See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277584444

The “Annales” School and the Challenge of the Late 20th Century. Criticism
and Tentative Reforms

Article  in  Acta Poloniae historica · January 2005

CITATION READS

1 10,029

1 author:

Tomasz Wislicz
Polish Academy of Sciences
21 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Peasant Sexuality in Early Modern Poland View project

History of Historiography and Theory of History View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomasz Wislicz on 09 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acta Poloniae Historica
92. 2005
PL ISSN 0001 - 6829

Tomasz Wiślicz

THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL AND THE CHALLENGE

OF THE LATE 20th CENTURY. CRITICISMS
AND TENTATIVE REFORMS

Since the 1950s French historiography has been dominated by

the “Annales” school, a research trend brought into being by the
journal of that name. Its main aim was to give history a clearly
scientific status through a re-definition of the object of the
historian’s interest and the use of objective analytical methods
borrowed from the social sciences. The “Annales” school focused
on economic and social questions and presented them in quan­
titative formulations. It denied the role of events in historical
processes and rejected the traditional political history. It intro­
duced the concept of total history which combined ecology with
economy in order to explain long-term phenomena which shape
mankind’s history. Structures and trends were recognized as the
main subject of historical research. The longue durée category
worked out by Fernand B r a u d e l has become the visiting card
of the school. The historians who followed the guidelines of the
“Annales” school stressed the importance of interdisciplinary
studies, sought inspiration in sociology, economics and geo­
graphy and repudiated all links with philosophy and literature.
Beside Marxism and the American modernization theory, the
“Annales” school became one of the three great historiographic
schools which explained history by means of socio-economic
categories. It turned out to be the most vital of them owing, first
and foremost, to its exceptional adaptation capability1. This was
borne out by the changes introduced in the “Annales” school
under the influence of the events of 1968. The younger generation
of researchers treated the legacy of its predecessors in a creative

1 F. D o s s e , L ’H is to ire en miettes. Des “A n n a les”’ a la “nouvelle histoire”, Paris

1987, p. 251.

www.rcin.org.pl
208 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

way. The school’s renewed programme was outlined in three

volumes of methodological studies entitled Faire de l’histoire
which appeared in 19742 and was later named “new history”, in
line with the title of the famous book-manifesto of 19783. The
main change was the introduction of new research subjects
borrowed from structural anthropology, such as carnality, table
manners, sex life, rites and myths. The old interest in man’s
“objective” condition merged with an analysis of the “subjective”
features of human existence, producing as a result a history of
material culture and a history of mentalities. The chronological
framework of research changed, near-static phenomena replac­
ing evolutions and long-term transformations. Syntheses and the
idea of total history were gradually abandoned. In place of the
previous unified criteria, diverse explanatory systems began to
be applied. According to “new history” almost everything could
be a subject of historical research and the methodologies of all
social sciences could be used for this purpose. That the new road
was the correct one, was soon confirmed by the appearance of
several books which were recognized as spectacular scientific
achievements, and by the enormous, unprecedented popularity
of historical works on the publishing market in France and other
countries.
The first critical voices questioning the world success of the
“Annales” school were raised at the turn of the 1970s. The two
most important texts, those by the Englishman Lawrence
S t o n e and the Italian Carlo G i n z b u r g , appeared in 1979 and
in the following year were published in a French translation in
the prestigious journal “Le Débat”. Both texts referred to the
“Annales” school’s conception of the scientific character of his­
tory, a question of fundamental significance for the school. Ac­
cording to Lawrence Stone, the socio-economic methods of ex­
plaining history, the French model as well as Marxism and
American cliometrics, have turned out to be inefficient. History
should return to narration, organize the material chronologically,
and explanatory models should give way to an analysis of histori­
cal changes. In place of the quantitative approach Stone proposed
studies on individual cases, and instead of alliances with socio­
logy, economics and demography, he proposed a return to an­

2 F a ire d e l'histoire, vol . 1-3, ed. J. L e G o f f , P. N o r a , Paris 1974.

3 L a N ouvelle histoire, ed. J. L e G o f f , R. C h a r t i e r , J. R e v e l , Paris 1978.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 209

thropology and psychology. He did not want the historian to be

a scientist, a model promoted by the “Annales” school, but a man
of letters4.
Carlo Ginzburg’s text was a kind of manifesto of the nascent
Italian microhistory. Ginzburg questioned the sense of including
history in the Galilean model of science, a model typical of the
natural sciences which are experimental and cumulative. In his
view, historiography should use the opposite “indicatory” para­
digm, for historical reality can be decoded only by an analysis of
the traces and indications it has left. Contrary to the principles
of the repetitive Galilean model, history, in his opinion, is insepa­
rably linked with individualization. Historical knowledge is indi­
rect and hypothetical, it is by its very nature qualitative not
quantitative. This kind of knowledge requires the arrangement of
facts in narrative sequences and is acquired in the very act of
historical creation, the historian’s cognitive strategy remaining
fully individualistic5.
In France, too, it soon began to be asserted that historio­
graphy was in crisis. Suppositions were at first put forward that
“New history” did not owe its hegemony to its scientific quality
but to a skilful strategy of gaining intellectual and institutional
authority in scientific institutes, at universities, in publishing
houses and the media. The sharpest criticism was launched by
François D o s s e in his book L ’Histoire en miettes published in
1987. In his opinion “New history” betrayed the ideals of the
“Annales” school, and the direction it mapped out did not corre­
spond to the challenges of contemporary times. It was a mistake
to reject the idea of total history for this led to the fragmentation
of historical research (to the history in crumbs as the title says).
Having been divided into many specialistic sections closely linked
with the social sciences, with their methods and subjects, histo­
riography has lost its identity. Dosse expected that researchers
who clung to the globalizing approach would renew the historical
science, provided they rejected the annalistic concept of immov­

4 L. S t o n e , The R evival o f Narrative: Reflections on a N ew Old History, “Past and

Present”, vol. 85, 1979, pp. 3-24; French translation: R e tou r au récit ou réflexions
sur une N ouvelle Vieille Histoire, “Le Débat”, N° 4, 1980, pp. 116-142.
5 C. G i n z b u r g , Spie. Radici d i un paradigm a indiziario, in: Crisi d ella ragione.
N uovi m odelli nel rapporto tra sapere e attività umane, ed. A. G a r g a ni, Torino
1979; French translation: Signes, traces, pistes. Racines d ’un paradigm e de
l'indice, “Le Débat”, N° 6, 1980, pp. 3-44.

www.rcin.org.pl
210 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

able time. In his view, history annihilates itself by becoming

ethnology for it undercuts its own foundations: duration and
changes in it. In Dosse’s opinion significance should be restored
to what the “Annales” school had rejected since its foundation,
namely, to the historical event. Dosse did not, of course, mean
a return to 19th century scientific standards. He thought that
“significant” events linked with the structures which made them
possible would become the subject of historical research. He also
drew attention to the necessity of preserving the causality of
events in order to avoid descriptions of isolated cases and theories
detached from reality6.
Slightly different measures aimed at overcoming the crisis in
the social sciences, including history, were proposed by Marcel
G a u c h e t in “Le Débat” in 1988. In his opinion attention should
be focused on the individual and not on social groups as the
“Annales” school advised. This proposal was in keeping with the
new trends present in French sociology in the 1980s, trends
which were developing under the influence of Pierre B o u r d i e u .
Gauchet also asserted that it was necessary to return to research
into politics for this was the most general level of the organization
of societies7.
Another study which had a strong impact in France was the
book Demystifying Mentalities by Geoffrey L l oyd, a British his­
torian specializing in ancient times. The book was published in
1990 and three years later was translated into French under the
significant title Pour en f inir avec les mentalités. With great
erudition the author undermined the sense and usefulness of the
concept of mentality. He pointed out that to ascribe ways of
thinking to groups was an excessive generalization for it is
individuals who think, not social groups. Moreover, in Lloyd’s
opinion scholars engaged in research on mentality concentrated
on permanent structural phenomena and ignored changes in
these structures, a question which was of fundamental import­
ance from the historical point of view. Lloyd also stressed that
historians defined mentality too freely; the result was that it was
impossible to make a reliable comparison of the results of their
research8. Lloyd’s matter-of-fact criticism won acclaim but, as

