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: 31/08/2013 16:51

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 [email protected].

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 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review,I, 3/4,Winter/Spring
1978, 185-194.

TheAnnalesSchool
and theWritingof
ContemporaryHistory

H. L. Wessettng
The Annales have had littleor no impact on the writingof contemporary
history.The question is whyhas thisbeen so. This questionhas two different
aspects:the amountof workstheAnnaleshistorianshavedone in thisparticular
field,and the degreeof influencetheyhave had on contemporary historiansin
general.In both respects,the answer seems to be the same: very little.
Contem-
poraryhistory and Annales history seem to be separated, as if by an ocean. A
of
simplecomparison any issue of theAnnales withan issue of, for example, the
Journalof Contemporary Historywillmakethisclear.In theJournalof Contem-
poraryHistoryyone will findarticlesdealingwiththe Czech questionin 1904,
Britishstrategyin Palestine,N.A.T.O. and the M.L.F., and the politicalideas of
Barrés;in the Annales,articleson Portuguesemysticismin the eighteenthcen-
tury,the feastin Provencein theseventeenth century,birthcontrolin sixteenth-
century Florence, and in
housing Normandy between 1200 and 1800.
This comparisonis strikingfortwo reasons.First,it is amazingthatprecisely
contemporary historiansshould have learnednothingfromAnnales. Are they
then like the Bourbons, who had learned nothingand forgottennothing?
Secondly,the discoveryof a generallack of interestby theAnnaleshistoriansin
contemporary historyis an astonishingone. They themselveshave maintained
thatthe "spiritof Annales"is markedby social engagement and concernforthe
"problemsthattroublecontemporary man."1 "Let us explain the worldto the

Lucien Febvre,Combatspour l'histoire(Paris: Lib. A. Colin, 1953), 42.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 H. L. Wesseling

world- throughhistory,"in the tersewordsof Lucien Febvre.2"Let us under-

stand the presentthroughthe past," in the equally sober formulation of Marc
Bloch.3 These are mottoeswhich sufficiently illustratetheirstrivingforsocial
relevance.Thus the problemis an intriguing one, and it is worthwhile to probe
intothe mattersomewhatdeeper.
In consideringthe contributionof theAnnales to contemporary history,we
must distinguishbetween the Annalesas a group,a school,an institution, and
In
Annalesas a journal. As a school of thought,thereis clearlycontinuity. the
workofBloch, Febvre,Braudel,Goubert,LeRoy Ladurie,Mandrou,LeGoff(and
many more well-knownnames could be cited), the main emphasishas always
been on the MiddleAges and earlymoderntimes.This is truealso of thetheses
theirpupilsand of theresearchprojectsof theCentrede RecherchesHistoriques.
Fromthe 1920's untilto-day,thecontinuityis remarkable.
In the case of Annales as a journal,the situationis different.This becomes
apparent, if one the
categorizes subject-matter of the articlesin Annales accord-
ing to the period they deal with, and then considers the resultsover a longer
stretchof time.In doing this,I have appropriately chosenthe longuedurée,at
least the longest possible: since 1929. Moreover,I have triedto analyze the
materialin a quantitative(or serial)way, albeitwithoutthe use of a computer.
The resultsof thishomeopathicmethodare foundin figures1 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'histoireou métierd'historien(Paris: lib. A. Colin, 1966), 2nd éd., 11.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annalesand Contemporary
History 187

Figure 2. "Modern History" and "ContemporaryHistory" in Annales: Page Volume

under Various Editorial Directors,1929-76.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 H. L. Wesseling

