Blog Post #5: The History Manifesto: Historians and Longue Durée Scholarship in the Age of Big Data

 In The History Manifesto, coauthors Jo Guldi and David Armitage put forth an intense call to action for historians to return to the longue durée style of historical analysis, using trends and big data to inform policy decisions and future prognostications. The authors claim that historians trended toward the “Short Past” in the 1970s, covering time spans equivalent to the average life expectancy rather than the centuries and long-term themes that preceded this turn toward the short term (with reference to the Annales School and Fernand Braudel).[1] Furthermore, the authors argue that historians have lodged themselves with the ivory tower, producing micro-monographs targeted for a specific, elite, academic audience – ultimately failing to produce answers for contemporary challenges and removing themselves from an important seat within public policy making. By returning to the longue durée method of writing history, historians will 1) be able to answer contemporary issues and 2) better engage with society and policy.

Personally, I did not entirely agree with the arguments presented – one reason being the perceived lack of current historical engagement with the public, another reason being the glaring misuse of evidence to support their claims. As a student on the public history track, reading that there is little to no interaction with the public regarding historical analysis felt blatantly…. wrong? Public history was built on the foundation of moving outside of academia, outside of the ivory tower, and engaging with the public in navigable, digestible words and positions. Historians do not just work in the university, but they are teachers, museum curators, archivists, librarians – all public-facing, sometimes governmental positions. One method of public engagement that public historians use is microhistory, simply because it is digestible and sometimes more relatable than a lengthy monograph is, especially to the general public. Guldi and Armitage do credit microhistories with spearheading important movements in attending to lost narratives and lesser-heard voices that were ignored by Rankean and early Annales methodologies but claim that contemporary complacence with microhistories as THE form of university-produced history is detrimental to future prognosis, policy-making, and the study of history altogether. Conversely, the data they provide regarding short-termism (Ben Schmidt’s “What Years Do Historians Write About?”) concludes the opposite trend – more and more university dissertations have covered longer time periods than what the authors suggest.[2] This does not support their argument for a retreat from the longue durée – and their disregard for microhistory as an important mechanism for focusing on important small events that do, in fact, aid to the big picture, is disharmonious with their argument altogether.

Reading the AHR Exchange and the decisive criticism from Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler did elicit some agreement from me. Both authors discuss this data discrepancy, note the inherent discourse within Guldi and Armitage’s arguments, and condemn the book’s seemingly pigeonholed and narrow view of the history profession. In the critique, they note that manifestos are usually “rallying cries to lead soldiers into battle,” but that “historians are not soldiers,” and as such should not be expected to adhere to one specific dogma – rather, historiography is itself proof of mixed-modality and methodology, which keeps the profession alive within several different stages.[3]

In terms of the response from Armitage and Guldi to these critiques, the Manifesto authors refer to Cohen and Mandler as mere “hanging judges,” and reinforce that their use of Schmidt’s data is apt because data can be interpreted in different ways.[4] However, Schmidt himself interprets his data to suggest the same conclusions as Cohen and Mandler do, which makes the Manifesto authors’ claims and arguments hard to digest – especially when they are pushing for good, trustworthy, superb history to be done. Good history is built on good evidence, and the empirical issues reflected in the first version of the book are too cumbersome to overlook. Even with the revised figures, the authors will find trouble in supporting the main argument of their books when the data they are using continues to suggest the opposite of what they want to prove.

The History Manifesto, while not without error, does provide an important example of open-access publications and the quick revision that can result. In making the book free to read and encouraging discussion about the topics presented, the authors do well in exemplifying the public discourse they heavily argue for in their book. Moreover, in response to their peer’s critiques and worries, the authors revised the book, at a much faster rate than print publications would be able to accomplish, allowing for the quicker dissemination of accurate evidence to replace inaccurate evidence. The History Manifesto certainly got people to talk about the profession at large and leaves the topic open for continued discussion and debate.

Questions for discussion:

1. Were Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler too harsh and judgmental in their critiques of The History Manifesto? Is there a line crossed between academic professionalism and emotional pillory?
2. The critique was not sought out and as such does not follow the AHR Exchange’s guidelines for book reviews (mainly discussing the book’s central arguments, strengths, and weaknesses, etc.) Do you think that, without adhering to the guidelines normally set forth by the AHR, the critique is weakened?
3. Do you agree with the critiques’ central arguments – that the Manifesto authors manufactured a problem of short-term history in the discipline in order to point out the advantages of long-term history, and that the misuse of empirical data ultimately negates the book?

 

---

[1] Jo Guldi and David Armitage, The History Manifesto, (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pg. 10.

[2] Jo Guldi and David Armitage, The History Manifesto, (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pg. 39.

[3] Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler, "The History Manifesto: A Critique," The American Historical Review 120, no. 2 (2015): pgs. 530-542.

[4] David Armitage and Jo Guldi, "The History Manifesto: A Reply to Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler," The American Historical Review 120, no. 2 (2015): pgs. 543-554.