Joe Dennis Photo: PROVIDED TO CSST

Microhistory provides the crucial building blocks necessary to construct a bigger picture that is both accurate and meaningful. Photo: TUCHONG

On first encounter, Professor Joe Dennis, a historian at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in the United States, exudes a quiet, attentive curiosity. He speaks in a measured, gentle tone—never in a hurry. Yet when the conversation turns to his research project or to the value of gazetteers for grasping the wider arc of Ming-Dynasty (1368–1644) history, his eyes brighten.

Speaking with CSST, Dennis reflects on the unplanned path that led him to China studies, his shift from legal practice to historical research, and his views on microhistory, big history, and the challenges facing the humanities today. Above all, he stresses that history is not merely an inquiry into the past—it equips us with the tools to understand the present and engage responsibly with the world.

Unplanned journey into China studies

CSST: What first drew you to the study of China, and how has your perspective on the field changed over the years?

Dennis: My interest in China began for very personal reasons. I met my wife in college—she studied Chinese for four years and wanted to go to China after graduation. Her enthusiasm inspired me to start learning the language as well. In the 1980s, soon after China’s reform and opening up, she met a visiting professor from Nanchang at the University of Wisconsin. Later, we had the opportunity to go there. A professor of civil engineering invited us to teach English at East China Jiaotong University in 1987, which became my first real exposure to life in China and to Chinese society.

After returning to the U.S., I initially pursued a career in law while my wife worked as a reporter. But I joined a reading group formed by three professors specializing in Ming history—they were wonderfully engaging, and their passion for the subject drew me in. What began as a part-time interest gradually turned into a full-time academic commitment. I love studying history because it is filled with practice.

Over the years, my perspective on Ming history has evolved as well. Historians are constantly encountering new sources and new frameworks, and our task is to keep reflecting on that expanding body of knowledge. The field itself has changed too: 40-50 years ago there were many studies on institutional history and connections with Europe. 30-40 years ago we started having more studies related to gender history. 10 to 15 years ago, there was growing attention to figures like Zheng He and to the Ming Dynasty’s connections with Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asia. More recently, digital humanities techniques have become more important. When I first started, Qing (1644–1911) history tended to attract more scholars, but now, thanks to increased funding and fresh perspectives, Ming studies have become a vibrant and appealing area for younger researchers.

Microhistory as foundation for broader understanding

CSST: How do gazetteers, as both administrative and communal texts, help us understand the relationship between the state and society in the Ming and Qing periods?

Dennis: Gazetteers are among the best sources for understanding local society in the Ming Dynasty. While Qing court case files provide rich material for studying local society in the Qing period, many Ming case files have been lost, making gazetteers particularly valuable. In addition to other sources such as collections of essays, dairies, and notes, gazetteers offer a window into how a place was organized and functioned. They document the ways local governments collaborated with elites to build public facilities such as schools and temples, the interactions between officials and ordinary people, and other aspects of social life, making them a crucial lens for exploring the relationship between the state and society.

Of course, every historical source has limitations. For example, gazetteers typically list temples but provide little information on religious practices or beliefs. Nevertheless, they contain extensive local detail that is often overlooked by broader studies in regional, transnational, or global history, which tend not to engage deeply with the particulars of everyday life. In this sense, gazetteers allow historians to ask important questions: What can you trust in a document? What does it reliably tell you about local life? And, ultimately, what can you know about society in a particular place? For these reasons, gazetteers remain indispensable for anyone studying ancient China.

CSST: Why do you think the study of Ming Dynasty print culture and local gazetteers remains relevant for scholars and readers today?

Dennis: The study of Ming Dynasty print culture and local gazetteers remains highly relevant because it offers a deep and broad understanding of how societies organize knowledge and interact with the world. 50 years ago, topics like military history or diplomatic relations dominated scholarly attention, but the focus of historical study inevitably shifts over time. Governments and institutions sometimes promote or de-emphasize certain areas. For example, in the United States, debates around racial or gender history illustrate how topics come in and out of emphasis. Despite these fluctuations, it is crucial for people to engage with different cultures in a thoughtful, informed way.

In my teaching of Chinese history, I often see students who go on to careers in science or technology gaining insights into China’s past that help them interpret the present. Understanding how Chinese society, governance, and culture developed over centuries provides valuable context for comprehending contemporary policies and global interactions. Moreover, there will always be pressures to reinterpret or manipulate history. Studying print culture and gazetteers allows scholars to investigate events at a micro level, verify claims, and resist inaccurate or overly simplistic narratives. In this sense, the work of understanding Ming society through its documents is not just about the past—it equips us with tools to engage responsibly with the present and future.

CSST: Your research often focuses on very detailed, local-level studies. How do you see this “small history” approach connecting to broader concepts like “big history” or global historical perspectives?

Dennis: I am often skeptical of historians who make very broad, sweeping claims. It is difficult to master all the languages and sources of the regions they study, which means there is a risk that some research rests heavily on the work of others without fully engaging the primary materials. My approach is more micro-focused: by examining local-level sources like gazetteers and Ming print culture, we gain a grounded understanding of specific societies and practices.

That said, there is certainly value in raising big, overarching questions. But there is a danger in forcing evidence to fit into a grand theory. In many cases, transnational or global history is promoted because it appears economically or politically beneficial to universities, yet the foundation of any meaningful large-scale argument depends on solid, detailed research. For example, in my recent work on songs related to stopping litigation, we can learn about literacy in the early 1500s in Ming China: Who was reading, how people learned about lawsuits, and the relationship between print and oral culture.

If one wants to ask truly global questions—such as when literacy became the main form of learning around the world—one cannot skip the basic, local-level research. Microhistory provides the crucial building blocks necessary to construct a bigger picture that is both accurate and meaningful.

Humanities at crossroads

CSST: Many Western universities are reportedly facing a decline in the humanities. How do you see this trend affecting fields such as Sinology and Chinese history?

Dennis: Many Western universities are currently facing challenges in the humanities. Funding cuts and political pressures have created an uncertain environment. While professional schools like medicine often receive stable government support, the humanities rely more heavily on discretionary funding, private donations, and institutional priorities, which can fluctuate with the economy. At my university, humanities programs have not been eliminated, but hiring has slowed, graduate student support has been reduced, and in some smaller state universities, entire programs have been cut.

Looking ahead, I believe the humanities will become more concentrated rather than disappear. Professionals in many fields benefit from understanding history, culture, and international contexts. A lack of engagement with global knowledge can have serious consequences. For example, the government has cut funding for some foreign language and area studies programs, including our Center for East Asian Studies, limiting opportunities for students to learn critical languages domestically.

The stakes are high: Humanities and social sciences address questions that truly matter to society. Leaders and policymakers who lack a grounding in history and culture are at risk of making uninformed or even dangerous decisions. In that sense, sustaining the humanities is not just an academic concern—it is essential for an informed and capable society.