Annales and The Writing of Contemporary History - Wesseling

Research Foundation of SUNY
The Annales School and the Writing of Contemporary History

Author(s): H. L. Wesseling
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 1, No. 3/4, The Impact of the "Annales" School
on the Social Sciences (Winter - Spring, 1978), pp. 185-194
Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240779 .
Accessed: 03/09/2014 09:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Research Foundation of SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 116.203.220.24 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:18:52 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review, I, 3/4,
Winter/Spring 1978,
185-194.
The
Annales School
and the
Writing
of
Contemporary History
H. L.
Wessettng
The Annales have had little or no
impact
on the
writing
of
contemporary
history.
The
question
is
why
has this been so. This
question
has two different
aspects:
the amount of works the Annales historians have done in this
particular
field,
and the
degree
of influence
they
have had on
contemporary
historians in
general.
In both
respects,
the answer seems to be the same:
very
little. Contem-
porary history
and Annales
history
seem to be
separated,
as if
by
an ocean. A
simple comparison
of
any
issue of the Annales with an issue
of,
for
example,
the
Journal of Contemporary History
will make this clear. In the
Journal of
Contem-
porary History
y
one will find articles
dealing
with the Czech
question
in
1904,
British
strategy
in
Palestine,
N.A.T.O. and the
M.L.F.,
and the
political
ideas of
Barrs;
in the
Annales,
articles on
Portuguese mysticism
in the
eighteenth
cen-
tury,
the feast in Provence in the seventeenth
century,
birth control in sixteenth-
century
Florence,
and
housing
in
Normandy
between 1200 and 1800.
This
comparison
is
striking
for two reasons.
First,
it is
amazing
that
precisely
contemporary
historians should have learned
nothing
from Annales. Are
they
then like the
Bourbons,
who had learned
nothing
and
forgotten nothing?
Secondly,
the
discovery
of a
general
lack of interest
by
the Annales historians in
contemporary history
is an
astonishing
one.
They
themselves have maintained
that the
"spirit
of Annales" is marked
by
social
engagement
and concern for the
"problems
that trouble
contemporary
man."1 "Let us
explain
the world to the
Lucien
Febvre,
Combats
pour
l'histoire
(Paris:
Lib. A.
Colin, 1953),
42.
186 H. L.
Wesseling
world
-
through history,"
in the terse words of Lucien Febvre.2 "Let us under-
stand the
present through
the
past,"
in the
equally
sober formulation of Marc
Bloch.3 These are mottoes which
sufficiently
illustrate their
striving
for social
relevance. Thus the
problem
is an
intriguing
one,
and it is worthwhile to
probe
into the matter somewhat
deeper.
In
considering
the contribution of the Annales to
contemporary history,
we
must
distinguish
between the Annales as a
group,
a
school,
an
institution,
and
Annales as a
journal.
As a school of
thought,
there is
clearly continuity.
In the
work of
Bloch, Febvre, Braudel, Goubert,
LeRoy
Ladurie, Mandrou,
LeGoff
(and
many
more well-known names could be
cited),
the main
emphasis
has
always
been on the Middle
Ages
and
early
modern times. This is true also of the theses
their
pupils
and of the research
projects
of the Centre de Recherches
Historiques.
From the 1920's until
to-day,
the
continuity
is remarkable.
In the case of Annales as a
journal,
the situation is different. This becomes
apparent,
if one
categorizes
the
subject-matter
of the articles in Annales accord-
ing
to the
period they
deal
with,
and then considers the results over a
longer
stretch of time. In
doing
this,
I have
appropriately
chosen the
longue
dure,
at
least the
longest possible:
since 1929.
Moreover,
I have tried to
analyze
the
material in a
quantitative (or serial) way,
albeit without the use of a
computer.
The results of this
homeopathic
method are found in
figures
1 and 2.
Figure
1. "Modern
history"
and
"contemporary history (post-1815)"
in
Annales,
1929-1976:
Page
volume of
chronologically-defined
articles
2#
Ibid.,
40.
*
Marc
Bloch, Apologie pour
l'histoire ou mtier d'historien
(Paris:
lib. A.
