'David Armitage ['Horizons of History', History Australia 12, 1 (April 2015), 224] argues that "armed with both transnational and transtemporal perspectives" , historians can be guardians against parochial perspectives and endemic short-termism." Do you agree with Armitage that i) historians can have these effects and ii) that they should take on this role?' Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For the past few decades, the debate over whether history should be conducted and observed at the micro or macro level has been prevalent among historians. Some historians, such as David Armitage, argue that history should be viewed on a global and mass scale to provide a broader perspective in politics and government. However, other historians, such as Allan Megill, argue that looking at history at the micro level across communities and individuals captures a more specific and greater truth and understanding of the context in which we live. This essay will argue that, while looking at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives can be useful for global politics and governance, the historian's ultimate role should be about seeking truth among communities and individuals in the broader context of our history. First, this essay will begin by briefly outlining Armitage's theory and the theory surrounding “big” history. Secondly, this essay will discuss why writing a universal history is nearly impossible and why the study of history should be about seeking truth and bringing communities back to life. Third, this essay will then discuss the role of the historian in understanding individual roles within the broader context of history, rather than creating a generalized universal history. First, David Armitage is one historian among many who argue that history should be viewed through transnational modes and transtemporal lens. Writing universal history means seeing history in a much broader perspective, observing patterns that emerge, and changing the way we think about the problems we study at more conventional levels. Universal history, also known as long duration, is history that spans hundreds, even thousands of years, of a very long duration. For centuries history has been more or less a practical exercise, a guide to public life for rulers, their advisors and citizens, and a teaching of the philosophy of life by example. This has been the role of the historian until the last half century, when Armitage argues that it has lost its public, future-oriented mission. To look at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives is to reject the national framework that has structured so much historical writing since it became professionalized in the late 19th century, and to rebel against conventional periodizations. Looking at history in a universal perspective, Christian argues, allows individuals and communities to see themselves as part of the evolving story of an entire universe with a clearer view of humanity as a whole. The role of the historian, according to Armitage, is to dispel this myth of international politics, that we have always existed as states and the individual is subordinate to the state, by looking at the bigger picture. The longer perspectives offered by this expanded view of history have relevance to our current situation in political decisions. By extending our investigations over so many decades, centuries or even millennia, we can hope to understand thecontext of our current situation. Armitage argues that politicians and government need a broad, long-term vision that only historians can provide. Ultimately, looking at history through a universal lens is important for making policy decisions and providing broad context, however, this should not be the historian's ultimate role. However, writing a universal story is near impossible, as these stories also contain biases and leave out certain perspectives and stories. Total history cannot be captured on a large canvas, humans should be studied in microcosm to fully capture how humanity operates. Megill argues that those who attempted to write a universal history ultimately failed, simply because they distorted their writing and focused on only one type of universal history, political, religious, or national. While producing a universal history would be useful, these attempts to offer prescriptions for future policy and action are based on very narrow and generalized conceptions of how humans exist and exist in the world, when history is more complex and individualistic than general themes and models. Methodological disillusionment and the use of scientific methods in history writing, mostly quantifiable methods, lead to the loss of emotion and individuality that make history writing so important. One criticism of microhistory is generalization: the emphasis on individual action prevents them from considering the wide range of historical phenomena, applying these small-scale findings to the larger story without context. However, the historian's ultimate role should be the existential commitment to seeing the past as relevant to present and future life, not only on a governmental basis, but for communities and individuals. History would not exist without existential commitment, so historians should commit to the truth and to a community already present or to be created. For example, Jardins highlights the importance of gender history in providing agency and a new identity for women in the present; women were previously marginalized in historical writing, however, by creating a place for women in history, it highlighted their importance and role in society, being applicable to women today. The aim of historians should be to discover the truth and contribute to progress by transcending their own biases and prejudices by behaving as scientists to help us see the world we live in in the broad context of human history, rather than creating a generalized universal history. .Third, the role of historians should be to understand individual roles within the broader context of history. While universal history focuses on common themes and patterns, microhistory is able to connect the dots within a larger context by focusing on individual cases. Microhistory has revived the genre of historical writing as an art, thus aiding the historical education of the general public outside the walls of academia, making history more relevant and accessible. Personal and short-term stories provide deeper insight into the larger context of the story; while "big history" can sometimes provide common trends and patterns useful in guiding government policies, the study of communities and individuals allows historians to be more specific and gain a deeper understanding of how societies and periods of time. By highlighting the autonomy of individuals throughout history, historians have brought real men and women back to the center of the historical enterprise, highlighting the personal nature of history rather than.