UM Historical Methods Value of Interdisciplinary Influences on History Discussion

Discussion #2: The Social Sciences Approach ~ Quantitative History

**For this discussion read the articles by Tilly (Value of Interdisciplinary Influences on History) & Hanagan and Fogel (the examples of Quantitative History in use).

This week’s discussion on interpretive approaches continues some of the themes that we introduced in our conversations about the Materialist Approach (Marxism and Annales), especially around the debates over who/what are the prime movers in historical change – structures or individuals. Historical “agency”means who or what caused change to occur in the past. Agency is about who was the historical agent of change, that is which individual or social forced produced the historical events we study. One big and ongoing debate amongst historians is what causes change: individuals or larger forces known as structures. Examples of historical structures include economic issues and forces (work, company structures, government aid, etc.), religious beliefs, class (both materially and culturally – things like education, family, sports organizations, etc.) – this should look familiar to you, as the Materialist approaches from last week all favored structures as the prime movers in history, not individuals. Historians who favor a structuralist interpretation argue that how people interact with these bigger forces cause change rather than individual historical figures.

The Social Sciences Approach (or Interdisciplinary) examines some of the social science inspired approaches that some of early Annalists argued in favor of – in this discussion we will consider Quantitative History (a bit of a fusion between History and Economics). The Quantitative Approach favors structures in that it attempts to flesh out patterns in history – that humans react predictably to historical events, and so we can predict historical outcomes. This is somewhat in opposition to the idea of agency – that individuals act with a certain amount of freedom, and that sometimes human reactions to historical events cannot be predicted, or don’t necessarily follow patterns.

Once you have read and reflected on the readings above, answer the following questions in your initial post:

1. What are Tilly’s main arguments for the value of an interdisciplinary approach to researching and writing history (e.g. using theory and approaches from some of the other Social Sciences to inform the work of historians)? Do you see any problems in this approach?

2. What is Quantitative History about? What sort of evidence does this approach use (see the example by Fogel)? What ideas from Empiricism influenced the Quantitative History approach? Does Quantitative History see individuals or structures as having more historical agency? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this historical approach?

3. How is the Social Sciences approach to understanding the historical past a rejection of political biography (part of the Empiricist approach), which was the most common type of History produced in the West until World War I? What do the supporters of Quantitative History see as missing in biography?

4. Given your take on the readings this week and last, what do you see as causing historical change: people (either individuals or social groups) or historical structures. Why? (This is a really important question of all historians to define as it shapes the very basic core of how you look at History; from our discussion on cause and effect – have your ideas about this debate changed after the readings this week?).

Post your initial post here. Then come back and respond to at least two more of your peers’ initial posts along with any questions addressed to you. The material this week is challenging, but try to provide an in-depth demonstration of your understanding of the readings through both your initial post and peer responses. If you have any questions, please ask.

I have included all the source material for this discussion. The format is Chicago style

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/cliometrics/