6 F. D o s se, op. cit.

7 M. G a u c h e t , Changem ent d e paradigm e en sciences sociales?, “Le Débat”, N°
50, 1988, pp. 165-170.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE "ANNALES" SCHOOL 211

Roger C h a r t i e r pointed out in a review published in “Le

Monde”, it was rather pointless, for French historiography had
not worked out such a clear and full idea of the concept of
mentality as the British researcher thought it had9.
From the 1980s on, the globalization of the social and
humanistic sciences, including history, progressed ever more
rapidly. Even French historians began to pay attention to what
was happening in other countries. The “Annales” school was
faced with a challenge from the Italian microstoria, the German
Alltagsgeschichte and, above all, the American linguistic turn,
which gave birth to postmodernism in history. Let us point out
that a whole series of paradoxes and misunderstandings had
a bearing on the relationship between Anglo-American postmod­
ernism and France, “this most modernistic country in the
world”10. To begin with, the postmodernist theory evolved on the
basis of opinions of some respected French intellectuals, such as
Jacques Lacan, Michel F o u c a u l t , Jacques D e r r i d a , Jean
B a u d r i l l a r d , Roland B a r t h e s , Julia K r i s t e v a , Jean-
Frangois L y o t a r d and Gilles D e l e u z e. The problem is that
in France they are usually not regarded as representatives of
a common, coherent trend. As a matter of fact their contribution
to the theory of postmodernism is due to a selective adaptation
and elaboration of their views by some university circles in the
USA11. From the French point of view this means that the
Anglo-American postmodernists are inconsistent and use am­
biguous criteria; this is why they have been sometimes accused
of dilettantism12. It may be regarded as a paradox that in its
criticism of the “Annales” school postmodernism frequently refers
to the authority of Michel Foucault, even though his influence
shaped the face of “Annales” in the 1970s13. One of Europe’s most

8 G. E. R. L l o yd, Dem ystifying Mentalities, Cambridge 1990; French translation:

P ou r en fin ir avec les mentalités, Paris 1993, pp. 16-19.
9 R. C h a r t i e r , L e Jeu de la règle. Lectures, Bordeaux 2000, p. 87.
10M. S i l v e r m a n , Facing Postm odernity. Contem porary French Thought on
Culture and Society, London-New York 1999, p. 1.
11 E. V a r i k a s , Féminisme, modernité, postm odem ité: p o u r dialogue des deux
cotés d e l'océan, in: Fém inism es au présent, Paris 1993 (special supplement to
the periodical “Futur antérieur"), p. 61.
12 G. N o i r i e l, S ur le ‘‘crise'’ de l ’histoire, Paris 1996, p. 143.
13Ch. D e l a c r o i x , F. D o s s e , P. G a r c i a , Les courants historiques en France
1 9e-20e siècles, Paris 1999, pp. 201, 226.

www.rcin.org.pl
212 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

prominent theoreticians of postmodernist historiography, Fran­

klin A n k e r s m i t , regards classic annalistic studies in the
history of mentality, such as Montaillou, village occitan by Em­
manuel Le R o y L a d u r i e (Paris 1975) and Le Dimanche de
Bouvines: 27 juillet 1214 by Georges Du by (Paris 1973) as
works typical of postmodernist historiography14.
From the point of view of postmodernism, the “Annales”
school’s idea of history is unauthorized and fundamentally wrong.
The conflict stems mainly from the “Annales” school’s aspiration
to impart a scientific, or rather scientistic, character to history
and other social sciences. But postmodernists doubt whether
objective knowledge can exist at all, especially in the social
sciences. In their view, scientific theories are dependent on the
ideology imposed by a system of power. According to them,
science is an element of a regime’s “intellectual economy”; more­
over, the cognitive methods of science are in their opinion falla­
cious for every scientist is socially, ideologically and sexually
determined. Consequently, knowledge is constructed socially and
the stress put on the objectivity of scientific facts is aimed at
masking the scientist’s active role in the selection and grouping
of facts.
The postmodernist criticism of historiography concerns
mainly three questions, namely:
1. The epistemological status of the object of research. On the
basis of Jacques Derrida’s linguistic theories and the reflections
of Roland Barthes, postmodernism regards it as a certainty that
no reality can transcend the discourse in which it is expressed.
The historian has therefore no access to past facts, only to texts.
What is more, what the historian regards as a reconstruction of
the past is the text constructed by him. Historiography is there­
fore not so much a search for historical truth as a way in which
the historian creates a convincing discourse which is in keeping
with the standards adopted by his milieu.
2. The quasi-empirical methodology. Following in the foot­
steps of social sciences (especially economics and sociology), the
historiography promoted by the “Annales” school assumed that
the use of the same research questionnaire and the same meth­
ods in the examination of various segments of the past would lay

14 F. R. A n k e r s m i t , H istory and Tropology. The R ise and F a ll o f M etaphor,

Berkeley 1994, p. 176.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 213

the foundations for reliable comparisons and ensure a cumula­

tive growth of our knowledge (as in the natural sciences). Special
value was therefore attached to “objective” data, especially to
figures. Postmodernism denied their cognitive value and called
into question scientistic methodology, proposing hermeneutics
as the basic instrument for working on a text.
3. The status of historical writing. The undermining of histo-
riograhy’s claim on reconstruction of the past and of the scientific
methods used by it made it necessary to think over the role of
historical works. Postmodernism denied that there was opposi­
tion between history and literature, between fact and fiction. It
inscribed on its banners the theory of Hayden Wh i t e , according
to whom historical writing is a literary artefact. The historian
fictionalizes events, presenting them as a story of an artistic
rather than a scientific character. The only difference between his
work and literary work is that the historian “discovers” stories
while a man of letters “invents” them. The stress laid on the
rhetorical character of historical writing, backed by analyses of
its poetics, dealt a blow to the “Annales” school’s conviction that
it was possible to employ a fully formalized, narration-free scien­
tific discourse in historiography.
French historiography had to answer the challenge of post­
modernism if it was to retain its world importance. It did this
rather unwillingly, if only because of the above-mentioned intel­
lectual misunderstandings between the two coasts of the Atlantic.
The American adherents of postmodernism aroused little interest
in France. For instance, Hayden White’s views were practically
unknown in France until the end of the 1980s, none of his texts
having been translated into French. The name “postmodernism”
is practically never used in France in reference to history, the
rather imprecise term “linguistic turn” being employed. This does
not mean that French historiography has not come across prob­
lems raised by postmodernism. But the discussion on these
problems has never been so heated in France as in America and
Britain15.
The criticism to which the “Annales” school was subjected at
the end of the 1980s showed that the dominance of the journal
had become not only irritating but also groundless, for the

15 S. C e r u tti , Le lingaistic tu m en Angleterre. Notes sur un débat et ses censures,

“Enquete. Anthropologie. Histoire. Sociologie", N° 5, 1997, p. 140.