Of coursethesefiguresshouldbe handledwithcare. Severalproblemsarise,such

as the greatgrowthin volume of the reviewand the changingproportionof
articlesas againstsmallercontributions.From the 1950's on, thereis also the
increasingparticipationof the othersocial sciences,whichdeal partlywithcon-
temporarysubject matter.To distinguishthese from"historyproper" would
complicatedand scholasticdiscussion.
lead us intoa particularly
Hence I have includedthemall (in so faras theyare chronologically defined)
in "contemporary history".Thus thesetablesdo whattablesseemalwaysto do.
They stressthe obvious,because even a superficialcomparisonof the firstten
yearsof Annales with the last ten years shows a markedchangein character.
Annaleshas become moretheoretical,moreabstract,morescientific ifyou will,
and less engagedand interested in currentaffairs.No aversionfrompoliticaland
ideological mattersexisted under Bloch and Febvre,insofaras contemporary
historyis concerned.4But afterthe 1950's, the aversionfromthese matters
seemsto be total.How is thisshiftof focusto be explained?
Possiblythe answer is that, fromthe 1950's on, theoriesabout structural
history,the primacyof the "longue durée", and the equation of politicswith
events- and thus with superficiality - have in manycirclesbeen raisedto a
kind of dogma. Afterthe Bible, inevitablyfollowsexegesis.AfterLa Méditer-
ranée,inevitablyfollowedthescholasticism history.Meanwhile,for
of structural
Annalesas a whole,thestrongpredilectionformoreancienthistoryseemsto be
a continuingfact.
Whythisgroupunanimouslycomesto a standstillat themagicbarrierof 1789
is a questionwe will deal withlater.Beforethat,thereis thequestionas to the
extentto whichcontemporary historianshave been influencedby the Annales
revolution.There is no need to demonstrateat lengththat contemporary
history,particularlytwentieth-century history,was hardlyinfluencedat all,
eitherin subject matteror in method,by Annales. Everyoneknows that in
contemporary history,the greatdiscussionsare about warand diplomacy,revo-
lutionsand ideologies.Those are the topics whichoccupy the prominent histo-
rians.The contentsof special journals such as the Vierteljahresheftefur Zeit-
geschichteand theJournalof Contemporary Historygiveampleevidenceof this.
The firstof these two journals has, of course,quite its own historyand char-
acter,whichis whywe would do betterto turnto theJournalof Contemporary
Historyfora comparison.One glanceat thelatter'stableof contentsshowsthat
over 78% of thecontributions deal withpoliticalhistoryin thewide senseof the
word (Items 1-4 of Table 1). Two otherjournalsthatare also devotedmainlyto
contemporary history,theInternational Reviewof Social Historyand theRevue
d'histoiremoderneet contemporaineillustratemore or less the same phenom-
enon (see Tables1 and 2).

4* Fcbvrc indeed
reproached the authors of an Histoire de Russie that they did not pay enough
attentionto post-revolutionaryRussia. Moreover,in foundingAnnales, Bloch and Febvrewantedto invite
"men involvedin the workingsof contemporaryaffairs,"such as AlbertThomas, to cooperate withthem.
See Febvre,Combats,op. cit., 352.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annalesand Contemporary
History 189

Table 1. Subject matterin fourhistoricaljournals

c h- + matter
** JHZ 1953-76
VI IRSH 1956-76 RHMC 1954-76 JCH 1966-76
Subject number % number % number <*
% u
number 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

furZeitgeschichte
Explanationof the abbreviatons: VJHZ Vierteljahreshefte
IRSH InternationalReview of Social History
RHMC Revue d'histoiremoderneet contem-
poraine
JCH Journalof ContemporaryHistory

Table 2. Periodstreatedin two historicaljournals

Period IRSH 1956- 76 RHMC 1954- 76

number % number %

1. Modernhistory 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. Ancienthistory 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 exclusivelywith twentieth-century
history.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 H. L. Wesseling