Colin, 1966),
2nd
d.,
11.
Annales and
187
Figure
2. "Modern
History"
and
"Contemporary History"
in Annales:
Page
Volume
under Various Editorial
Directors,
1929-76.
188 H. L.
Wesseling
Of course these
figures
should be handled with care. Several
problems
arise,
such
as the
great growth
in volume of the review and the
changing proportion
of
articles as
against
smaller contributions. From the 1950's
on,
there is also the
increasing participation
of the other social
sciences,
which deal
partly
with con-
temporary subject
matter. To
distinguish
these from
"history proper"
would
lead us into a
particularly complicated
and scholastic discussion.
Hence I have included them all
(in
so far as
they
are
chronologically defined)
in
"contemporary history".
Thus these tables do what tables seem
always
to do.
They
stress the
obvious,
because even a
superficial comparison
of the first ten
years
of Annales with the last ten
years
shows a marked
change
in character.
Annales has become more
theoretical,
more
abstract,
more scientific if
you
will,
and less
engaged
and interested in current affairs. No aversion from
political
and
ideological
matters existed under Bloch and
Febvre,
insofar as
contemporary
history
is concerned.4 But after the
1950's,
the aversion from these matters
seems to be total. How is this shift of focus to be
explained?
Possibly
the answer is
that,
from the 1950's
on,
theories about structural
history,
the
primacy
of the
"longue
dure",
and the
equation
of
politics
with
events
-
and thus with
superficiality
-
have in
many
circles been raised to a
kind of
dogma.
After the
Bible, inevitably
follows
exegesis.
After La Mditer-
rane,
inevitably
followed the scholasticism of structural
history.
Meanwhile,
for
Annales as a
whole,
the
strong predilection
for more ancient
history
seems to be
a
continuing
fact.
Why
this
group unanimously
comes to a standstill at the
magic
barrier of 1 789
is a
question
we will deal with later. Before
that,
there is the
question
as to the
extent to which
contemporary
historians have been influenced
by
the Annales
revolution. There is no need to demonstrate at
length
that
contemporary
history, particularly
twentieth-century history,
was
hardly
influenced at
all,
either in
subject
matter or in
method,
by
Annales.
Everyone
knows that in
the
great
discussions are about war and
diplomacy,
revo-
lutions and
ideologies.
Those are the
topics
which
occupy
the
prominent
histo-
rians. The contents of
special journals
such as the
Vierteljahreshefte fur
Zeit-
geschichte
and the
Journal of Contemporary History give ample
evidence of this.
The first of these two
journals
has,
of
course,
quite
its own
history
and char-
acter,
which is
why
we would do better to turn to the
Journal of Contemporary
History
for a
comparison.
One
glance
at the latter's table of contents shows that
over 78% of the contributions deal with
political history
in the wide sense of the
word
(Items
1-4 of Table
1).
Two other
journals
that are also devoted
mainly
to
the International Review
of
Social
History
and the Revue
d'histoire moderne et
contemporaine
illustrate more or less the same
phenom-
enon
(see
Tables 1 and
2).
4*
Fcbvrc indeed
reproached
the authors of an Histoire de Russie that
they
did not
pay enough
attention to
post-revolutionary
Russia.
Moreover,
in
founding Annales,
Bloch and Febvre wanted to invite
"men involved in the
workings
of
contemporary affairs,"
such as Albert
Thomas,
to
cooperate
with them.
See
Febvre, Combats, op. cit.,
352.
Annales and
189
Table 1.
Subject
matter in four historical
journals
c h- +
matter
**
VI
J
HZ 1953-76 IRSH 1956-76 RHMC 1954-76
JCH
1966-76
Subject
c h- +
matter
** J
<* u a
number % number % number %
<*
number
u
%
a
1. International
relations 58 15.8 20 7.2 53 10.3 124 27.0
2.
Military
history
32 8.7
-
34 6.6 26 5.7
3. Political
history
111 30.2 31 11.1 63 12.3 117 26.0
4. Ideas and
ideologies
58 15.8 83 29.7 111 21.6 88 19.5
5. Social
history
46 12.5 110 39.5 153 29.7 47 10.5
6. Economic
history
15 4.1 10 3.6 64 12.5 19 4.2
7.
