You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
The discipline of history, while continuing to produce valuable scholarship, is in a rut. The kind of methodological, conceptual and theoretical breakthroughs that took place in the 1970s—with the rise of the new social and new cultural history and the opening of wholly new fields, such as environmental history, the new labor history, urban history, and women’s history—are now a half century in the past.
If we are to revitalize history, we must reconsider how historians are trained and ask ourselves what a “new history” might look like.
One factor contributing to the current rut is overspecialization and fragmentation. Over time, historical scholarship has become increasingly specialized. While specialization allows for deep expertise in specific areas, it has also led to a fragmentation of the field, where historians focus on narrower topics and methods, at the expense of broader, interdisciplinary approaches.
Another contributor is risk aversion. The academic environment today is risk-averse, with young scholars under intense pressure to produce work that fits within established frameworks and methodologies to secure funding, tenure and publication. This can discourage the kind of bold, innovative thinking that leads to major breakthroughs.
Yet another factor is a shift in graduate education, above all, a lack of interdisciplinary training. There is little emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate the social sciences, which has limited historians’ ability to engage with broader theoretical and methodological debates.
There’s been a decline in training in demographics, econometrics and quantitative methods. In the 1970s, the rise of the new social history brought quantitative methods to the forefront, but these approaches have since been swept to the margins in many history programs. As a result, most historians lack the tools to engage with data-driven research.
The cultural turn in history, with its emphasis on discourse, representation and identity, led to important insights but also shifted focus away from the social and economic structures that were central to earlier forms of social history. While this has enriched historical analysis, it has come at the cost of broader, more systemic inquiries.
In addition, major theoretical frameworks that energized historical scholarship in the 1970s—such as neo-Marxism, structuralism, and postmodernism— have lost some of their transformative power.
To rejuvenate the field, history graduate programs need to place greater emphasis on interdisciplinary training in order to equip future historians with a broader range of tools and perspectives.
Reintroducing training in quantitative methods, demographics and econometrics could open new avenues for research. Familiarity with data analysis would enable historians to tackle questions about long-term trends, population movements, economic change, and other large-scale phenomena that are central to understanding historical processes.
History also needs to embrace new theoretical frameworks. After all, feminist frameworks, postmodernism and critical race theory are more than 50 years old.
What might these new frameworks look like?
A more comparative and global approach could break new ground by looking at historical phenomena across different regions, eras and cultures. This would involve not only comparing similar events or trends but also exploring connections, exchanges and interactions on a global scale.
A new history could also be more holistic, integrating social, economic, cultural, political and environmental factors into a single analysis. This would involve synthesizing insights from various subfields of history and related disciplines to create a more comprehensive understanding of historical processes.
Above all, history needs to reengage with the social sciences, incorporating theories and methodologies from economics, sociology, political science and psychology. This could lead to more robust explanations of historical change, especially in areas such as the history of capitalism, state formation or social movements.
A new history would incorporate complexity and systems thinking, analyzing historical processes as dynamic, interconnected systems. This approach would allow historians to explore the nonlinear and often unpredictable nature of historical change, offering insights into how small events can have large, systemic impacts.
We already see glimpses of what the new history would look like. One example is Kyle Harper’s Plagues Upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History, a global history that traces the role of disease in the transition to farming, the spread of cities, the advance of transportation, and the sharp increase in human population, and shows that the story of disease is entangled with the history of slavery, colonialism and capitalism.
Another is Peter Frankopan’s The Earth Transformed: An Untold History, which reveals how climate change has dramatically shaped the development—and demise—of civilizations, from the fall of the Moche civilization in South America that came about because of the cyclical pressures of El Niño to volcanic eruptions in Iceland that affected Egypt and helped bring the Ottoman empire to its knees.
Yet another example is Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton: A Global History, which traces cotton’s role in the origins of modern capitalism, the expropriation of lands in the Americas and the enslavement of African workers, and the origins of the industrial revolution.
I could point to many other exemplars of fresh approaches, including John Thornton’s Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1800 and Alan Taylor’s American Civil Wars: A Continental History, 1850–1873, which build on earlier works of comparative history such as David Brion Davis’s Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, Eric Foner’s Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy, George Fredrickson’s Racism: A Short History and White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History, Peter Kolchin’s Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom and Emancipation: The Abolition and Aftermath of American Slavery and Russian Serfdom, Gerda Lerner’s The Creation of Patriarchy, and Isabel Wilkerson’s Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents.
Digital history, too, offers new possibilities for historical research. Digital tools can be used to analyze large datasets, visualize historical phenomena and engage with sources in innovative ways and to produce works of scholarship that are less linear and more web-like. Online forums such as H-Net already provide a vehicle for connecting historians and social scientists and provide opportunities for discussing and debating issues of mutual interest.
This new history has the potential to broaden the scope of historical inquiry, bring in new topics, regions, and perspectives that have been underexplored. By integrating social, economic, cultural, political and environmental factors on a broader canvas, historians could craft richer narratives that capture the complexity of the past and lead to a deeper understanding of how various forces interact to shape historical outcomes.
Above all, this new history would engage with the social sciences and incorporate environmental, global and digital perspectives and would be well-positioned to address contemporary issues such as climate change, inequality and globalization. This could make historical scholarship more relevant and impactful in public discourse and make it resonate more with the public and policymakers. This could help bridge the gap between academic history and broader societal concerns, making history more accessible and influential.
