Do we understand better by zooming in? On the uses of microhistory

Do we understand better by `zooming in`? On the use of microhistory for Holocaust Studies

Since the beginning of the 21st century, ‘microhistory’ has made its entry into Holocaust-historiography. Studies which examine this trend often focus on the porous lines between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, and the dynamics of Jewish-gentile encounters. Gross’s Neighbors (2001) may be considered as a starting point; others, like Van Rahden (2008), Fullbrook (2012) and Segal (2013) have written important studies. The spread of microhistory does not follow the geographical demarcations, which characterize Holocaust-historiography: in recent works concerning both Western and Eastern European towns microhistorical approaches have been applied. The newly established research team Microcosms of the Holocaust (www.uu.nl/microcosms-holocaust) that aims to support the advance of microhistory in the field of Holocaust-research includes specialists in the Holocaust in both parts of the “old” continent.

However, what microhistory means and entails remains often vague; it has not as yet defined its methodology, the scope of its examinations, and its framework. How do we treat the inevitable subjectivity of the individual/communal experience? How legitimate are comparative studies of similar phenomena in the East and in the West? To what extend do our sensibilities as researchers affect the exploration of individuals and their particular stories, rather than the general historical events? Building upon our last year’s workshop in the USHMM, our roundtable will engage in a thorough investigation of these questions, among others, in order to elucidate and demonstrate the scholarly importance of the microhistorical approach to Holocaust studies.