|
 |
第15巻
鈴木 良和 Yoshikazu Suzukiミクロストリアと質的研究法
Microhistory and Qualitative Research Methods
2023年09月 発行
[ 要旨 ]
本稿は、ミクロストリアの方法論に関する文献サーベイである。伝統的には人文科学に位置づけられる歴史学は、いかに大々的に量的な手法を採用したとしても、いずれかの場面で必ず質的な考察が不可欠となる、そのような学問である。ところが歴史研究においても量的研究のトレンドが生じ、量的方法こそが歴史学を「真の科学」に変えることができるという期待をともないつつ、系列的な史料の統計分析を主軸とする「系の歴史学」が一時期、歴史研究の主流派の位置を占めるに至った。ミクロストリアは、歴史学のこのような動向に対する反省を背景として1970年代のイタリアで誕生した。本稿の目的はこのミクロストリアの展開を史学史的に辿り、その基本的な考え方や課題について紹介することである。まず初めに、カルロ・ギンズブルグの徴候解読型パラダイムとジョヴァンニ・レーヴィの社会関係に焦点を当てたアプローチを紹介し、次にポストモダニズム、グローバルヒストリー、新たな量的研究という観点から、ミクロストリアのその後の展開について概観する。
[ Abstract ]
This paper surveys the literature on the methodology of microhistory—a representative approach to qualitative research methods in the field of history. Historiography, which is traditionally categorized as a humanities discipline, requires qualitative analysis at some point, no matter how extensively it adopts quantitative methods. However, a trend of quantitative research emerged in historical studies, accompanied by the expectation that quantitative methods can transform history into a “true science.” Consequently, “serial history,” which focuses on statistical analysis of serial sources, became the mainstream of historical research for a period. Microhistory emerged in Italy in the 1970s as a critical response to this trend in historical research. Importantly, qualitative and quantitative methods are not necessarily in opposition, as recognized by not only the first generation of microhistorians, such as Carlo Ginzburg and Giovanni Levi, but also historians of serial history, such as Michel Vovelle. This work traces the development of microhistory from a historiographical perspective and introduces its basic methodological ideas and issues. First, I introduce Carlo Ginzburg’s evidential paradigm (paradigma indiziario) and Giovanni Levi’s approach, which focuses on social relationships as the first-generation methods of microhistorians; I then provide an overview of the subsequent developments in microhistory from the viewpoints of postmodernism, global history, and new quantitative research.
The discussed transition in microhistory constitutes a methodological pluralization that is connected to historians’ new academic interests, rather than a development that has overcome the challenges that microhistory faced when it was first established. Therefore, it is not the case that the problems inherent in Ginzburg’s microhistory have been overcome in subsequent developments or that his methodology has faded. In particular, when discussing the scope of individual case studies in historical research, his evidential paradigm remains a valid and important reference point today.