what is difference between history and social history?
x Turn on thread page Beta
- Thread Starter
- 03-03-2018 17:15
- Community Assistant
- 10-03-2018 17:14
Not sure why you titled this "anthropology" but the general gist on the matter I get is that "social history" considers the history "of the people" (aka, the masses/peasants/proletariat/whatever) whereas "history" tends to focus on key important political/religious figures and similar. Particularly, social history seems to focus more on "normal times" - what people did when they weren't dying/starving/at war.
Some things might include theatre attendance habits of the "lower classes", and considering the effect these had on e.g. larger scale economic, social and cultural factors. It's often researched alongside economic history, or lumped together with it, as they often coincide (economic changes often depending on the uptake of policies by the wider populace and so on).
It seems a much more colourful way of evaluating how the past "happened" !