In Conversation with Angelika Epple – Rethinking Globalization: Between Convergence and Divergence

Globalization is over – this is a widespread diagnosis in light of worldwide tendencies toward fragmentation. But is that really the case? Angelika Epple, historian and Rector of Bielefeld University, firmly rejects this thesis. In her new publication “Globalisierung neu denken”, she develops an approach that makes the complexity of global processes empirically tangible without smoothing over their contradictions. In this conversation, she explains why established approaches in global history are reaching their limits and what challenges await future historians.

Your book is titled “Global Microhistory as a Method.” In which specific research contexts should this approach be applied?

It is an offer – by no means the conviction that this is the only correct way to practice global history. It is an offer that shows how globalization, with its processual character, can be examined in such a way that opposing tendencies become visible. In bachelor’s and master’s theses, in other studies, and even in large-scale projects, this method can make it possible to render global history empirically tangible and narratable through clearly defined subjects of inquiry. 

What was your personal motivation for writing this publication?

Globalization is often understood as a process describing how the world is becoming increasingly similar. If one adopts such an understanding of globalization, one can easily say: look at the world – aren’t we in fact drifting further apart? Globalization has come to an end. I seek to show that the exact opposite is true. Globalization contains within itself a dynamic that produces both convergence and divergence. Making this dynamic visible and open to research – that is the aim of this book.

What are the general challenges in researching globalization?

Global history – and the history of globalization as a subfield of global history – faces the problem that it often speaks about history on a very high level of abstraction. Yet history only becomes truly compelling when it is empirically researched and places people at the center. That is why I call this concept global microhistory. Microhistory is known for its actor-centered approach, asking about shared social practices. It enables us to reach the global level and to write global history in an empirically grounded way.

Could you elaborate on the concept of global microhistory?

The idea addresses precisely this tension: global history often operates only at the level of abstract entities. On the other hand, we have people who make history. Bringing these two dimensions together – that is the core of the concept.

Why is this concept necessary, given that established approaches such as microhistory and global history already exist?

The theoretical concept explaining how we move from the micro level to the global level is indeed deficient. The book is essentially a proposal, a contribution to an ongoing discussion. Considerable further research is needed to determine how this enormous gap between the micro level and the maximum macro level can be bridged in a way that results in a theoretically coherent whole.

How can focusing on individual actors and their actions contribute to a more differentiated picture of globalization?

When we operate at the level of individual actions and examine how they form into socially shared practices, we see the incredible heterogeneity in what people associate with their actions. At the level of socially shared practices, some of this heterogeneity disappears to a certain degree. Yet compared to the next level of aggregation – formations of practice – it still remains visible. The aim of global microhistory must be to preserve the heterogeneity of developments, actions, and practices even at the highest level, the level of global history, and not to gloss over it. Otherwise, we end up with only a single story – a simplification that does not do justice to a history of globalization that seeks to highlight heterogeneity.

Why did you choose the format of the micro monograph? What led you to select this format for your ideas?

History and historical writing are incredibly complex activities that pose significant theoretical challenges to those who undertake them. Selecting a specific segment, presenting the core of the method, and illustrating it with vignettes – this was particularly appealing to me in the compact form of the monograph. I also hoped to invite as many students as possible to engage with and practice this challenging yet extremely important form of historical writing themselves. 

How do you see the development of global history in the coming years? What is, in your view, the greatest challenge for future researchers in this field?

The very term globalization automatically evokes the accusation of Eurocentrism. The greatest challenge for the future of global history in general, and the history of globalization in particular, is to succeed in examining processes from multiple perspectives – processes that appear differently depending on the point of view. We must try to bring this multiperspectivity together and place it in dialogue without smoothing out the differences. There is great potential in this endeavor and, hopefully, many future research projects by historians who turn their attention to this topic.

Given your role as Rector and your busy schedule: Do you have a personal tip or a proven technique you would recommend to students or doctoral candidates for writing their own academic work?

The most important thing is to research and describe what one actually has material for. It is not advisable to write purely literature-based works. One can only develop a genuine research personality by working with empirical material. I strongly believe that in historical scholarship, the study of sources must be both the beginning and the end. Empirical saturation – what people have experienced, felt, tasted, seen, suffered, and advanced – is what I find truly fascinating. With this method, one can also engage with such questions in one’s own manageable and feasible research projects, even if the overarching questions are very large.