The History Manifesto & Critiques
“The world around us is hungry for long-term thinking” -The History Manifesto
This week in ‘History in the Digital Age’, we read The History Manifesto by Jo Guldi and David Armitage, in addition to supplemental materials, including reviews, promotional materials for the book, and an AHR Exchange, starting with a critique by Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler and then a follow-up response from Guldi and Armitage.
The History Manifesto argues a number of things, but emphasizes this “moment of accelerating crisis that is characterized by the shortage of long-term thinking” or longue durée and that there is a “lack of long-range perspective in our culture (The History Manifesto, 1, 2). Guldi and Armitage argue that this is “a crisis of the humanities in general, and for history in particular” (AHR Exchange, 543). Essentially, as the cover states, five hundred years is arguably better than five years or months, especially when thinking in terms of understanding the past in relation to “our conflicted present” (The History Manifesto).
Guldi and Armitage received praise for their manifesto, many reviews highlighting this as a means to return to the “big questions,” “embrace long-term thinking and the possibilities of digital technology,” and “break… some disciplinary shackles that have mentally fettered the profession for the better part of a century.” Additionally, The History Manifesto authors received negative criticism, specifically in an AHR Exchange with Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler. Cohen and Mandler argue that Guldi and Armitage “offer [an] attempt to persuade everyone else to follow their [Guldi and Armitage’s] own chosen path” but the manifesto does not fully embrace its own methodology, nor does it give credit to the public role history and historians do have and enjoy (AHR Exchange, 530). The reviews, both positive and negative, have their merits, as does Guldi’s and Armitage’s response to their critiques. Though “bigger is not always better” and micro-histories have a place and an impact, Guldi and Armitage’s points are too, with merit.
My own response to both The History Manifesto and the additional materials, I think it is a matter of finding a balance between micro- and macro-histories. “Specialisation in knowledge” is not a pitfall and goes beyond professionalization, as Guldi and Armitage argue, but, at the same time, as historians, we also must remember to put these micro-stories/histories into a larger context. Whether it needs to be five-hundred years of context, I am not set on a response, but I do see where Guldi and Armitage’s arguments can come into play in that argument for longer histories. Though, to reiterate points made in the AHR Exchange, and one Guldi and Armitage make in their manifesto, time scales are based upon the questions we ask as historians. I think it also greatly depends on the audience one is trying to reach. Though, I think that is also a point with Guldi and Armitage, that maybe with this kind of work, audience(s) should be re-evaluated and thus, maybe the work as well.
Putting aside the debates the manifesto sparked, both in terms of positive and negative critiques, the impact it has had is exemplary. I think this is in large part due to the open-access of the manifesto, as well as the use of digital and social media platforms to not only advertise, but add to the discussion on the book. Guldi and Armitage turned to platforms such as YouTube and a blog to engage with their critics and audience, which clearly has had an impact on the reception and use of this work. I think not only this form of marketing and use of platforms is useful, but also thinking about the AHR Exchange as a means to have almost a “live” or maybe an interactive exchange provides something different than what a typical book review would necessarily do.