It would lead us too far astray to dwell on the historyof contemporary

historyand the theoreticaldiscussionsthat have accompanied it. The term,
incidentally,is ambiguous,as it can refereitherto trulycontemporary history,
that of our own time, or historysince the French Revolutionin the French
usage, and historysince about 1900 in the English.In this last sense both
meaningsare almost the same, since, for most livinghistorians,the twentieth
centurymay be regardedas theirown time. The idea that a historianshould
concernhimselfwithhis own timegoesback to Thucydides,and has also been a
generallyaccepted view (and practice) for a long time.Lessingheld the "best
historian"was he who describedthe historyof his own countryand his own
times.5It was the so-called"scientifichistory"of the late nineteenthcentury
whichexpelledcontemporary historyand removedher,on the chargeof being
unscientific,from the domain of history.Thus, Annales and contemporary
historyshared the same foe. The positivisthistoriansso scornedby Lucien
Febvrewerethe same as those arguingthatthe recentpast was unfinishedand
thereforeunfitfor historicalscrutiny.PierreNora has suggestedsome possible
causes for this. He quotes, in this context,a reportof 1867 by threeyoung
Frenchhistorianswho arguedthatthehistoryof a periodcan onlybe bornwhen
thisis completelyclosed. They concluded: "The domainof historyis the past.
The presentbelongsto politicsand the futureto God."6 Of course,thisstate-
ment not only reflectsa certainview of contemporaryhistory,but also of
historyin general.Its distinctive
featuresare theequationof politicsand history,
and especiallythe linearvisionof time.Time is not conceptualbut real,not a
tool forhistoricalanalysisbut an entityin itsown right.
Thus contemporaryhistorywas expelled by the positivisthistorians.The
ironyof fate was that this strong-willed mother,politicalhistory,was in turn
dismissedby her youngersisters,social and economichistory.And so contem-
poraryhistory,alreadyexiled,becamean orphanas well.In spiteof herdifficult
childhood,however,the orphandeveloped into an amazinglyvitaladult. This
was not due to historiographical, but to politicaland social circumstances.
The
great troubles of the second and third decades of our -
century war,revolution,
crises,fascism- simplydemandedan answerof history.They were the same
problemswhich inspiredthe foundersof Annales.And so, in the same yearof
1929 when Bloch and Febvre foundedAnnales, the EnglishhistorianR. W.
Seton-Watson,withhis "Plea forthe Studyof Contemporary History,"gavethe
firstimpulsefortherehabilitation of contemporary history.7
However,althoughborn fromthe same situation,the two trendssoon went
separatepaths, apparentlyneverto be reconciledagain.Annalesextendedthe
fieldof modernhistory,even of historyitself,subjectedit to theoreticaldiscus-
sions, introducedmethodologicalinnovations,and began reshapingit in close

5* On
Lessing,sec F. W. Pick, "ContemporaryHistory: Method and Men," History,XXXI, 1, Mar.
1946, 26-55.
*
See PierreNora, "Pour une histoirecontemporaine,"in Mélangesen l'honneurde FernandBraudel,
(Toulouse: Privât,1973), I, 420.
7#R. W.
Seton-Watson,"A Plea for the Study of ContemporaryHistory,"History,XIV, 1, Apr. 1929,
1-18.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annalesand Contemporary
History 191

contact with the other social sciences. Meanwhile,contemporaryhistoryre-

maineda captiveof the study of political movements,ideologies,events,and
crises.Thus, as it were, two historicalculturesdeveloped: one, contemporary
history,mainlydescriptiveand orientedtowards"événements",livingby the
year and by the day, stronglypreoccupiedby politics and ideologies,and re-
volvingaround axes such as world wars,revolutions,fascism,etc,; the othera
new historiography, witha broaderorientationand analyzingin depth,withan
eye for the constants of environment and climate,largegeographical units,eco-
nomiccycles,and social structures, and an inclinationto thelongterm.
The outcome of these developmentswas surprising in severalw'ays.On the
one hand, the traditionalcharacterof contemporary historywas sharplyillus-
trated by the Annales revolution,so that, paradoxically,the most modern
historyturnedinto the most archaic field. On the other hand, the Annales
historianscontinuedworking,all themoreso as theyintroducedmethodological
innovations, on the same periodfavoredby thepositivisthistorians, namely,the
AncienRégime.Due preciselyto the developmentof contemporary historyas a
separate and important field of studies,it became increasingly clear how the
Annales historiansattuned their theoreticalconcepts of a continuous,semi-
permanent historymoreand moreto one specificperiod.
Afterthis attemptat an analysis,we must now look for an explanation.
Again,two questionsare raised:whyhas not Annalesenteredintothedomainof
contemporary history,and why have contemporary historianslearnedso little
fromAnnales?
The factthatAnnaleshas had so littleconcernforcontemporary historyhas
been noted by others.The explanationgiven by some of them,that this is
merelyaccidental,an outcome of the personalinterestsof the greatmasters8
does not seem satisfactory, especiallyforAnnalesas ajournai, because therewe
have seen in any case a certainshiftof focus.An explanationof thiskindseems
more applicable to Annales as a school, in which context one may point to
factors,the foundingof the Vie Sectionin 1947, withitsexpanding
institutional
and strictly-controlled
institutes funds,and also to suchsocial factorsin French
academiclifeas thepatronaltradition(the systemof "le patronet son cercle"so
wellilluminated by Clarkin hisinteresting analysis).9
Much more fundamentalis the problemput forwardby Groh and Iggers,
namelythatthe Annalesconceptionof a semi-permanent history("histoireim-
mobile") is itselfverymuch tailoredforpre-industrial society,not suitablefor
the explicationof social change, and not veryworkablewith respectto the
age.10 If thisis true,it mightalso lead us to the answerof
technical-industrial
the second question,whycontemporary historyhas takenover so littleof the
Annalesapproach.
8#For this
explanation,sec G. G. Iggers,"Die 'Annales' und ihre Kritiker.Problèmemodernerfranz-
ôsischerSozialgeschichte,"HistorischeZeitschrift,LLXIX, 1974, 603.
9#T. N. and theEmergenceof the Social Sciences,
Clark,Prophetsand Patrons. The French University
(Cambridge:Harvard Press,1973).
University

