This essay is an attempt to observe and analyze, not to state a personal credo or to express (except where this is clearly stated) the author's preferences and value judgments. I say this at the outset in order to distinguish this essay from others which are defenses of or pleas for the kind of history practiced by their authors?as it happens social history does not need either at the moment?but also to avoid two misunderstandings especially com mon in discussions heavily charged with ideology. All discus sions about social history are. The first is the tendency for readers to identify authors with the views they write about, unless they disclaim this identification in the clearest terms and sometimes even when they do so. The second is the tendency to confuse the ideological or political moti vations of research, or its utilization, with its scientific value. Where ideological intention or bias produces triviality or error, as is often the case in the human sciences, we may happily condemn motiva tion, method, and result. However, life would be a great deal simpler if our understanding of history were advanced exclusively by those with whom we are in agreement or in sympathy on all public and even private matters. Social history is at present in fashion. None of those who practice it would care to be seen keeping ideological company with all those who come under the same historical heading. Nevertheless, what is more important than to define one's attitude is to discover where social history stands today after two decades of unsystematic if copious development, and whither it might go. I
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 198 citations exist upstream.