The discipline of history is at a crossroads, with an opportunity to rejuvenate itself by embracing broader training, interdisciplinary approaches and new methodologies. By reengaging with the social sciences, incorporating quantitative methods and adopting holistic and comparative frameworks, historians can break out of the current rut and contribute to a new wave of innovative scholarship. This new history would not only enhance our understanding of the past but also provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of the present and future.
Let me conclude with an example from my own field of expertise, the history of childhood.
The history of childhood has tended to be largely of antiquarian interest, focusing primarily on cultural ideas about childhood and the everyday experience of children in the past. It has explored religious, philosophical and literary representations of childhood and examined how these ideas influenced child-rearing practices, education and family dynamics. It has also looked at the games children played, the education they received and the roles they played within their families and communities.
Much of this scholarship has, consciously or unconsciously, reinforced a declensionist view of the history of childhood, which views contemporary childhood in starkly negative terms: as less joyous and playful and more segregated and highly commercialized than in the recent past. There’s a bit of truth to that view, but it does little to speak to the big questions that childhood presents: the construction of children’s class, ethnic, gender, racial, religious and sexual identities, the psychological consequences of changing childrearing practices, the relationship between schooling and various forms of social stratification, the role of childhood in the development of the modern state and the relationship between childhood and capitalist development.
While the current approach has yielded valuable insights into how childhood has been understood and lived across different times and places, it is also somewhat limited in scope. It tends to overlook the broader structural forces that have shaped childhood and how these forces continue to impact the lives of children today. These studies too often treat childhood as a static, isolated stage of life, rather than as a dynamic and socially constructed category that is deeply influenced by broader political, economic and social forces.
A new history of childhood would place greater emphasis on the political and economic structures that shape the lives of children. It would systematically explore how economic forces, such as industrialization, globalization and neoliberalism, as well as war, have impacted childhood.
It would place a special emphasis on the privatization and commercialization of childhood. The commercialization of childhood refers to the ways in which children have become targets of consumer culture. This includes the marketing of toys, clothing and entertainment specifically designed for children, as well as the creation of entire industries around child-related products and services. The privatization of childhood, meanwhile, refers to the increasing tendency to treat childhood as a private, family-centered experience, often mediated through consumer goods and services, rather than as a public, communal good.
It would also look systematically and analytically at the state’s increasing role in regulating and managing childhood—through laws, education systems and welfare programs: This includes everything from compulsory schooling and child labor laws to vaccination requirements and child protective services. A new history of childhood would examine how these state interventions have shaped the experience of childhood and the expectations placed on children and their families.
Then, there’s the corporate colonization of children’s imagination. Corporations have increasingly targeted children as consumers, using media, advertising and branded content to shape children’s desires, identities and imaginations. This phenomenon can be seen in the pervasive influence of entertainment franchises, toys and digital media that define much of children’s play and social interactions today. A new history would explore the implications of this corporate influence on children’s development and the commodification of childhood itself.
This history should also address contemporary concerns, including the emergence of new childhood disabilities and disorders. In recent decades, there has been a notable rise in the diagnosis of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, childhood obesity and various allergies.
A new history of childhood would investigate why these conditions have emerged at particular points in time, considering factors such as changes in diagnostic criteria, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, shifts in parenting practices and environmental factors.
It would also examine changing definitions of normalcy and pathology. The way society defines what is “normal” or “pathological” in childhood has shifted over time, influenced by medical, psychological and cultural discourses. A new history would examine how these definitions have evolved and how they have impacted children’s lives, from the increased medicalization of childhood behavior to the stigmatization of certain conditions.
In addition, this new history would also explore the impact of technology on childhood. The rise of digital technology, social media and changes in family structures have also had profound effects on children. A new history of childhood would explore how these changes have affected children’s socialization, mental health and overall development, and how they interact with broader trends in commercialization, state regulation and the medicalization of childhood.
By examining the political economy of childhood, the roles of the state and corporations, and the emergence of new health and behavioral issues, a new history of childhood offers a more holistic understanding of the forces shaping childhood today. This approach recognizes that childhood is not just a cultural or developmental stage, but a socially constructed and contested category that reflects broader societal trends and power dynamics.
A new history of childhood can inform contemporary policy and practice by providing a deeper understanding of the historical roots of current issues. For example, understanding the commercialization of childhood can lead to more effective regulations on advertising to children, while examining the role of the state in childhood can inform debates on education reform and child welfare policies.
Ultimately, a new history of childhood seeks to empower children and their families by uncovering the structural forces that shape their lives and by challenging the narratives that limit their agency and potential. By highlighting the ways in which childhood has been influenced by economic, political and social factors, this approach encourages a more critical and engaged perspective on of childhood.
A new history of childhood needs to address the broader political, economic and social forces that shape childhood today. By examining the political economy of childhood, the commercialization and privatization of childhood, the state’s increasing role in childhood and the emergence of new disabilities and disorders, this new history can offer a more comprehensive and relevant understanding of childhood in the modern world.
This approach not only enhances our understanding of the past but also equips us to address contemporary challenges and shape the future of childhood in ways that are more equitable, informed and just.