10# als 'totale' Geschichte?," Viertelijahrsschrift

furSozial-
Iggers,op. cit.;D. Groh,"Stmkturgeschichte
und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,LVHI, 1971, 289-322.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 H. L. Wesseling

This,however,forcesus to a priorquestion,what is to be understoodin this

contextby the Annales approach. It is not a simplequestion. First,because,
contraryto the title of this conference,Annaleshas alwaysremaineda group
ratherthan a school, with marked individualdifferences.Secondly,because
thereare differences betweenthe variousperiods(earlierand later) ofAnnales.
Finally,because, individually,too, differing points of view are to be noted in
different writings.But in thiscontext, I am not interestedso muchin thehistory
of ideas of Annales, as in a social historyof theirideas; thatis, not whatvarious
Annales historianshave stated at one time or another,but what has trickled
throughand became establishedamonghistoriansin generalas the "message"of
Annales. This set of ideas would thenboil down to certainnotions,oftenim-
plicit ratherthan explicit,about "structures","conjonctures","événements",
and theirhierarchization, about theprimacyof the "longuedurée",theinsignifi-
cance of politicsand "events". These views are bound to createproblemsfor
contemporary historians.Not because contemporary historywouldby definition
be political or "event history",nor, for that matter,because politicalhistory
itselfwould be condemnedto dealingwitheventsonly.11 The point is rather
that,in contemporary history,taken fromnow on in itsAnglo-Saxonsense,the
"political" and the "event" havetakenon a fundamentally different meaning.
Here we are faced with an importantepistemologicalproblem,namelythat
there is no immanentknowledgeof the past. The variousinterpretations of
historianscannot be held up directlyagainstthe past to findout which de-
scriptionbest rendersreality.In other words,it is not the past itselfwhich
determinesthe relativeimportanceof events,but the historianwho decides
which of the myriadeventsare to be selected and elevatedto the statusof a
historicalfact.Still,in thisprocessof selection,thehistorianis guidedby certain
criteria.The most importantof these can be definedsimplyas this: whathas
influenceddecisivelythe fate of mankind? With this criterionin mind,the
Annales view is acceptable, both scientifically and humanistically, because it
focuses on all mankindinstead of a small upper layer,and it statesthat the
constantfactorsof geographyand climate,and the slow roll of the economic
tideshave been the primaryelementin determining theirlives.The appropriate
framefor such an analysis of this kind is indeed a geographicaland not a
politicalone (La Méditerranée).The centralthemeof historybecomes thesub-
missionto natureand the struggle to masterit (the Civilisation
matérielle).Here,
in short,social historyis totalhistory.
But how does this criterionapply to contemporary history?As a pointof
departure,let us take a famoussentencefromLa Méditerranée. Aboutpolitical
and militaryeventswe read: "Eventsare dust.They traversehistoryas flashesof
light.Scarcelyare theybornwhentheyreturnto darkness,oftento oblivion."12
If, albeit with some hesitation,one accepts thispassagein its context,thenit
would be difficultto generalizeit and to accept thatin the twentiethcentury