www.rcin.org.pl
214 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

explosion of French historiography in the 1970s blew it up from

the inside. The aspirations to a synthesis turned out to be
illusions doomed to failure, the scientistic claims were under­
mined by the return of subjectivism which placed history and
literature on the same footing, and the concept of total history
supported by other social sciences put its identity in crisis. Many
historians began therefore to call for a critical self-reflection16.
“Annales”, whose strength lay in its susceptibility to new
trends, took up the challenge, even though the journal had long
before renounced any claim to leadership and even asserted that
there was no such thing as an “Annales” school, though there
were many successive paradigms17. A new language and a new
approach to the problems of history could be noticed in the first
issue of “Annales” of 1988, an issue dedicated to the question of
historical modelling. A short preface by Bernard Le p e t i t, sec­
retary of the editorial board, drew attention to the growing
dissatisfaction with the use of quantitative methods in historio­
graphy, it noticed a return to narration and hermeneutics and
approved criticism of descriptive statistics, contrasting it with
simulation by means of hypothetical models, which made it
possible to throw a bridge between theoretical language and
empirical data18.
The decisive step was taken in a short editorial entitled
Histoire et sciences sociales. Un toumant critique?, published in
the next issue of the journal19. “A time of uncertainty seems to
have come”, admitted the editorial board in its diagnosis of
changes in the scientific landscape. In the editors’ opinion, the
great paradigms, such as Marxism and structuralism, had lost
their importance and the dispersal of research trends had made
it impossible to produce an agreed interpretation of reality in the
social sciences. The crisis had, to some extent, also affected
history, which had lost its way in a disorderly multiplication of
the subjects of its research. Therefore “Annales” set itself the task
of defining a few landmarks for a meticulous but innovatory
historical research in this new scientific reality. It opened its

16A. P r o s t, Douze leçons sur l ’histoire, Paris 1996, p. 10.

17Ch. D e l a c r o i x , F. D o s s e , P. G a r c i a , op. cit., p. 245.
18 B. L e p e t i t , H istoire et modélisation. Présentation, “Annales ESC”, vol. 43,
1988, N° 1, pp. 3-4.
19 H istoire et sciences sociales. Un tou m a n t critique?, “Annales ESC”, vol. 43, 1988,
N° 2, pp. 291-293.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 215

columns to reflections and discussions, pointing out at the same

time which problems should be discussed. The journal men­
tioned first and foremost methodological questions, such as the
scale of analyses. Referring to the experiences of microhistory,
the editorial board of “Annales” stated that there was an interde­
pendence between the dimension of the researched object, the
way of observing it and the research questionnaire used. It also
asked whether generalizations and comparisons were possible
when objects of various dimensions were observed, from individ­
uals to society, from a local community to global phenomena.
According to “Annales”, historical writing was another im­
portant methodological question. Admitting that some rhetorical
conventions were applied in both the literary and the quantitative
variant of history, the editorial board wondered whether non­
classic forms of argumentation, especially narrative ones, should
be admitted. How can one control and verify their use so that they
should retain a scientific character?
The editorial also raised the question of history’s scientific
alliances. It pointed out that it was necessary to take a new look
at the history of art and the history of science and that there were
new territories for expansion: retrospective econometrics, literary
criticism, sociolinguistics and political philosophy. But the edi­
torial board also wanted to make the understanding of the
concept of interdisciplinary studies a subject for historians’ re­
flection. In their summing up the editors expressed the conviction
that they were participating not so much in a crisis of historio­
graphy as in its still uncrystallized transformation which they
called “a critical turn”.
Having started a discussion, the journal presented its results
in its sixth issue of 1989. The texts by various authors were
preceded by a preface signed “Annales” and entitled Tentons
l'expérience20. In the preface the editorial board stated clearly that
its aim was neither ossification nor a scattering of efforts, that it
had no ambition to establish a school or become a letter box. It
wanted the journal to be an area open to experiments where new
research questionnaires and new workshop methods would clash
and crystallize, laying the foundations for a renewal of history’s
dialogue with the social sciences. The editorial board wanted
above all to solve the question of the specific character of history.

20 Tentons l'expérience, “Annales ESC”, vol. 44, 1989, N° 6, pp. 1317-1323.

www.rcin.org.pl
216 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

What was it that made history different from economics, anthro­

pology and sociology in their past-investigating variants? The
“Annales” school’s concentration on long-term, nearly static,
phenomena deprived history of what was specific to it: reflection
on the mechanism of changes in time. In its manifesto the
editorial board rather distanced itself from that approach. Of
course this did not mean a return to linear, positivist, cause-and-
effect history in a chronicler’s style. The reason for this new
approach should rather be sought in the countless shifts in
forms, structures and functioning. Such changes are of a purely
historical character, that is, they are irreversible, unpredictable
and predetermined. Societies are in a constant process of self­
construction and it is in this process that one should look for the
ways of breaking both with a banal description of events (a sin of
positivist history) and a tautological analysis through the prism
of predefined categories (a trait of the “Annales” school).
The authors of the manifesto then criticized thoughtless
historical quantification which reifies research categories and
attributes excessive significance to some phenomena only be­
cause they are countable. They also opposed the treatment of
culture as a phenomenon secondary to the socio-economic back­
ground. According to the authors, the way historians understand
society should be re-evaluated. One should not forget that society
is a collection of individuals and not a unit that can only be
examined from the point of view of its function and structure. The
up-to-date currents in social sciences have laid stress on strate­
gies, negotiations and social play but this is still something alien
to historians. It is the internal dynamism of societies that should
become the proper subject for historical research.
Of fundamental importance was the editors’ remark that the
development of history as a science does not consist in our
learning more about past events. On the one hand the historical
process is reflected in many existential, individual, irreducible
experiences, on the other hand, historiography is only a commen­
tary on the past, a proposal of how to understand it. A historical
process will always be ambiguous and the historian’s personality
will always play an active role in imparting sense to it. History
will progress as a science not by accumulating data but — and
here the authors used a photographic metaphor — by changing
the lens and the focal length. In that way they returned to

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 217

microhistorical inspiration which had been noticeable for some

time. But they were against opposing the microhistorical ap­
proach to the macrohistorical one for they are complementary —
a different scale of analysis reveals different conditions. The fact
that an explanatory measure tried out on one echelon of the scale
is not confirmed on another is not an obstacle, according to the
authors. They were in favour of establishing complex historical
models, for the diversity of the real world cannot be described by
reducing it to a few hypothetical simple principles.
The editors also returned to the re-definition of interdiscipli­
narity in historical research. They stressed they had no intention
of breaking with tradition, which had shaped the journal’s image
for 60 years, contributing to its worldwide success. But they
pointed out that the outburst of history, caused, to a great extent,
by the adoption of the methods of other social sciences, was
fraught with grave dangers. First with a boundless multiplication
of individual research paths. The methodology of every historian,
in particular his way of throwing a bridge in his research between
various disciplines of science, becomes his private affair, his own
personal experience. This leads to an increase in the number of
studies which are in no way comparable and whose contribution
to the development of history is therefore doubtful. Another
danger is that this situation is regarded as normal: the mere
circulation of concepts and methods is thought to be sufficient
for the development of historiography. While not negating the
need for interdisciplinary research, the editorial board of “An-
nales” came out in favour of retaining the specific character of
each social science, for the diversification of the methods and
measures used by them encourages comparisons and shows that
every scientific analysis of society is hypothetical and experimen­
tal. On the other hand, the interdisciplinary approach is purpose­
ful only if there are marked differences between the individual
sciences. It then expands scientific perspective and leads to the
adoption of a critical attitude to the way in which reality is
described by a given scientific discipline.
The sixth issue (1989) of “Annales”, preceded by this intro­
duction, contained texts on diverse matters. On the whole they
complied with the general principles governing the new organiz­
ation of the journal but testified to a far-reaching individualiza­
tion of research paths. For instance, the issue included a reflec­

