Abstract

The intention in this article is to focus on a few major issues relating to the historiographical development of microhistory; geographical differences and variations in approach to microhistory within the microhistorical camp; the concept of microhistory as a ideological current; and finally the plan is to evaluate and contrast the old and the new way of doing microhistory. It will be argued that the official refusal of major players within the group of traditional microhistorians to accept the new ideology - postmodernism and poststructuralism - had the effect that microhistory, as a theoretical framework in history, became a stagnant phenomenon; it was poorly equipped to deal with new challenges in the humanities in the 21st century, like globalization.