Historiography
40 11.0 14 5.0 35 6.8 32 7.1
8.
Biography
7 1.9 11 3.9 1 0.2
-
367 100 279 100 514 100 453 100
Explanation
of the abbreviatons:
VJHZ Vierteljahreshefte
fur
Zeitgeschichte
IRSH International Review of Social
History
RHMC Revue d'histoire moderne et contem-
poraine
JCH Journal
of
Table 2. Periods treated in two historical
journals
Period IRSH 1 956- 76 RHMC 1 954- 76
number % number %
1. Modern
history
17 6.1 205 39.9
2. 19th and 20th centuries 22 7.9 14 2.7
3. 19th
century
163 58.4 160 31.2
4. 20th
century
66 23.7 124 24.1
5. Ancient
history
5 1.8
- -
6. General &: unclassifiable 6 2.1 11 2.1
279 100 514 100
Note: The
VJHZ
and the
JCH
have not been included in Table
2,
as both of these
journals
can be said to deal almost
exclusively
with
twentieth-century history.
190 H. L.
Wesseling
It would lead us too far
astray
to dwell on the
history
of
contemporary
history
and the theoretical discussions that have
accompanied
it. The
term,
incidentally,
is
ambiguous,
as it can refer either to
truly contemporary history,
that of our own
time,
or
history
since the French Revolution in the French
usage,
and
history
since about 1900 in the
English.
In this last sense both
meanings
are almost the
same, since,
for most
living
historians,
the twentieth
century may
be
regarded
as their own time. The idea that a historian should
concern himself with his own time
goes
back to
Thucydides,
and has also been a
generally accepted
view
(and practice)
for a
long
time.
Lessing
held the "best
historian" was he who described the
history
of his own
country
and his own
times.5 It was the so-called "scientific
history"
of the late nineteenth
century
which
expelled contemporary history
and removed
her,
on the
charge
of
being
unscientific,
from the domain of
history.
Thus,
Annales and
contemporary
history
shared the same foe. The
positivist
historians so scorned
by
Lucien
Febvre were the same as those
arguing
that the recent
past
was unfinished and
therefore unfit for historical
scrutiny.
Pierre Nora has
suggested
some
possible
causes for this. He
quotes,
in this
context,
a
report
of 1867
by
three
young
French historians who
argued
that the
history
of a
period
can
only
be born when
this is
completely
closed.
They
concluded: "The domain of
history
is the
past.
The
present belongs
to
politics
and the future to God."6 Of
course,
this state-
ment not
only
reflects a certain view of
but also of
history
in
general.
Its distinctive features are the
equation
of
politics
and
history,
and
especially
the linear vision of time. Time is not
conceptual
but
real,
not a
tool for historical
analysis
but an
entity
in its own
right.
Thus
was
expelled by
the
positivist
historians. The
irony
of fate was that this
strong-willed
mother,
political history,
was in turn
dismissed
by
her
younger
sisters,
social and economic
history.
And so contem-
porary history, already
exiled,
became an
orphan
as well. In
spite
of her difficult
childhood, however,
the
orphan developed
into an
amazingly
vital adult. This
was not due to
historiographical,
but to
political
and social circumstances. The
great
troubles of the second and third decades of our
century
-
war, revolution,
crises,
fascism
-
simply
demanded an answer of
history. They
were the same
problems
which
inspired
the founders of Annales. And
so,
in the same
year
of
1929 when Bloch and Febvre founded
Annales,
the
English
historian R. W.
Seton-
Watson,
with his "Plea for the
Study
of
Contemporary History," gave
the
first
impulse
for the rehabilitation of
contemporary history.7
However,
although
born from the same
situation,
the two trends soon went
separate paths, apparently
never to be reconciled
again.
Annales extended the
field of modern
history,
even of
history
itself,
subjected
it to theoretical discus-
sions,
introduced
methodological
innovations,
and
began reshaping
it in close
5*
On
Lessing,
sec F. W.