www.rcin.org.pl
218 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

tion on biographical research, penned by Giovanni L e v i21, one

of the most prominent Italian microhistorians, as well as a pro­
posal by the economist Robert B o y e r that historians should
adopt some methods of modern economics22.
Gérard N o i r i e l discussed the links between history and
sociology. He stressed that knowledge of society should not be
confined to countable categories but pointed out that sociology
could be useful for history in other ways. His first proposal was
sociology of historical cognition, that is the adaptation of scien­
tific methods in research on the influence which the historians’
social conditions exert on the historical knowledge created by
them. This would mean an alliance with the sociology of science
which had been made famous by Thomas K u h n ’s theory of
scientific revolutions. The second proposal concerned the use of
the “subjectivist paradigm” in historical research. According to
the author, this means that an historical analysis should be
applied to all questions which cannot be examined by a quantita­
tive analysis, for instance to unique experiences of individuals.
This approach would make it possible to examine such questions
as interiorization, an extremely important question for verifying
Norbert E l i a s’s model. The subjectivist paradigm made it possi­
ble to undertake a profound reflection on the dynamism of so­
cieties and the cumulative aspect of human history, for man­
kind’s history is not only a history of technology and economy
but also a history of emotional behaviour and of emotional ties
between people23.
However, the most representative of the “critical turn” were
three studies written by Jean-Yves G r e n i e r and Bernard
L e p e t i t , Alain B ou re au, and Roger C h a r t i e r . The first
study, signed by two most active organizers of the “critical turn”,
sought inspiration in the origins of French economic history, in
the early works of Camille-Emest L a b r o u s s e . Grenier and
Lepetit argued that Labrousse, accused of “flat positivism”, had
derived his methodology from principles which were opposed to
positivism and that a return to these principles might exert an
inspiring influence on research into socio-economic history24.

21 G. L e v i , Les Usages de la biographie, ibidem, pp. 1325-1336.

22 R. B o y e r , Economie et histoire: vers de nouvelles Alliances?, ibidem, pp.
1397-1426.
23 G. N o i r i e l , Pour une approche subjectiviste du social ibidem, pp. 1435-1459.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 219

Alain Boureau tried to restrain the concept of mentality, which

was harshly criticized by the opponents of the “Annales” school.
In his view the concept should be used only with reference to
collective categories on the basis of regularities observed in the
elementary units of a discourse, such as verbal, iconic or ritual
expressions25. Of all the texts included in this issue of “Annales”
it was Roger C h a r t i e r’s study Le Monde comme représentation
that had the greatest repercussions. Chartier presented his own
vision of historical research which would reconstruct old societies
through the prism of their own representations. In his opinion it
was impossible to qualify cultural motives, objects and practices
in sociological categories for their distribution and application
did not necessarily correspond to an “objective” social division.
Cultural differences were a result of dynamic processes and this,
in his view, rehabilitated the role of the individual, his choices
and actions in historiography26. In a way this text attempted to
throw a bridge between the historiographic tradition of the “An­
nales” school and the American new history of culture with which
the author had collaborated for some time.
The theoretical discussion continued in the successive issues
of the journal. The next issue brought an article by André
B u r g u i è r e Delà compréhension en histoire. The author glori­
fied the achievements of the “Annales” school and argued that it
was still an inspiring and up-to-date current27. At the same time
the journal explored new methodological proposals. N° 3 of 1990
published an article by Daniel S. M i l o on experimental his­
tory28 (see below) and the next yearbook included a theoretical
text by Jacques G u i l h a u m o u who summed up research on
the history of discourse, a research which though very popular
with historians of the Revolution, was treated with reservation by
“Annales”29. It was probably the article Des catégories aux liens

24J.-Y. G r e n i e r , B. L e p e t i t , L'Expérience historique. A propos de C.-E.

Labrousse, ibidem, pp. 1337-1360.
25 A. B o u r e a u , Propositions pour une histoire restreinte des mentalités, ibidem
pp. 1491-1504.
26 R. C h a r t i e r, Le Monde comme représentation, ibidem, pp. 1505-1520.
27 A. B u r g u i è r e. De la compréhension en histoire, “Annales ESC”, vol. 45, 1990,
N° 1, pp. 123-136.
28 D. S. M i l o, Pour une histoire expérimentale, ou la gaie histoire, “Annales ESC”,
vol. 45, 1990, N° 3, pp. 717-734.
29 J. G u i l h a u m o u , Décrire la Révolution française. Les porte-parole et le
moment républicain (1790-1793), “Annales ESC”, vol. 46, 1991, N° 4, pp. 949-970.

www.rcin.org.pl
220 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

individuels: l’analyse de l’espace social by Mauritio G r i b a u d i

and Alain B l u m that came closest to the principles of the
critical turn. On the basis of their research into 19th century
records of registry offices, the authors took a critical look at strict
divisions into statistical groups. They showed that it was possible
to create a model for a quantitative analysis by considering micro­
social determinant mechanisms, that is, to base research on indi­
vidual life courses really followed by people instead of referring to
a hypothetical solidarity and group movements30.
The editors of “Annales” once again frankly expressed their
opinion of the critical turn in the text L ’Expérimentation contre
l’arbitraire signed by Bernard L e p e t i t and Jacques Re v e l .
This was the editorial board’s reply to the sharp criticism of
changes in the journal, levelled by a Russian medievalist, Yuri
B e s s m e r t n y , who regarded them as a betrayal of annalistic
ideals and a promotion of relativism in scientific history31. The
editors tried to explain that, although they considered an histori­
cal study only as an interpretative model, this did not mean that
strict procedures for the verification of the material and the
coherence of its hypotheses did not exist. They stressed once
again that the idea of total history should be abandoned and
declared that they did not regard the microhistorical approach as
more correct. But in our times it was, in their view, the most
effective in deepening our historical knowledge32.
The transformations in “Annales” were sealed by the change
of the journal’s subtitle from No. 1 of 1994. The traditional
“Economies Sociétés Civilisations” was replaced by “Histoire
Sciences Sociales”. What is significant is that the name “history”
finally appeared in the subtitle of the most important historical
journal of the 20th century. The editors explained that the change
was necessary to maintain the identity of scientific history and
its basic research methods. They wanted to emphasize the dia­
chronic sense of history and the journal’s ambition to examine
historicity in its inner differentiation33. Let us add that changes

30 M. G r i b a u d i, A. B l u m. Des catégories aux liens individuels: l ’analyse de

l'espace social, “Annales ESC”, vol. 45, 1990, N° 6, 1365-1402.
31 Y. B e s s m e r t n y , Les “Annales” vues de Moscou, “Annales ESC”, vol. 47,
1992, N° 1. pp. 245-259.
32 B. L e p e t i t , J. R e v e l , L ’expérimentation contre l’arbitraire, ibidem, pp. 261-
265.
33 Histoire, sciences sociales, “Annales HSS”, vol. 49, 1994, N° 1, pp. 3-4.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES" SCHOOL 221

were introduced in the organization of the editorial board. Ber­

nard Lepetit joined the publishing committee and his post of
secretary of the editorial board was taken by Jean-Yves Grenier.
To sum up, the critical turn made by “Annales” consisted
primarily in overcoming the model of social history which had for
decades been associated with the journal and in freeing the
school from the history of mentality, elaborated in the 1970s. This
was reflected in the criticism of quantitative methods and in
a departure from the concept of longue durée. But although
“Annales” rejected the objectivist techniques borrowed from the
social sciences, declaring them ineffective, this did not mean that
it accepted the “rhetorical history” model promoted by postmod­
ernists, a model based on narrative techniques and asserting that
historical cognition was relative. The positive programme of the
critical turn, though still rather diffuse, proclaimed the severance
of ties with Marxism, functionalism and structuralism. The
school planned to turn towards social constructivism and attach
more significance to human actions. It declared that social
realities should be analyzed as historical constructions of indi­
vidual and collective actors, not as natural, fixed constructions,
drawing attention to links with other social sciences, especially
with ethnomethodology, hermeneutics, the theory of action and
Clifford G e e r t z’s anthropology.
But some critics pointed out that the methodological changes
brought about in “Annales” by the critical turn resulted from the
immediate needs of the milieu rather than from the inner logic of
the school’s evolution. Christian D e l a c r o i x , who depicted the
history of the critical turn as early as 1995, pointed out that at
first the turn looked rather like an “ad hoc modification” forced
through by the identity crisis of the group linked with the journal.
The undermining of the leading role of “Annales” in French
historiography coincided with the breakdown of the scientific
paradigm used by the school. The “Annales” milieu did not want
to admit failure and tried to continue to use its paradigm in
a polemic version, which laid stress on loyalty to the group and
condemned betrayal. The editors applied the method of an “es­
cape forwards”, declaring that they were the vanguard of changes
in French historiography. The attractive name “critical turn”
allowed them to close ranks. It was only after some time that,
thanks mainly to Bernard L e p e t i t , Jean-Yves G r e n i e r and

