Social History vs Biography

In The Hemingses of Monticello Gordon-Reed intervenes in a trend she states exists in African American historiography: social history dominates over biography, erasing individual black lives. Gordon-Reed qualifies this argument by stating that historical context is important in analyzing peoples' lives so long as personalities come to the forefront and stereotypes are questioned. Since Sally Hemings left behind no writings, Gordon-Reed largely relies on discussing social contexts in order to discuss Hemings. But by assuming Hemings was an individual capable of making thoughtful decisions and of developing emotional attachments that may have operated in complex ways (even in contradiction to) the institution of slavery, Gordon-Reed constructs or hypothesizes about the thoughts and personality of Hemings.
As with all historical works, most of the explanatory power of the book comes in the discussion of social contexts. For example, in order to explain how the "treaty" between Hemings and Jefferson - her return from France to Virginia in exchange for the eventual emancipation of her children - perhaps belied a loving relationship, Gordon-Reed explains that the institution of marriage prearranged many of the practical considerations of whites when they engaged in relationships. Since marriage was impossible between a white man and a black woman, Jefferson and Hemings had to be explicit about their bargaining chips. Another example of the usefulness of social context is Gordon-Reed's description of masculinity. She explains how Jefferson's tendency to curry favor with people to get what he wanted rather than take what he wanted regardless of the desires of others caused people to regard Jefferson as feminine. Gordon-Reed explains that at the time women got their way by pleasing others while men were expected to seize what they wanted. This example reveals how individual personalities only make sense and only exist within a social context, especially when those personalities defy stereotypes or normative behavior.
Gordon-Reed argues that the point of exploring individual personalities and individual lives, even when they are as anomalous as Hemings', is to gain a fuller understanding of the institution of slavery. Gordon-Reed argues against those who emphasize what could have happened over what did happen (e.g. those who argue that since rape could have happened in any slave master relationship, that mattered more than whether or not rape actually happened in any given relationship). This brings to mind an anecdote Tim Wise mentioned in one of his (non-historical) books. Wise mentioned how Oprah, who is often held as an exemplar of transcending the barriers of race, was treated poorly at a department store and interpreted her treatment as stemming from her race. For Wise, it was not important whether or not Oprah indeed encountered racism in this instance, but rather it is important that blacks must constantly deal with the possibility of racism. For Wise, in this example, what could matters more than what did. And this is because Wise has a political purpose of exposing the social and systematic workings of racism in order to arouse antiracist sentiments in his readers. Focusing on "the could" is often politically expedient. Emphasizing how rape could happen in slave-master relationships portrays all such relationships as profane and indicts slavery. By contrast, Gordon-Reed takes the horror of slavery as a given, but then discusses the peculiarities of one particular relationship that she speculates could have involved some level of mutual affection.
Gordon-Reed thus does not seem to have an obvious political agenda. She is an academic trying, in part, to reveal how slaves could have had some level of limited agency, and were full human beings with the personalities and thoughts. However, Gordon-Reed's emphasis on individuals and personality could be interpreted as political. By attributing agency to members of an oppressed group, she perhaps suggests that the marginalized have power. Still, by analyzing agency on the individual level, Gordon-Reed neglects the role of collective action by oppressed groups, the collective expression of agency. It remains that even if one focuses on the individual, one must still analyze the social. For Gordon-Reed, social context seems to be the stuff must must contend with, struggle against, conform to and challenge as one attempts to meet one's personal goals.