-literamresubcultureswithin
larger literateones.
The next four chaptersdeal,respectively,with scholarlywork on the
history of reading,images(mainly visual art), political thought, and the
humanbody. It seemscuriousthat the chapteron overseashistory was not
included,with theseotherfour chapterson relativelyspecifictopical areas
of historicalstudyandthe remainingchaptersof the book groupedtogether
in a separate
sectionon historicalmethodology.Regardless,
the uninspiring
chapterson readingby Robert Darnton and political thought by Richard
Tuck deal with the failureof historiansof readingto developa synthesisof
someof their voluminousstatisticalstudieson readinghabits,particularly
acrosscultures,and of the temerityof political historianswith regardto their
beliefs in the strengthsof their own political theories-which the author
deemsa sacrificeto deconstructionist
tendencies.

RoyPorter'schapter
on thehistoryof thebodydevelops
theimportant
ideathatthesehistoriesarenot reallyaboutthebodyasa physicalentity,but
ratherhistoriesof theway variousreligiousandsocial"valuesystems"(p.
212) viewedthe bodyat differenttimesin history.In otherwords,". . .the

Boox Revtsws

208

'body' cannotbe treatedby the historianas

a biologicalgiven,but mustbe
regardedas mediatedthroughculturalsign systems"(p. 215).This theme
mi g h t so u n dfa mi l i ar to thosefamiliar with the liter atur eon m us i c al
aesthetics,as opposedto the literatureon structuralmusic history and
theory.However,the authorgoeson to statethat:
The apportionmentof functionand responsibilitybetweenbody and mind,
body andsoul,differsnotablyaccordingto century,class,circumstances
and
culture,and societiesoften possessa plurality of competingmeanings(p.

2ts).
Indeed, music aestheticiansto date have been far less successfulin
identifyingsimilaritiesanddifferencesin aestheticand othermusicalvalues
acrossand betweenculturesand time periodsthan in developingtheories
about a particular type of music producedin Western Europe during a
relativelybrief period of time.
Perhapsthe chapterof most interestto music educatorsis the excellent
one on the historyof images.Ivan Gaskellnotesthe increasingcriticism(in
somecircles) of art historiansfor focusingon works of arts,as well as their
"perceptionof qualitative
hierarchies"(p. 169)within this body works. He
then presentssome thought-provokingquestionsabout the practice of
canonizingworks of art and the artiststhemselves,and how such canons
can shift, often as a result of "factors . . . not necessarilyprimarily to do
with artisticissues"(p. 180).
This same chapter might be the most interestingone for music
educationhistoriansas well. The authordealswith suchdifficult questions
as the extentto which, and in which ways, a work of art significantin its
own time can remain significantto later generations.He suggeststhat art
"criticism which
openly engageswith currentcultural and socialconcerns
and which does not claim unprovableaccessto universaland perpetual
'truths'may
b e l e s sl i k e l yt o m i s l e a d . . . "( p . 1 8 5 ) .
In the book's final chapter,PeterBurke notesthat "The so-called
'opera-house'definition culrure(as
of
high art, literature,music,and so
on) was narrow but at leastit was precise"(p. l0). This also relatesto

Boor Revnws

te

rl
rd

n

)S
S

a

)t
n
r
,f
S
.l

209

mu si c e d u ca ti o nh i sto ry, whosepr actitioner have
s
tendedto examin e
outstanding
individualsandthe activitiesof prof-essional
organizations,
but
not ordinarymusic teachersand studentsor informal,
non-schoolmodesof
musicteachingandlearning.l
An articleon certaindemographicaspectsof membership
of the Music
EducatorsNationalconference
i,new
IMENc) is an exampleof a
history,,
approachin music education.It deals with history from
below in that it
focuses on regular, or ordinary, members of the MENC,
and it relies
primarily on a quantitativeapproach.Historians
might employ such
approacheswith other aspectsof music educationhistory.z
This book will be of interestto scholarsinterestedin n.*
approaches
and subjectmatter in music educationhistory. It is
a thought_provoking
book that deservesseriousattentionfrom professional
historians.

-Jere T. Humphreys,
ArizonaStateUniversitv