1 1#
Sec J. Julliard,"La Politique," in J. LeGoff,PierreNora,eds., Faire de l'histoire(Paris: Gallimard,
1974), II, 231.
12
F. Braudel, La Méditerranéeet le monde méditerranéen
à l'époque de PhilippeII (Paris: Lib. A.
Colin,1966),2ndéd.,II, 223.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annalesand Contemporary
History 193

too, war and revolution,diplomacyand dictatorshipare merelyrippleson the

surface,which do not essentiallyinfluencepeoples' lives,and nevertouch the
slow undercurrent of the longuedurée. On the contrary,it seemsthattheonce
so superficialeventshave undergonea qualitativechange,now that theyhave a
directimpactupon the livesof millions.Semi-permanent timeis affectedby the
accelerationof history.Problemsarise fromman's masteryovernaturerather
thanfromhis submissionto it. The potentialitiesof power overman as well as
naturehave become so greatthatthemostvitalproblemis no longerthe striving
to increasepower,but how, and by whom,it is to be exercised.Here,in short,
not socialbut politicalhistory,thatis, thehistoryof power,is totalhistory.
If this hypothesisis true,then the Annales conceptionleads to majorpro-
blems not only in the explanationof social change,as Groh and Iggershave
stated,but also in the interpretationof thecontemporary world.Such authorsas
Barraclough and Romein have labelled the years1880-1900 as a "watershed"or
"breukvlak"(break of continuity)in history,and have maintainedthat,with
them,a new age has opened up.ls One mightdescribethis as the technical-
industrialage but also as the age of mass politics. For the point is that the
IndustrialRevolutionhas led not only to a masteryovernature- and thusto a
liberationof mankind- but also to a concentration of powerand thusto a new
submission.While,previously,the will to power had been restrictedby the
limitationsin its exercise,now, throughthe technicalrevolution,theselimita-
tionshavepracticallyvanished.In thisway theIndustrialRevolutionhas led to a
politicalrevolution, thatis, a revolutionin theverynatureof politics.
This process,whichI havecalled thepoliticizationof theworld,givescontem-
poraryhistoryits unique character.14The distinguishing markof thehistoryof
the Westernworldfromthe "long 16e siècle" on has been, first,theseparation
of a "public domain"out of the originalblendof politics,economy,culture,and
so on: "der Staat als Kunstwerk",in Burckhardt's words.And then,in thelate
nineteenthcentury,the reunionof the two domains,state and society,but in a
new hierarchy:the state had won out over society.Politicswas no longerone
modestsectorof public life.The wordhad come to implythe dominationof all
the society.Therefore,political historycan no longerbe an appendix in the
book of structuralhistory.On the contrary,the dialecticbetween state and
societyis themainthemeof a structural contemporary history.
Lookingat the developmentofAnnalesand of contemporary historyoutlined
here,we reach a somewhatparadoxicalconclusion. The positivisthistoriansof
the late nineteenthcentury,fascinatedby the growth the power and the
of
machineryof the state,reducedhistoryto a tale of politicsand diplomacy.For
the historytheystudied,thatof the sixteenthto eighteenthcenturies,thiswas

Geoffrey Barraclough,An Introduction to Contemporary History(London: Pelican,1967); J.

Romein, Op hetbreukvlak vantweeeeuwen(Leiden:Brill,1967).
14#See du 'WorldSystem'à la findu 19e siècleet l'empirecolonialnéer-
my"Les transformations
landais,"Europa,I, 1, Nov. 1977, 37-49;and "EuropeanExpansion.Somereflections on a colloquium
and a theme,"in E L Wesseling, éd., Expansionand Reaction.Essayson EuropeanExpansionand
Reactionsin AsiaandAfricabyF. Braudel, J.C. Heesterman,
S. N. Eisenstadt,
H. Brunschwig, J.-L.Miège,
R. Robinson,I. Schôffer, andE. lurcher(TheHague:LeidenUniv.Press,1977).
H. L. Wesseling,

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 H. L. Wesseling

an anachronism.And the historyof theirown timestheydid not study.The

achievementof the Annales revolutionhas been that they exposed this ana-
chronismand introducedthe historyof man insteadof thatof the state. But,
though revolutionariesin this respect, they were conservatives* in another,
because they,too, hardlycrossedthe thresholdof the nineteenthcentury,and
hence developeda historicalculturewhichhad itsown chronologicallimitations.
The paradox now is that the positivisthistorianswereinstinctively rightin their
of
discovery "politique d'abord", but theymade the mistake of projectingthis
discovery back onto earlierages. The Annales historians were rightto dismiss
this anachronism,but threatento fallinto a new one, when theyproclaimthe
validityof theirconceptsforcontemporary historyas well.
The moral of this storycan be short.The Annales historyof the contem-
poraryage remainsyet to be written.If it is written,it will not be Annales
history. But contemporaryhistorycan no longer be writtenwithout the
Annales.

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:51:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions