I'm having with this question just cant see the issues involved to provoke any real thought on it.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to the historian of adopting a sociological approach to the past?
Thanks if you decide to help me
Difficult question Watch
- Thread Starter
- 08-12-2010 02:41
- 13-01-2011 23:26
I think that means something to do with social history which was 'invented' in the 1960s -- previously historians have been 'whiggish' after Cromwell i.e. they saw things as a line of progression or 'tory' which means that they view history as 'top-down' i.e. history of the élites what activities they do e.g. what they do in politics and is more like what happened on a specific day etc.
Social history is the 'new history' i.e. most modern historians and universities take this modern approach by studying from 'down-below' i.e. the everyday people.
So to answer your question I think it means what are the advantages of studying this down-below approach = that it gives a wider perspective of what the population thought at the time and that's all I can think of sry