Pick, "Contemporary History:
Method and
Men," History, XXXI, 1,
Mar.
1946,
26-55.
*
See Pierre
Nora,
"Pour une histoire
contemporaine,"
in
Mlanges
en l'honneur de Fernand
Braudel,
(Toulouse: Privt, 1973), I,
420.
7#
R. W.
Seton-Watson,
"A Plea for the
Study
of
Contemporary History," History, XIV, 1, Apr. 1929,
1-18.
Annales and
191
contact with the other social sciences.
Meanwhile,
re-
mained a
captive
of the
study
of
political
movements,
ideologies,
events,
and
crises.
Thus,
as it
were,
two historical cultures
developed:
one,
contemporary
history, mainly descriptive
and oriented towards
"vnements",
living by
the
year
and
by
the
day, strongly preoccupied by politics
and
ideologies,
and re-
volving
around axes such as world
wars, revolutions, fascism, etc,;
the other a
new
historiography,
with a broader orientation and
analyzing
in
depth,
with an
eye
for the constants of environment and
climate,
large geographical
units,
eco-
nomic
cycles,
and social
structures,
and an inclination to the
long
term.
The outcome of these
developments
was
surprising
in several
w'ays.
On the
one
hand,
the traditional character of
was
sharply
illus-
trated
by
the Annales
revolution,
so
that,
paradoxically,
the most modern
history
turned into the most archaic field. On the other
hand,
the Annales
historians continued
working,
all the more so as
they
introduced
methodological
innovations,
on the same
period
favored
by
the
positivist
historians, namely,
the
Ancien
Rgime.
Due
precisely
to the
development
of
as a
separate
and
important
field of
studies,
it became
increasingly
clear how the
Annales historians attuned their theoretical
concepts
of a
continuous,
semi-
permanent history
more and more to one
specific period.
After this
attempt
at an
analysis,
we must now look for an
explanation.
Again,
two
questions
are raised:
why
has not Annales entered into the domain of
and
why
have
contemporary
historians learned so little
from Annales?
The fact that Annales has had so little concern for
has
been noted
by
others. The
explanation given by
some of
them,
that this is
merely
accidental,
an outcome of the
personal
interests of the
great
masters8
does not seem
satisfactory, especially
for Annales as
ajournai,
because there we
have seen in
any
case a certain shift of focus. An
explanation
of this kind seems
more
applicable
to Annales as a
school,
in which context one
may point
to
institutional
factors,
the
founding
of the Vie Section in
1947,
with its
expanding
institutes and
strictly-controlled
funds,
and also to such social factors in French
academic life as the
patronal
tradition
(the system
of "le
patron
et son cercle" so
well illuminated
by
Clark in his
interesting analysis).9
Much more fundamental is the
problem put
forward
by
Groh and
Iggers,
namely
that the Annales
conception
of a
semi-permanent
history ("histoire
im-
mobile")
is itself
very
much tailored for
pre-industrial
society,
not suitable for
the
explication
of social
change,
and not
very
workable with
respect
to the
technical-industrial
age.10
If this is
true,
it
might
also lead us to the answer of
the second
question, why contemporary history
has taken over so little of the
Annales
approach.
8#
For this
explanation,
sec G. G.
Iggers,
"Die 'Annales' und ihre Kritiker. Problme moderner franz-
sischer
Sozialgeschichte,"
Historische
Zeitschrift, LLXIX, 1974,
603.
9#
T. N.
Clark, Prophets
and Patrons. The French
University
and the
Emergence of
the Social Sciences,
(Cambridge:
Harvard
University Press, 1973).
10#
Iggers, op. cit.;D. Groh, "Stmkturgeschichte
als 'totale' Geschichte?
," Viertelijahrsschrift furSozial-
und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, LVHI, 1971,
289-322.
192 H. L.
Wesseling
This, however,
forces us to a
prior question,
what is to be understood in this
context
by
the Annales
approach.
It is not a
simple question.
First, because,
contrary
to the title of this
conference,
Annales has
always
remained a
group
rather than a
school,
with marked individual differences.
