Schools of Historiography IB History

structuralist

historians believe that large economic, political, cultural, etc. structures in society will determine the path of history

determinists

extreme structuralists, related to marxists, belive there are laws of history determining how events will unfold; history is a natural science

marxists

emphasize social class and economic patterns in determining historical outcomes, generally deterministic, focuses on economic classes and political power

liberals

think that individual actions and decisions play a major part in history

annales

historians focus on geography and the availability of resources or the debates over those resources, and the impact on climate and change

“great man” theory

related to liberals and annales, emphasizes ability of intelligent, charismatic individuals to shape history

social darwinists

history is an ongoing experiment in evolution, societal progress is determined by survival of the fittest, strong countries replace weaker or decadent ones

whig

present that past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy

historicism (late 19thC)

leopold von ranke pioneered a scientific approach to study of history based on observation of sources, show history as it really was

accidentalist

accidents are the main driving force of historical change

intentionalist

the free will of individuals are the main driving force of historical change

hegelian

intellectual movements are the main driving force of historical changes

postmodernism (late 20thC)

foucault argued that because historical sources are biased, incomplete, and language itself has no fixed meaning, the past will always be essentially unknowable

empiricism

history as a science

nihilism

lessons cannot be drawn from history because it has no particular path

teleology

lessons can be drawn from history, because it has a path which we can choose to follow or to change

determinism

lessons cannot be drawn from history because it as a path which we cannot change

philosophy

history as an art

the traditional school (pre-1900)

focuses on political, diplomatic, military decision-making, qualitative rather than quantitative data, emphasizes great man theory and influenced by european writings of napoleon

the progressive school (1900-1940s)

focuses on industrialization and urbanization, emphasizes competition and rise of diff groups (rich vs poor, special interests vs people, aristocracy vs democracy, liberalism vs conservatism, agrarianism vs capitalism), de-emphasizes political history, instead looks to social sciences that can be applied back to history

the consensus school (1940s-1960s)

shared ideas of americans are more important than conflicts between them, reflects emergence of us as global superpower, celebrates role of american democratic capitalism in world affairs and accomplishments, etc.

the new left school (1960s-1980s)

reflects polarization over civil rights, vietnam war, feminism, gay rights, poverty, suspicious of american intentions in world affairs, emphasizes pluralism and the violent, racist, repressive aspects of society

the neo-conservative school (1980s-present)

reaction to new left, re-assertion of consensus historiography, stresses traditional american values, downplays social conflicts and considers new left historians to be politically correct ideologues, suspicious of use of federal power, except to support the free market or traditional values