www.rcin.org.pl
222 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

Jacques Re v e l , the milieu’s reformed historiographic model

began to crystallize, a model based on a matter-of-fact revision
of longue durée, structuralism and statistical methods. But “An­
nales” did not enter into discussion with the most vehement
critics of the school, such as François D o s s e and Lawrence
S t o n e , and rejected proposals for a return to narrative, event-
fraught or political history. After a short period of philosophical
discussion on complex epistemological questions, the proponents
of the critical turn adopted a realistic, pragmatic attitude, con­
centrating on inscribing history in the latest trends in social
sciences as “an empirical, interpretative science”34.
The critical turn was also sharply criticized by Gérard N o i -
r i e l and Antoine P r o s t for the use of scientific parlance which
frequently covered up emptiness and for the construction of
learned arguments which could be attractive for some historians
but were completely devoid of social significance35.
The top achievement of the critical turn was the collection of
studies entitled Les formes de l’expérience. Une autre histoire
sociale published in 1995 under Bernard L e p e t i t ’s editor­
ship36. In an extensive introduction the editor presented his own
vision of the development of French historiography in the 1990s.
In his view one of its fundamental ideas was the rejection of
unified methods in social sciences, a rejection which was sup­
ported by the new interdisciplinary plan promoted for the last few
years in “Annales”. Another principle was the profound under­
standing of historical explanations which should be reduced
neither to a reconstruction of reality nor to a linguistic construc­
tion. The aim was, of course, knowledge of the past, which could
be achieved by testing explanatory models. Thus historical expla­
nation would at the same time be a discourse and a research
technique, a narration and a use of critical procedures. Historical
science should therefore abandon the mechanical use of theore­
tical schemes and pay more attention to the identity of researched
objects and really existing social links. Lepetit called this ap­
proach a pragmatic paradigm. The volume included studies
which differed from the chronological and methodological points

34 Ch. D e l a c r o i x , La Falaise et le rivage. Histoire du “tournant critique”,

“Espaces Temps”, N° 59-61, 1995, pp. 86-111.
35 G. N o i r i e l , Sur le “crise”, pp. 154-158; A. P r o s t , op. cit., p. 286.
36 Les Formes de l’expérience. Une autre histoire sociale, ed. B. L e p e t i t , Paris
1995.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 223

of view but, in the editor’s opinion, they formed the nucleus of

a new unity of historical research, consisting in the deepening of
empirical and theoretical research, in the introduction of ques­
tions concerning social ties, norms and individual experiences,
and also in the use of the short-term category combined with
other chronological structures worked out by historiography. The
authors of the studies included in the volume, though they
realized that scientific objectivity may distort the picture of the
researched reality, did not become relativists and looked for
a remedy against relativism in their methodological experience37.
The studies in the volume cannot however be regarded as an
implementation of some concrete scientific paradigm. It seems
that the authors simply continued the research that interested
them formerly and that the main reason why they contributed
their studies was that they wanted to participate. Thus Alain
B o u r e a u in his study on the genesis of the ius primae noctis
referred to C h a r t i e r ’s concept of representation38, Jacques
R e v e l presented the prospects of a microhistorical analysis of
institutions39, and Jean-Yves G r e n i e r deconstructed the con­
cept of empirical series in order to deepen statistical methods in
research into economic history40. The volume also included
articles by Jocelyne D a k h l i a , Éric Br i a n, Alain D e w e r p e ,
Simona C e r u t t i , Christiane K l a p i s c h - Z u b e r , Nancy L.
Gr e e n , Maurizio G r i b a u d i and André B u r g u i ère. What
united all these texts was that the authors did not assign any
logical rules to the evolution of the social processes described by
them. They presented them as discontinuous, kaleidoscopic,
undefined, multidirectional processes. Maurizio Gribaudi went
farthest in this respect. The pattern of the determinants of social
stratification which he presented on the basis of a meticulous
research into the 19th century records of French registry offices
was close to the theory of chaos41.

37 B. L e p e t i t. Histoire des pratiques, pratique de l'histoire, in: Les Formes, pp.

9-22.
38 A. B o u r e a u. La Compétence inductive. Une modèle d ’analyse des représenta­
tions rares, in: ibidem, pp. 23-38.
39 J. R e v e l , L ’institution et le social, in: ibidem, pp. 63-84.
40 J.-Y. G r e n i e r , Expliquer et comprendre. La construction du temps de l’histoire
économique, in: ibidem, pp. 227-251.
41 M. G r i b a u d i , Les Discontinuités du social. Un modèle confîgurationnel, in:
ibidem, pp. 187-225.

www.rcin.org.pl
224 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

H ad th ey co n tin u ed th e ir tea m w ork, th e s u p p o rte rs of th e

critical tu rn m ight have worked o u t a jo in t research form ula, b u t
th e developm ent of their cu rre n t w as halted in 1995 by th e su d d en
d eath of B ernard Lepetit who played a key role in th a t milieu.
T he editorial b o ard of “A n n ales” b eg an to d ista n c e itself
g rad u ally from th e achievem ents of its form er secretary . In 1998
th e jo u rn a l p u b lish e d a critical review of Les Form es d ’expérience,
w ritten by th e E nglish h isto ria n G areth S t e d m a n J o n e s
w ho b lam ed th e a u th o rs of th e tex ts in th e volum e for p re se n tin g
a n incom plete m ethodological vision a n d for ignoring q u e stio n s
w hich w ere im p o rta n t for A nglo-A m erican p o stm o d e rn ist h isto ­
riography, s u c h a s th e significance of d isc o u rse a n d tex tu a l
a n a ly sis of history. He also pointed o u t th a t referen ces to inter-
a c tio n ist sociology w ere p o intless for in te ra c tio n ist sociology
could be u se d only in d escrip tio n s of W estern societies. T he
editorial b o ard of “A n n ales” only b ro u g h t itself to ex p lain th a t Les
Form es d ’expérience did n o t c o n stitu te th e creed of th e jo u rn a l’s
new intellectu al line a n d w as n o t even a book of “A n n a le s” b u t
a collection of stu d ie s w ritten in th e a fte rm a th of a CNRS collo­
qu iu m . It also pointed o u t th a t c o n tra ry to th e review er’s a s s u m p ­
tion “A n n a le s” h a d n o t fully rejected econom ic d e te rm in ism 42.
Yet in N° 3 /1 9 9 7 of “A n n ales” J a c q u e s L e G o f f , p re se n tin g
selected stu d ie s on lau g h ter, sta te d th a t th is su b ject, even th o u g h
it belonged to th e category of lo n g -term s tru c tu re s a n d global
history, could also in sp ire re se a rc h e rs a sso ciated w ith th e critical
tu r n 43. However, th e first issu e of “A n n ales” in th e new m illen­
n iu m w ith o u t a n y excuse reverted to explaining h isto ry o n a glo­
b al scale a n d c o n tain ed su c h essa y s a s e.g. th e one o n B ra u d e lian
regions in C h in a 44.
As early a s 1999, A ntoine d e B a e c q u e , a h is to ria n s p e ­
cializing in th e 18th c e n tu ry a n d editor of “C ah iers d u c in é m a ”,
a sk e d in a n article p u b lish ed in “Le D éb at”: Où e s t p a s s é le
“to u rn a n t critique”? He em phasized th a t h is g e n e ra tio n w hich
b eg an a d u lt scientific life a t th e end of th e 198 0 s a n d th e
b eginning of th e 1990s believed th a t th e “critical t u r n ” w ould
b rin g new w ays of u n d e rs ta n d in g h isto ry a n d w ould o p e n F ren ch

42G. S te d m a n J o n e s, Une autre histoire sociale?, “Annales HSS", vol. 53,

1998, N° 2, pp. 283-394 (the issue also contains the reply of the editorial board).
43J. Le Goff, Enquete sur le rire, “Annales HSS”, vol. 52, 1997, N° 3, p. 455.
44 Une histoire à l’échelle globale, “Annales HSS”, vol. 56, 2001, N° 1, pp. 3-4.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 225

science to world influences and bold interpretative hypotheses.

