Davidoff and Hall’s publication Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780-1850 (henceforth referred to as Family Fortunes) is a classic example of a work of local history. Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes is a study tracing the changes in class, society and gender relations of the newly emerging middle classes from 1780 over a framework of 70 years. Furthermore, Davidoff and Hall examine in detail these changes through local communities, particular families and individuals. Family Fortunes scrutinises individuals, families and organisations in the localities of rural East Anglia and the industrial commercial town of Birmingham. Davidoff and Hall have arranged Family Fortunes in three sections, section one examines
…show more content…
This study will examine what local history is and if Davidoff and Hall have visualised their study in such terms. We will also look at the strengths and weaknesses of Family Fortunes as a work of local history. Furthermore, we will look at part one in detail to determine if the national discourse of ideas about gender and separate spheres deflect from the local focus or successfully integrated into the case studies of the rural counties of East Anglia and the industrial commercial town of Birmingham. In addition, we will be looking at whether the comparative structure works or if a framework of seventy years renders the research too disseminated. Finally, we will examine the primary and secondary sources used and to what extent they reinforce the local context and argument.
The study of local history is the examination of history in a geographically local context. It often concentrates on the local community and incorporates cultural and social aspects of history. Furthermore, local history should above all reflect the scholarly emphasis on significance, meaning that local history is not about the compilation of interesting facts, but providing a critical construction of a …show more content…
However, Davidoff and Hall in the introduction of the revised edition of Family Fortunes challenge this criticism. Davidoff and Hall unquestionably argue in favour of the separate spheres of men and women; nevertheless, they fail to take into consideration the realities of middle class life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Women were at the time unable to vote and ‘after 1833 married women lost control of their property to their husbands.’ Despite the evidence above, there were opportunities for women to play an active role in the male orientated public sphere however, Davidoff and Hall pay ‘comparatively little attention to the many community and political projects with which the women they studied were involved
This study will examine what local history is and if Davidoff and Hall have visualised their study in such terms. We will also look at the strengths and weaknesses of Family Fortunes as a work of local history. Furthermore, we will look at part one in detail to determine if the national discourse of ideas about gender and separate spheres deflect from the local focus or successfully integrated into the case studies of the rural counties of East Anglia and the industrial commercial town of Birmingham. In addition, we will be looking at whether the comparative structure works or if a framework of seventy years renders the research too disseminated. Finally, we will examine the primary and secondary sources used and to what extent they reinforce the local context and argument.
The study of local history is the examination of history in a geographically local context. It often concentrates on the local community and incorporates cultural and social aspects of history. Furthermore, local history should above all reflect the scholarly emphasis on significance, meaning that local history is not about the compilation of interesting facts, but providing a critical construction of a …show more content…
However, Davidoff and Hall in the introduction of the revised edition of Family Fortunes challenge this criticism. Davidoff and Hall unquestionably argue in favour of the separate spheres of men and women; nevertheless, they fail to take into consideration the realities of middle class life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Women were at the time unable to vote and ‘after 1833 married women lost control of their property to their husbands.’ Despite the evidence above, there were opportunities for women to play an active role in the male orientated public sphere however, Davidoff and Hall pay ‘comparatively little attention to the many community and political projects with which the women they studied were involved