One of the first things my professor in History and Historians taught me was that history has always been controversial. History has the power to shape and change nations, peoples, and individual identities and because of this, History terrifies those in power. So it is very interesting to read the arguments within The History Manifesto by Jo Guldi and David Armitage that seem to view the recent scholarship within the field as that of a discipline in a state of decline. Guldi and Armitage break down what they argue is the contraction of historical time over the past 50 years. Focusing on what they deem to be “microhistories” or any historical research that has focused on time ranging between 5 and 50 years and call for a return to the far-reaching narratives like that of Braudel and his philosophy of longue durée.

The use of digital tools like Guldi’s Paper Machines is important for examining the big data that Chapter four of Manifesto focuses on. There is indeed a massive amount of data and information that historians are expected to read, analyze, and interpret. Guldi and Armitage embrace developing technologies and the potential future they have within the field of history. With the creation of an information age like the one we live in now the ideas shared and paperwork completed across society is increasingly more publicly available. With this increase in data comes data that historians are expected to understand and interpret. Guldi and Armitage identify this problem when they discuss how much of the big data they wish for historians to embrace is still in the process of being digitized and many aspects of these digital archives are undisturbed. They are fountains of untapped resources with no one to go through them (Guldie and Armitage, 110). Guldi and Armitage do provide a path forward with longue durée in mind. They see a world where historical research at universities embraces large scale analysis, and utilizes digital tools that can model the patterns within sources by giving students the tools needed to effectively engage with digitized data and understand how that data should be interpreted.

Yes, in a world in which digital technologies continue to mount and offer more and more publicly available sources it is important that they are examined and utilized in the ever-evolving more complete history we as historians all strive to contribute to. Historians must be careful though. Guldi and Armitage argue that historians have given their positions within the political and economic world away from trained professionals because they have spent so much time focusing on short spans of time, unable to contribute to the problems that face a focused modern world. Cohen and Mandel disagree stating that the idea of the public, that needs to be influenced by historians as only being those in power or with the ability to influence problems faced by modern society is incorrect. Moreso they seem to be frustrated by Guldi and Armitage’s lack of recognition of the work done by historians across the field and their work with politicians, businesses, etc. (Cohen and Mandel, 538).

In their reply, Guldi and Armitage address this critique and mention that while they acknowledge there have been some sections of academia that have been examining longue durée and its impact or potential assistance with public policy, much of the public world is without the history that Guldi and Armitage believe needs to be included (Guldi and Armitage, 546).

I agree with the critique of Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandel that being able to take these vast amounts of data and turn and then manipulate them in such a way as to make simple definitions of historical topics as “microhistories.” (Cohen, Mandel, 535). There’s no reason to deny that world histories are an important part of the historical discipline and the idea of analyzing larger periods of time seems attractive. However especially when it comes to histories of disadvantaged groups the idea of breaking down the exponential growth of these topics within the last 50 years seems to throw away the importance of understanding details within the big data that Guldi and Armitage are so interested in. Microhistories are an important part of history, as are the larger stretches of time that Guldi and Armitage want more of. However, I believe that time is relative. Just as Cohen and Mandel state, trying to make a correlation between two far off points in history and their relationship to each other seems like one is merely grasping at straws. (Cohen and Mandel, 536). Especially when one is looking at a topic that has mountains of documentation like economic or government data, even 50 years can be a useful signal for the patterns and changes of topics through the lens of longue durée.

Guldi, Jo and David Armitage. The History Manifesto. 2nd ed. Online: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Cohen, Deborah, Peter Mandel and Jo Guldi, David Armitage. “AHR Exchange: On The History Manifesto.” American Historical Review, 2015.