After Bernard Lepetit’s death the older generation of historians
succeeded in stifling the innovatory spirit and marginalizing the
idea of the critical turn. Its rejection meant a withdrawal from
reflection on discourse and representations in the name of a hy­
pothetical “social reality”, it was tantamount to depriving the
researched societies of their right to autonomous reflection,
tantamount to binding history with an epistemological concept
which was reductionist and reactionary. It was also a nostalgic
attempt to return to the world hegemony of “Annales”, an attempt
that was doomed to failure45.
The volume of Bernard L e p e t i t’s diverse studies published
by his friends posthumously in 1999 under the title Carnet de
croquis can therefore be regarded as a monument to, and also
a tombstone of, the critical turn46. What else has remained of this
current? The only source book written by its leader, Les Villes
dans la France moderne, 1740-1840 (Paris 1988), several books
in which his closest collaborators developed their own research
plans which in a way were part of the critical current47 and
several works by authors who declared their access to the move­
ment, though their methodology was not quite convergent with
that of the movement48. The EHESS milieu continues to work on
ideas inspired by the critical turn but these studies are rather
a margin of its work and they depart more and more from history,
while researchers interested in a more profound methodological
reflection pin their hopes on the proposal for a history of culture
which is in opposition to the “Annales” milieu49.
The experimental history current was linked with the critical
turn by social and intellectual ties but it worked out its own
methodology and ideology which many researchers regarded as

45 A. de B a e c q u e , Où est passé le "tournant critique”?, “Le Débat”. N° 104, 1999,

pp. 162-170.
46 B. L e p e t i t. Carnet de croquis. Sur la connaissance historique, Paris 1999.
47 E.g. A. B o u r e a u , Le Droit de cuissage. La fabrication d'un mythe (XIIIe-XXe
siècle), Paris 1995; J.-Y. G r e n i e r , L ’Économie d ’Ancien Régime. Un monde de
l ’échange et de l'incertitude, Paris 1996; Espaces, temporalités, stratifications,
Exercises sur les réseaux sociaux, ed. M. G r i b a u d i, Paris 1998.
48 E.g. A. C a b a n t o u s , Histoire du blasphème en Occident. F in X VIe-m ilieu XIXe
siècle, Paris 1998; J. G u i l h a u m o u , L ’A vènement des porte-parole de la
République (1789-1792). Essai de synthèse sur les langages de la Révolution
française, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 1998.
49 A. de B a e c q u e , Les Éclats du rire. La culture des rieurs a u XVIIIe siècle, Paris
2000, pp. 21-22.

www.rcin.org.pl
 226 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

a symptom of decadence50. From the end of the 1980s the

members of the “Annales” circle spoke ever more frequently about
restoring the experimental dimension to history. Jean-Yves
G r e n i e r and Bernard Le p e t i t searched it in the early works
of Camille-Emest L a b r o u s s e , creator of French quantitative
history51, and Jacques R e v e l looked for it in Italian microhis­
tory52. It may seem preposterous to regard history as an ex­
perimental science for it is impossible to carry out experiments
on the past. However, the “Annales” school was based on the
assumption that the past is not directly accessible to the histo­
rian. Passive observation is fruitless in this case. A historian not
only defines his research problems but also constructs the
objects of his research, chooses the way of reaching them, selects
and elaborates devices and finds sources which correspond to his
questionnaire. Therefore in history experimentation does not
consist in manipulating the past but in manipulating the instru­
ments which make it possible to know it.
It was a group of researchers rallied round Daniel S. M i l o
and Alain B o u r e a u that went farthest in reflection on the
experimental dimension of history. They found an ally in Bernard
L e p e t i t who agreed to publish M i l o ’s manifesto Pour une
histoire expérimentale, ou la gaie histoire53 in “Annales”. This was
the most radical and also the most interesting plan for renovating
history in France in the 1990s. What is more, the plan was carried
out. The following year saw the publication of a volume of studies
entitled Alter histoire. Essais d’histoire expérimentale (Paris 1991),
which included an improved version of the manifesto and essays
by several authors who applied its principles in their research.
The theoretical principles of experimental history presented
by Daniel S. Milo referred to classic 19th century theories applied
in the natural sciences54, according to which experimentation

50 E.g. Ph. B o u try, Assurances et errances de la raison historienne, in: Passés

recomposés. Champs et chantiers de l’histoire, ed. J. B o u t i e r , D. J u l i a ,
“Autrement. Série Mutations”, N° 150-151, 1995, pp. 56-68.
51 J.-Y. G r e n i e r , B. L e p e t i t , L ’Experience, p. 1344.
52 J. R e v e l , L ’Histoire au ras du sol, in: G. L e v i , Le pouvoir au village. Histoire
d ’un exorciste dans le Piémont du XVII siècle, Paris 1989, p. XV.
53 See fn. 28.
54 For the principles of experimental history in the amended version of this
manifesto see: D. S. Mi l o , Pour une histoire expérimentale ou le gaie savoir, in:
Alter histoire. Essais d ’histoire expérimentale, ed. D. S. M i l o, A. B o u r e a u, Paris
1991, pp. 9-55.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 227

consists in the use of simple or compound procedures aimed at

modifying natural phenomena in such a way that they should
appear in circumstances or states in which they do not occur in
nature. An experiment is therefore in fact a provoked observation
and consists in violating the object of research by submitting it
to a research procedure. The following methods are archetypal
experimental methods: injection (that is, the adding of an alien
element to the object of research), separation (that is, a separ­
ation from the object of an element which is part of it), transfer
of the object beyond its natural environment, change of scale
(taking the object through successive echelons of observation),
the combining of objects which do not occur jointly, denomina­
tion (presentation of the object in categories not usually applied
to it).
It seems that in the case of history, the above list of possible
experimental procedures can be applied only to “what-would-
happen-if’ reflections, which are usually groundless from the
scientific point of view. Of course there are exceptions, e.g. Robert
F o g e l’s work Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays
in Econometric History (Baltimore 1964), a work quoted by Daniel
S. Milo, which denies that the development of railways con­
tributed to the economic growth of the United States in the 19th
century. But as I have pointed out, the aim was to experiment
not with the past but with the methods which make it possible
to know it. Instead of submitting to the established patterns of
world perception, an experimental historian should find them
himself. Referring to the most prominent contemporary French
sociologists, Pierre B o u r d i e u , Jean-Claude P a s s e r o n and
Jean-Claude C h a m b o r e d o n , Daniel S. Milo defined experi­
ment in social sciences as “the imagination’s challenge to facts
and their representations, both the naive and the learned ones”.
According to him, an experiment involved both the object and the
researcher whose role goes far beyond a simple observation of the
course of the experiment.
Daniel S. Milo mentioned several experimental measures
which could be applied in history. As far as approach to sources
is concerned, he mentioned:
— the analysis of the peripheries of the discourse, that is
realization of what the source conveys unconsciously and unin­