Secondly,
because
there are differences between the various
periods (earlier
and
later)
of Annales.
Finally,
because,
individually,
too,
differing points
of view are to be noted in
different
writings.
But in this
context,
I am not interested so much in the
history
of ideas of Annales
,
as in a social
history
of their
ideas;
that
is,
not what various
Annales historians have stated at one time or
another,
but what has trickled
through
and became established
among
historians in
general
as the
"message"
of
Annales. This set of ideas would then boil down to certain
notions,
often im-
plicit
rather than
explicit,
about
"structures",
"conjonctures",
"vnements",
and their
hierarchization,
about the
primacy
of the
"longue
dure",
the
insignifi-
cance of
politics
and "events". These views are bound to create
problems
for
contemporary
historians. Not because
would
by
definition
be
political
or "event
history",
nor,
for that
matter,
because
political history
itself would be condemned to
dealing
with events
only.1
1
The
point
is rather
that,
in
taken from now on in its
Anglo-Saxon
sense,
the
"political"
and the "event" have taken on a
fundamentally
different
meaning.
Here we are faced with an
important epistemological problem, namely
that
there is no immanent
knowledge
of the
past.
The various
interpretations
of
historians cannot be held
up directly against
the
past
to find out which de-
scription
best renders
reality.
In other
words,
it is not the
past
itself which
determines the relative
importance
of
events,
but the historian who decides
which of the
myriad
events are to be selected and elevated to the status of a
historical fact.
Still,
in this
process
of
selection,
the historian is
guided by
certain
criteria. The most
important
of these can be defined
simply
as this: what has
influenced
decisively
the fate of mankind? With this criterion in
mind,
the
Annales view is
acceptable,
both
scientifically
and
humanistically,
because it
focuses on all mankind instead of a small
upper layer,
and it states that the
constant factors of
geography
and
climate,
and the slow roll of the economic
tides have been the
primary
element in
determining
their lives. The
appropriate
frame for such an
analysis
of this kind is indeed a
geographical
and not a
political
one
(La Mditerrane).
The central theme of
history
becomes the sub-
mission to nature and the
struggle
to master it
(the
Civilisation
matrielle).
Here,
in
short,
social
history
is total
history.
But how does this criterion
apply
to
contemporary history?
As a
point
of
departure,
let us take a famous sentence from La Mditerrane. About
political
and
military
events we read: "Events are dust.
They
traverse
history
as flashes of
light. Scarcely
are
they
born when
they
return to
darkness,
often to oblivion."1
2
If,
albeit with some
hesitation,
one
accepts
this
passage
in its
context,
then it
would be difficult to
generalize
it and to
accept
that in the twentieth
century
1 1#
Sec
J. Julliard,
"La
Politique,"
in
J. LeGoff,
Pierre
Nora, eds.,
Faire de l'histoire
(Paris: Gallimard,
1974), II,
231.
12
F.
Braudel,
La Mditerrane et le monde mditerranen
l'poque
de
Philippe
II
(Paris:
Lib. A.
Colin, 1966),
2nd
d., II,
223.
Annales and
193
too,
war and
revolution,
diplomacy
and
dictatorship
are
merely ripples
on the
surface,
which do not
essentially
influence
peoples'
lives,
and never touch the
slow undercurrent of the
longue
dure. On the
contrary,
it seems that the once
so
superficial
events have
undergone
a
qualitative change,
now that
they
have a
direct
impact upon
the lives of millions.
Semi-permanent
time is affected
by
the
acceleration of
history.
Problems arise from man's
mastery
over nature rather
than from his submission to it. The
potentialities
of
power
over man as well as
nature have become so
great
that the most vital
problem
is no
longer
the
striving
to increase
power,
but
how,
and
by
whom,
it is to be exercised.
Here,
in
short,
not social but
political history,
that
is,
the
history
of
power,
is total
history.
