Page 100 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 100
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 3–4
understanding of wider issues at play. Very tightly limited both spatially
and temporally, a microhistory might appear of rather limited impor-
tance to a reader whose interests lie beyond that particular point in time
and space but in fact, the approach does have certain advantages. The au-
thor of such a history is usually an expert in their field, knowing not just
the generalities but also the minutiae of their study. This allows a level of
depth not usually found in more broadly based works. In addition, they
may avoid the natural biases that come in macrohistories from the area
of specialization of the author.
If we sum up: when a macrohistorian “takes a long view of histo-
ry, looking at multiple societies and nations over the course of centuries
to reach broad-ranging conclusions about the march of history”, making
“conjectures based on averages”, for a microhistorian he may be commit-
ting a Straw Man fallacy, namely taking facts and data from a particular
(micro) context and projecting them on a much larger screen. Such a gen-
eralization necessary implies “conjectures based on averages”, while con-
jectures based on averages usually qualify as another (very general) fallacy,
namely “hasty generalization” or Secundum Quid.
On the other hand, when microhistorian “concentrates upon a sin-
gle individual or community”, “very tightly limited both spatially and
temporally”, he is – again, but from the opposite direction – taking facts
and data from a much larger (macro) context and restricting them to a
much narrower screen. Thus he may be committing a Straw Man fallacy
for a macrohistorian, as well as a hasty generalization or Secundum Quid,
because he is not taking into account all the elements of a larger picture.
We could, once more, represent this relationship as follows:
98
understanding of wider issues at play. Very tightly limited both spatially
and temporally, a microhistory might appear of rather limited impor-
tance to a reader whose interests lie beyond that particular point in time
and space but in fact, the approach does have certain advantages. The au-
thor of such a history is usually an expert in their field, knowing not just
the generalities but also the minutiae of their study. This allows a level of
depth not usually found in more broadly based works. In addition, they
may avoid the natural biases that come in macrohistories from the area
of specialization of the author.
If we sum up: when a macrohistorian “takes a long view of histo-
ry, looking at multiple societies and nations over the course of centuries
to reach broad-ranging conclusions about the march of history”, making
“conjectures based on averages”, for a microhistorian he may be commit-
ting a Straw Man fallacy, namely taking facts and data from a particular
(micro) context and projecting them on a much larger screen. Such a gen-
eralization necessary implies “conjectures based on averages”, while con-
jectures based on averages usually qualify as another (very general) fallacy,
namely “hasty generalization” or Secundum Quid.
On the other hand, when microhistorian “concentrates upon a sin-
gle individual or community”, “very tightly limited both spatially and
temporally”, he is – again, but from the opposite direction – taking facts
and data from a much larger (macro) context and restricting them to a
much narrower screen. Thus he may be committing a Straw Man fallacy
for a macrohistorian, as well as a hasty generalization or Secundum Quid,
because he is not taking into account all the elements of a larger picture.
We could, once more, represent this relationship as follows:
98