www.rcin.org.pl
228 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

tentionally; this is similar to the methods used by a psychoana­

lyst in reconstructing a patient’s childhood;
— the use of non-verbal and immaterial sources, in line with
the principle that everything can be decoded, the only thing that
is necessary is to ask questions (this is the approach offered by
semiotics);
— manipulation of sources, the best example of which is
provided by quantitative history which transforms sources into
unified series of figures.
As regards analysis, it is the comparative method which is
experimental. Daniel S. Milo criticized the principle that only
comparable things could be compared for their choice by histo­
rians was completely arbitrary anyhow. The experimental com­
parative method did not require the existence of any links or
a plane of comparison between the things compared. Its aim was
to understand a phenomenon better through the prism of an­
other phenomenon. The criterion of choosing things for compari­
son was therefore purely pragmatic.
Another method which is par excellence experimental is
quantification. A historian’s arbitrariness plays a fundamental
role at every stage, from the standardization of source data,
through structurization and formalization to modelling. Daniel S.
Milo came out in favour of quantitative methods even with respect
to phenomena regarded as uncountable, for instance high cul­
ture. But he emphasized that historians who apply the quantita­
tive approach faced the danger of automation, for a thoughtless
use of research patterns killed the experiment by turning the
instruments used in it into the subject of research.
The drawing of conclusions from the absence of a fact is also
regarded by Daniel S. Milo as a useful experimental method. He
recalled the fruitful research on the absence of neoclassicism in
German art in the last decade of the 18th century, and the
absence of eagles in the imperial emblems of the 8th-10th
centuries. Another proposal for experimental studies was a con­
scious use of anachronism. For instance, it is an anachronism to
treat Jerom Bosch’s painting as precursory to surrealism. Milo
referred to José Luis B o r g e s who, having compiled a list of
Franz K a f k a ’s precursors, emphasized that even though each
of them displayed some trait of Kafka’s uniqueness, nobody
would have noticed it if Kafka had not written anything.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 229

According to Milo, it would be an interesting experience to

rewrite great historiographic works, e.g. Fernand B r a u d e l ’s La
Méditerranée. It would be an equivalent of the repetition of an
experiment in the natural sciences, where this is a standard
procedure for validating a conclusion. But since the rewriting of
books is not profitable from the scientific point of view, Milo
proposed that famous works should be equipped with critical
remarks and commentaries.
Thus, the methodological plan for experimental history,
though it did not discover new research methods, it selected and
assembled those that already existed and were used. But it
reformed their theoretical grounding, submitting it to the vision
of history as an experimental science, and exposed the historians’
groundless claims that their methods, especially the quantitative
and comparative ones, were objective.
Since the choices made by each historian in the course of his
work were arbitrary, postmodernism denied that history was
a science and put it on the level of literature. But experimental
history seems to be a fully scientific and positive proposal, for can
there be a better defence of the scientific status of history than
an honest disclosure of its weak points, its departures from
scientific objectivity, followed by an explanation of why this
happens? Paradoxically, when explaining the grounds for the
arbitrary stance of some historians, the plan for experimental
history referred to the positivist model of the experimental scien­
ces, showing that a certain, quite large extent of arbitrariness in
historical research was compatible with strict scientific proce­
dures. Historians should not therefore be accused of creating
literary artefacts.
The plan for experimental history contained not only some
methodological solutions but also a no less important deontolo-
gical, even an ethical reflection, on the historian’s role. Daniel S.
Milo has repeatedly stressed in his manifesto that an historical
experiment should consist not so much in the historian violating
the object of his research as in his violating himself. Milo referred
to some currents of 20th century avant-garde art which claimed
they were of an experimental character. Their aim was to over­
come the automatism of perception, which restricts an artist for,
as the Russian formalist Victor S h k l o v s k y pointed out, the
objects we see too often begin to be perceived through recognition,

www.rcin.org.pl
230 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

which means that when we look at such an object we do not see

it in fact but recognize its image planted in our memory. This of
course limits an artist’s aesthetic sensitivity. He must therefore
apply a whole series of deautomating techniques. The danger of
automatism also hangs over the historian. It consists not only in
an unconscious use of contemporary categories in his research
on the past. For history has created some ideas of the past which
the historian perceives through recognition, e.g. Renaissance, the
Franciscan order, the medieval autumn, and the like. The hi­
storian should therefore, like an artist, use deautomating tech­
niques.
Milo proposed a classic method which he called ostranieniye
(from Russian) or defamiliarization. What he means is that it is
necessary to restore to a well known object its strangeness, its
oddity. In this way a historian may protect himself from the danger
of observing the object through recognition. This is a method
frequently used in literary narration, to mention only M o n t e s -
q u i e u’s Lettres persanes or G r a s s’s Tin Drum, in which a well
known reality is described by a hypothetically alien hero. In
scientific history the creator should apply this method to himself,
which undoubtedly requires a well developed sense of self-con­
sciousness. Defamiliarization is therefore most reminiscent of
a game practised by the Polish poet, Miron B i a ł o s z e w s k i
who tried to see the world through the eyes of the Marsians55.
Decontextualization offers the researcher a new approach to
his object, an approach which is different from the way one
usually thinks of this object. This is why according to Daniel S.
Milo experimentation in history is an act of violence against the
researcher, his habits and his way of thinking. But the effort
which a researcher puts into carrying out his experiment should
by no means be of a tragic character. On the contrary, the very
title of the manifesto referred to Friedrich N i e t z s c h e and his
gaia scienza. The practising of experimental history should be
unselfish and be a result of the researcher’s love of knowledge.
The fact that experimental history is interesting and gives joy to
the researcher is enough to regard it as purposeful.

55See, for instance, M. B i a ł o s z e w s k i , Zawal (Infarct), in: Utwory zebrane

(Collected Works), vol. 6, Warszawa 1991, p. 196.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 231

Experimental history is by its very nature of a carnival, rather

marginal character for it needs the existence of normal (positiv­
ist?) history to feed on and play with. This brings the experimental
historian close to the archetypal Dadaist, always ready to start
a joyful experiment, even in those fields where experimenting is
out of the question. Even if the experiment yields no scientific
results, the joy the researcher feels will compensate him for the
failure. According to Milo, historical experiments can be re­
strained only by an immanent respect for people of the past.
Milo emphasizes the ludic aspect of historical experimenta­
tion, for every experiment is both a game and an amusement. The
spirit of an experimenter is a mixture of scientific precision and
relativism for, as J. H u i z i n g a has stated, the concept of game
contains the best synthesis of belief and disbelief56. When one
plays one can, of course, lose, but a loss also provides some
knowledge. This is why a Utopian periodical dedicated to ex­
perimental history should have a regular column called false
paths (fausses pistes).
But the volume Alter histoire included not only a theoretical
part but also a presentation of attempts to use the experimental
method. They were made by Daniel S. Mi l o, Alain B o u r e a u,
Hervé Le Bras, Paul-André R o s e n tal, Aline R o u s se l l e,
Christian J o u h a u d, Min Soo Kang, Mario B i a g g i o ll i and
Tamara K o n d r a t i e v a . The first part of the book deals with the
pleasure which a historian finds in a good metaphor. It contains,
among other essays, a study by the demographer Hervé Le Bras
on the sources of geological metaphors used in descriptions of
maps of electoral preferences57, and Christian Jouhaud’s reflec­
tions on the ways in which the links between the anomalies in
Cardinal Richelieu’s skull and the prerogatives granted him by
the king have been explained58. The authors of the other studies
in this part of the book follow Daniel S. Milo’s proposal and equip
other historians’ works with their own free commentaries. This

56 This is perhaps an abuse o f H u i z i n g a’s theory for he meant sacral actions

carried out by primitive peoples and not contemporary scientists’ actions in which
he failed to see any amusement.
57 H. L e B r a s. La Métaphore interdite: Karl Marx et André Siegfried entre histoire
et géologie, in: Alter histoire, pp. 63-84.
58 Ch. J o u h a u d , De l’histoire à historien: métaphore incertaine, métaphore
implicite, in: ibidem, pp. 99-108.

