History is made with documents. Documents are the remnants of what our predecessors thought and did. Very few human thoughts and actions leave traces: a minor accident can erase them. The fact is that if an idea or act does not leave visible traces, or if those it leaves disappear, it is lost to history as though it never existed. Without documentation, long periods of humanity's past will always remain a mystery. Documents are irreplaceable; without them, there is no history.
(Langlois and Seignobos, 2003, p. 59).
This statement, taken from the well-known manual by Langlois and Seignobos published in 1898 and titled Introduction to Historical Studies, contains the reason for the distinction between prehistory and history and stands out for having sparked harsh criticism from Lucien Febvre (1982, p.17), along with the entire group of "first Annales," initiating the first of many differences posed between positivists and analysts (Aguirre, 2004, p.62).
The school of the Annales is probably the historiographical trend that has most influenced historians after its founding. To understand it, it is necessary to have in mind where it emerges, through whom and above all in reaction to what.
Positivism represented a radical change in historical conception, endowing History with greater scientific rigor (Luengo, 2023). However, shortly after it was proposed, many criticisms were directed at the movement that focused on this new trend we are here analyzing. But let's start from the beginning, why is it called the Annales school?
The reference to "Annales" or Annals is due to the publication of the journal Annales d’histoire économique et sociale, founded in 1929 by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre (Aguirre, 2005, pp. 57-59). The use of the term is clearly evident from its meaning. The Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy defines "annales" as: «Relation of events by years». With the rest of the journal's title, it sought to focus on articles about economic and social history in contrast to other journals that relegated these issues to a secondary level. In Françoise Dosse’s work titled The History in Pieces, she refers to a statistic carried out by Jean Louis Oosterhoff highlighting how during the period 1929-1945, the journal Annales dedicated 84% of its articles to this topic while contemporary journals such as Revue historique and Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporane only 29.9% and 26.5%, respectively (Dosse, 1987, p. 71).
On the other hand, the term "school" was not used by the founders but was designated later possibly with the meaning, as recorded by the RAE, of «Doctrine, principles and system of an author or group of authors». Nonetheless, as Carlos Antonio Aguirre Rojas in his work The “School” of the Annales. Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow in his introductory chapter titled: "Against the Term 'School' of the Annales," although the nickname has been widely accepted, the main protagonists of the trend have made constant and explicit statements rejecting the use of such reference indicating that:
It is not strictly a "school" - which implicitly implies the essential unity of a single intellectual project and a theoretical and methodological horizon also unified, which would have remained unchanged over four generations of historians - but rather a simple convenient qualifier that linked to the fact that the initially baptized journal as Annales de Historia Económica y Social has been published almost uninterruptedly for nearly seventy-six years (1929-2005), would have ended up creating this false impression of continuity and profound unity in the successive phases and stages of life of the trend (Aguirre, 2005, p.6).
But beyond that attention to historical economic-social issues, what defines this current? And consequently, what does it criticize of the preceding trend, positivism?
As we have commented earlier referring to Aguirre's words, perhaps we should not compile all the characteristics of the trend as if it were a unit. The school of the annals has had numerous generations and each one has had different characteristics. Nevertheless, we could define some inherent aspects to all of them that emerge from the beginning. Facing the stance of positivists such as Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Émile Durkheim, who defended the scientific method as the only valid way to obtain historical knowledge, the analysts argue that this approach is too restrictive. They propose a broader approach to history that encompasses not just empirical data but also the analysis of social, economic, and cultural structures over time, including their interpretation. On the other hand, the School criticized the positivist emphasis on concrete facts and observation, arguing that this overlooks crucial aspects of human history that cannot always be quantified or measured with precision. In this way, the analysts move away from focusing solely on significant political events and figures, which for them was "traditional historiography." Along the same lines, the School approaches other disciplines such as geography, economics, sociology, or psychology to generate a broader and more solid set of information.
But as we have indicated, the school is not uniform and since its founding four generations have succeeded:
First Generation: Founded in 1929 by Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, this generation focused on challenging the positivist view of history that had dominated at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, proposing a broader approach that included long-term process analysis and greater interdisciplinary collaboration (Bourdé, 2004, p.149-158).
Second Generation: Led by Fernand Braudel, this generation was characterized by introducing important innovations and improvements in historiography. Braudel, in particular, is recognized for his approach to geo-history, the "longue durée" of history, and his influence on the international extension of the journal Annales. In his work The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, one can see the importance he gives to geographical, climatic, and economic patterns and how these shaped Mediterranean history (Braudel, 1972).
Third Generation: Represented by Jacques Le Goff, George Duby, and Goubert, this generation developed during the 1970s, focusing on economic, social, and demographic history, addressing topics such as changes from feudalism to capitalism and popular uprisings. It is sometimes referred to as the New History, due to the dictionary directed by Jacques Le Goff published in Paris in 1978 titled The New History. However, this term «is far from being universally accepted among historians» (Bourdé, 2004, p.169).
Fourth Generation: Initiated in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union, this generation is characterized by an approach to Cultural History and a broader global focus, extending its interest beyond Europe to regions such as Asia, South America, and the colonial world. Some prominent names from this generation include Jacques Revel and one of the most characteristic books is likely The World as Representation by Roger Chartier (1992).
In conclusion, the Annales School has been a transformative force in historiography, challenging the positivist paradigm and expanding history beyond political events and written documents. With its emphasis on socio-economic structures, mentalities, and long-term analysis, this trend has enriched our understanding of the past, highlighting the complexity and multidimensionality of human history.
Through its generations, the School has demonstrated adaptability and depth that continues to influence current historiographical approaches. Examples include all the trends that, without rebelling against the Annales, do broaden the scope of the School such as microhistory, which focuses on detailed studies of specific cases or events in a broader context; cultural history, which examines cultural expressions and their interactions with society; or global history, which focuses on processes and connections at a global scale, challenging perspectives centered around one nation or Europe.
Bibliography
Aguirre Rojas, C. A. (2004). Historiography in the 20th Century. History and Historians between 1848 and ¿2025? Montesinos.
Aguirre Rojas, C. (2005). The School of Annales: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Contrahistorias.
Bourdé, G., & Martin, H. (2004). Schools of History. Akal.
Braudel, F. (1972). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Volume I. (S. Reynolds, Trans.). Harper & Row.
Chartier, R. (1992). The World as Representation. Studies on Cultural History. Gedisa.
Dosse, F. (1987). History in Pieces. From Annales to the "New History". Universidad Iberoamericana.
Febvre, L. (1982). Battles for History (5th ed.) Ariel.
Langlois, C.-V., & Seignobos, C. (2003). Introduction to Historical Studies. Universidad de Alicante.
Luengo Gutiérrez, F. J. (2023). Thinking History: Positivism. ArqueoTimes, (6), 48-51.
Wesche Lira, L. R. (2021). The historiographical battle of Carlo Ginzburg: reading against the grain the inquisitorial records of the benandanti. Historia y grafía, (56), 241-278. https://doi.org/10.48102/hyg.vi56.330
Comments