If this
hypothesis
is
true,
then the Annales
conception
leads to
major pro-
blems not
only
in the
explanation
of social
change,
as Groh and
Iggers
have
stated,
but also in the
interpretation
of the
contemporary
world. Such authors as
Barraclough
and Romein have labelled the
years
1880-1900 as a "watershed" or
"breukvlak"
(break
of
continuity)
in
history,
and have maintained
that,
with
them,
a new
age
has
opened up.ls
One
might
describe this as the technical-
industrial
age
but also as the
age
of mass
politics.
For the
point
is that the
Industrial Revolution has led not
only
to a
mastery
over nature
-
and thus to a
liberation of mankind
-
but also to a concentration of
power
and thus to a new
submission.
While,
previously,
the will to
power
had been restricted
by
the
limitations in its
exercise, now, through
the technical
revolution,
these limita-
tions have
practically
vanished. In this
way
the Industrial Revolution has led to a
political
revolution,
that
is,
a revolution in the
very
nature of
politics.
This
process,
which I have called the
politicization
of the
world,
gives
contem-
porary history
its
unique
character.14 The
distinguishing
mark of the
history
of
the Western world from the
"long
16e sicle" on has
been, first,
the
separation
of a
"public
domain" out of the
original
blend of
politics, economy,
culture,
and
so on: "der Staat als
Kunstwerk",
in Burckhardt's words. And
then,
in the late
nineteenth
century,
the reunion of the two
domains,
state and
society,
but in a
new
hierarchy:
the state had won out over
society.
Politics was no
longer
one
modest sector of
public
life. The word had come to
imply
the domination of all
the
society.
Therefore,
political history
can no
longer
be an
appendix
in the
book of structural
history.
On the
contrary,
the dialectic between state and
society
is the main theme of a structural
contemporary history.
Looking
at the
development
of Annales and of
outlined
here,
we reach a somewhat
paradoxical
conclusion. The
positivist
historians of
the late nineteenth
century,
fascinated
by
the
growth
of the
power
and the
machinery
of the
state,
reduced
history
to a tale of
politics
and
diplomacy.
For
the
history they
studied,
that of the sixteenth to
eighteenth
centuries,
this was
Geoffrey Barraclough,
An Introduction to
Contemporary History (London: Pelican, 1967); J.
Romein, Op
het breukvlak van twee eeuwen
(Leiden: Brill, 1967).
14#
See
my
"Les transformations du 'World
System'
la fin du 19e sicle et
l'empire
colonial ner-
landais," Europa, I, 1,
Nov.
1977, 37-49;
and
"European Expansion.
Some reflections on a
colloquium
and a
theme,"
in E L
Wesseling, d., Expansion
and Reaction.
Essays
on
European Expansion
and
Reactions in Asia and
Africa by
F.
Braudel,
H.
Brunschwig,
S. N. Eisenstadt, J.
C. Heesterman, J.-L. Mige,
R.
Robinson,
I.
Schffer,
H. L.
Wesseling,
and E. lurcher
(The Hague:
Leiden Univ.
Press, 1977).
194 H. L.
Wesseling
an anachronism. And the
history
of their own times
they
did not
study.
The
achievement of the Annales revolution has been that
they exposed
this ana-
chronism and introduced the
history
of man instead of that of the state.
But,
though
revolutionaries in this
respect, they
were conservatives* in
another,
because
they, too,
hardly
crossed the threshold of the nineteenth
century,
and
hence
developed
a historical culture which had its own
chronological
limitations.
The
paradox
now is that the
positivist
historians were
instinctively right
in their
discovery
of
"politique
d'abord",
but
they
made the mistake of
projecting
this
discovery
back onto earlier
ages.
The Annales historians were
right
to dismiss
this
anachronism,
but threaten to fall into a new
one,
when
they proclaim
the
validity
of their
concepts
for
as well.
The moral of this
story
can be short. The Annales
history
of the contem-
porary age
remains
yet
to be written. If it is
written,
it will not be Annales
history.
But
can no
longer
be written without the
Annales.

Annales and The Writing of Contemporary History - Wesseling

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Annales and The Writing of Contemporary History - Wesseling

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Research Foundation of SUNY

The Annales School and the Writing of Contemporary History

S-ar putea să vă placă și