www.rcin.org.pl
232 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

is what Alain Boureaudoes with Emst H. K a n t o r o w i c z’s book

The King’s Two Bodies59 and Paul-André R o s e n t a l with the
most famous work of the “Annales” school, Fernand B r a u d e l ’s
La Méditerranée60.
The second part of the volume is a record of a practical
experiment in the defamiliarization method aimed at deautomat­
ing the historian. A group of researchers was asked to reflect on
one of two sources: a diary of a German Jewess, Glückel von
H a m m e l n (1645-1719) or an early biography of St. Ignatius
Loyola. Each of these texts, ignored by French historiography,
was completely alien and uncommon to the person who chose to
consider it61. The results of the experiment varied in quality.
Some studies were brilliant, others were very weak. This was, of
course, in keeping with the following principle of experimental
history: On s ’engage — et on voit et si on ne voit rien, on s ’engage
ailleurs62. It seems however that the quality of the obtained result
depended mainly on the class of the examiner.
The idea of experimental history remained a single intel­
lectual attempt because its methodological principles were too
radical. But its adherents have enriched the scope of French
historiography. The experimental approach exerted the greatest
influence on the critical turn. Bernard Lepetit adapted many of
its elements in his proposal but he invested them with a greater
scientific discipline, thus making them palatable to historians
brought up in the scientistic tradition of the “Annales” school.
Alain Boureau became one of the most active promoters of the
critical turn, though he mainly developed his own research ideas.
The scientific work conducted by Hervé Le Bras, Christian
Jouhaud and Paul-André Rosental also brought them close to
the critical current. In 1999 Rosental published an extensive
source work on migration in 19th century France in which he
used the technique of change in the observation scale and closely
followed the principles of experimental history, but what was
missing in his work was the joy of experimentation63.

59A. B o u r e a u , La Compétence inductive. Une modèle d'analyse des représen­

tations rares, in: ibidem pp. 23-38.
60 P.-A. R o s e n t a l , Métaphore et stratégie épistemologique:”La Méditerranée” de
Fernand Braudel, in: ibidem pp. 109-126.
61 Ibidem, introduction to the part entitled Dépaysement, pp. 141-143.
62 Ibidem, p. 143.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 233

Daniel S. M i l o won acclaim by his intriguing study Trahir

le temps in which he deconstructed our periodization of history
by means of experimental models and argued that there was no
reason why the use of chronological contexts for historemes [i.e.
the smallest, indivisible units of time-space) should be more
privileged than other, e.g. metaphorical contexts64. Later he set
up a one-man Nouvel Instituí d’Ingénierie Ethique (abbreviated to
N.I.E.T, which means “no” in Russian) and made himself known
by his erudite but eccentric essays which he published at his own
cost in a small number of copies.
The intellectual ferment which engulfed the “Annales” milieu at
the beginning of the 1990s is over. Internal discussion within the
school seems to have died out. But practical results of the theoretical
deliberations held ten years ago may not emerge until a few years
later for to be solid, a research inspired by them must take several
years. Moreover, the disciples of the reformers of the “Annales”
school, for whom the critical turn was an integrating generational
experience, are only now starting an active scientific life65.
However, irrespective of how the “Annales” milieu may de­
velop in the future, it should be stressed that its animated
theoretical discussion held in the last decade of the 20th century
has led to a few important changes in French historiography. To
begin with, the paradigm of the “Annales”school has been de­
composed. The version which was the target of the postmoder­
nists’ attacks has been thrown into the dustbin, but it is not yet
known if the new annalistic way of practising history has been
accepted. Secondly, the “Annales” milieu has finally renounced
the claim to be “the only correct” historical school in France.
Thirdly, French historiography has opened up to foreign, mainly
Anglo-American and Italian, influences, to a lesser extent also to
German influence.
It is surprising that the transformations introduced by the
“Annales” school in the 1990s aroused so little interest in Poland,
a country in which this school enjoyed (and still enjoys) great
respect and popularity. It would be futile to look for information

63P.-A. R o s e n t a l , Les sentiers invisibles. Espace, familles et migrations dans

la France du 19e siècle, Paris 1999.
64D. S. M i l o , Trahir les temps (histoire), Paris 1991.
65 See A. de B a e c q u e, Où est passé, p. 168.

www.rcin.org.pl
234 TOMASZ WIŚLICZ

on this subject in the specialized periodical “Historyka” dedicated

to questions concerning methodology and historiography. The
latest books dealing with this subject also focus on Anglo-Ameri-
can historiography66. The only exception is Wojciech W r z o -
s e k ’s work Historia — kultura — metaf ora. Powstanie niekla-
sycznej historiograf ii (1995) (History — Culture — Metaphor. The
Emergence o f Non-Classic Historiography), wholly devoted to the
“Annales” school. But Wrzosek ends his analysis in 1992. In his
view, after turning towards “historical anthropology” the “An­
nales” school is blooming and enjoying world-wide respect and
intellectual stability. Wrzosek devotes but two sentences to the
critical turn which was then in progress: “It is to the credit of the
“Annales” school that it has created non-classic historiography
which already lives an independent life, irrespective of whether
the school exists or does not exist. The dispute over its existence
or non-existence, animated by various anniversaries, seems to
be waning”. In a footnote Wrzosek then refers to the fundamental
programmatic texts of the critical turn, which were published in
“Annales” at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the
1990s67. The only text in which the methodological discussions
held in the “Annales” milieu in the 1990s have been examined in
Poland is probably the article by the Russian historian, Yuri
B e s s m e r t n y , published in English in the book commemora­
ting the 70th birthday of Jerzy T o p o l s k i68. But Bessmertny’s
analysis covers only the years 1994-1997 and the author himself
was involved in the disputes held in Paris (see above).
It seems therefore that after the long domination of French
methodology, a radical shift of interest towards Anglo-Saxon,
mainly American, science took place in the theoretical reflections
of Polish historians69. French theoretical thought was tacitly

66 See e.g. the most interesting studies representing this current: E. D o m a ń ­

s ka, Mikrohistorie. Spotkania w między światach (Microhistories. Meetings in the
Interworlds), Poznań 1999; A. R a d o m s k i , Kultura — tekst — historiografia
(Culture — Text — Historiography), Lublin 1999.
67 W. W r z o s e k , Historia — kultura — metafora. Powstanie nieklasycznej histo­
riografii (History — Culture — Metaphor. The Emergence o f Non-classic Historio­
graphy), Wrocław 1995, p. 140.
68 Y. B e s s m e r t n y , Paradigms o f Historiography on the Threshold o f the Twenty
First Century (On Methodological Currents in the French Historical Science o f
Today), in: Świat historii Prace z metodologii historii i historii historiografii dedy­
kowane Jerzemu Topolskiemu z okazji siedemdziesięciolecia urodzin, ed. W.
W r z o s e k , Poznań 1998, pp. 81-95.

www.rcin.org.pl
 THE “ANNALES” SCHOOL 235

adjudged to be uninteresting and fixed once and for all in the

nouvelle histoire project of the 1970s. This is an alarming phe­
nomenon for it would strengthen Polish historiography if it
managed to keep an equal distance from the American and the
French school (and also from the German and Italian schools).
For each of these schools is conditioned by the specific problems
of national culture, by local historiographic tradition and even by
current political relations. This is the reason for the frequently
paradoxical misunderstandings between them. Polish historians
could therefore take advantage of the lack of cultural encumbran­
ces and criticallly accept what is best in world historiographic
schools, playing the role of mediators between them.

(Translated by Janina Dorosz)

69 But a group of Hungarian historians have zealously joined in the reformation

of the “Annales” school, see the volume Villes et campagnes en Hongrie XVIe-XXe
siècles, ed. R. M. L a g r a v e , Budapest 1999.

www.rcin.org.pl
View publication stats