On History

Rating:
Summary: Brief and unsatisfying view of a great historian¿s thoughts
Review: Fernand Braudel was/is largely ignored in the English-speaking world, especially the U.S., even though throughout Europe he is considered one of the 20th century's greatest historians. Therefore, it's unfortunate that the collection of articles in "On History" does not provide a more clear introduction to his thought. The articles contained in this book do provide a good view into some of Braudel's main life-long arguments about how historiography should be approached, such as his insistence on the consideration of the long time span (longue duree) or his calls for the unification of all social science methods in the study of history. This is particularly true of articles such as "History and the Social Sciences: The Longue Duree" or the excellent concluding article "The History of Civilizations: The Past Explains the Present." However, since most of the contributions here are often book reviews or polemical essays, the lack of context can often be confusing if, like me, you haven't read the books he is discussing or are unfamiliar with the works of the scholars with whom he is engaged in polemics (usually involving other French, and sometimes German scholars). Although such articles do contain important fragments of Braudel's views on the role of the social sciences and history as a science, they are nonetheless a bit dry and even uninteresting. Taken as a whole, then, "On History" is a somewhat unsatisfying book, even though it should still be required reading for students of history and other social sciences.

Rating:
Summary: Still relevant....
Review: ON HISTORY is the English translation of a book written by the French historian Fernand Braudel that first appeared in France in 1969. However he is probably best known for his comprehensive works on the Mediterranean and civilization and capitalism in the west in the 15th to 18th centuries.

This book is a historiography of sorts and composed of several essays/talks he gave about the need to rethink what we mean by history. He examines three concepts: 1) time; 2) the social sciences and their relation to history; and 3) history in the present age.

What do we mean by history? How does the historian decide where to focus (geography); when to focus (time); and what will be the subject of his focus (art, politics, etc. or all aspects of culture-civilization). Regarding the issue of time, Braudel suggests the social observer must see that the length of time that governs his focus is fundamental. Take the French Revolution for example. When did it begin? Some think seizing the Bastille was the critical moment. But why did the people of France decide to do this? What led to this moment. And when did the currents that led to the moment begin. And, more important perhaps from Braudel's perspective is what was going on in the meantime. How were ordinary people going about their lives?

In the end, the decision regarding time is subjective and this subjectivity is governed by ways of seeing-or social science perspectives. The sociologist is not concerned with the French Revolution or very much else that happened in the past. He might have read Comte and Marx as part of his graduate studies, but his current focus is on the here and now and what his survey results tell him. The demographer generally takes a longer view if in no other way than his age and sex pyramids, but his focus is on the processes of fertility, mortality and migration that drive change and affect the size, distribution, and composition of various extant population groups. These groups are generally encompassed by political boundaries that are of interest to geographers and political scientists. These social scientist are generally not troubled by the beginnings or repercussions of the French Revolution.

In his last secton, Braudel examines the effect of the past on the present. He says one might better understand the past by studying living fossils. He uses the work of the anthropologist (Marvin Harris) who studied the people of Minas Velhas, an old mining community in Brazil, as an example. He suggests the anthropologist focused on the present moment-it's kinship patterns and networks and perhaps the distribution of wealth or material goods where the historian might have looked a things a bit differently. He suggests all of us are the sum of everything that made us, but some people are more connected to the past than others. As such they should be studied by historians. He also suggests that civilizations are collections of cultural characteristics and these characeristics have a history. For example, take language. All words have an historical root.

Braudel is absolutely correct when he suggests social scientists generally have a restricted world view, and that this view shapes their findings and conclusions. Unfortunately, where funding drives research, the focus remains narrow.

Rating:
Summary: Still relevant....
Review: ON HISTORY is the English translation of a book written by the French historian Fernand Braudel that first appeared in France in 1969. However he is probably best known for his comprehensive works on the Mediterranean and civilization and capitalism in the west in the 15th to 18th centuries.

This book is a historiography of sorts and composed of several essays/talks he gave about the need to rethink what we mean by history. He examines three concepts: 1) time; 2) the social sciences and their relation to history; and 3) history in the present age.

What do we mean by history? How does the historian decide where to focus (geography); when to focus (time); and what will be the subject of his focus (art, politics, etc. or all aspects of culture-civilization). Regarding the issue of time, Braudel suggests the social observer must see that the length of time that governs his focus is fundamental. Take the French Revolution for example. When did it begin? Some think seizing the Bastille was the critical moment. But why did the people of France decide to do this? What led to this moment. And when did the currents that led to the moment begin. And, more important perhaps from Braudel's perspective is what was going on in the meantime. How were ordinary people going about their lives?

In the end, the decision regarding time is subjective and this subjectivity is governed by ways of seeing-or social science perspectives. The sociologist is not concerned with the French Revolution or very much else that happened in the past. He might have read Comte and Marx as part of his graduate studies, but his current focus is on the here and now and what his survey results tell him. The demographer generally takes a longer view if in no other way than his age and sex pyramids, but his focus is on the processes of fertility, mortality and migration that drive change and affect the size, distribution, and composition of various extant population groups. These groups are generally encompassed by political boundaries that are of interest to geographers and political scientists. These social scientist are generally not troubled by the beginnings or repercussions of the French Revolution.

In his last secton, Braudel examines the effect of the past on the present. He says one might better understand the past by studying living fossils. He uses the work of the anthropologist (Marvin Harris) who studied the people of Minas Velhas, an old mining community in Brazil, as an example. He suggests the anthropologist focused on the present moment-it's kinship patterns and networks and perhaps the distribution of wealth or material goods where the historian might have looked a things a bit differently. He suggests all of us are the sum of everything that made us, but some people are more connected to the past than others. As such they should be studied by historians. He also suggests that civilizations are collections of cultural characteristics and these characeristics have a history. For example, take language. All words have an historical root.

Braudel is absolutely correct when he suggests social scientists generally have a restricted world view, and that this view shapes their findings and conclusions. Unfortunately, where funding drives research, the focus remains narrow.

Rating:
Summary: Pivotal to ALL Social Sciences students (not only History)!
Review: This compilation of essays and speeches treats the post world wars view on history. But it goes beyond history into empistomology, mathmatics and all social sciences (specially sociology and economy). From the point of view of a historian writing about historiography he touches subjects such as sinchrony, cronology, time, the role of history in social sciences, science of the communications, etc. Although I didn't always agree with the author in his historical determinism and the long duration of proccesses, his views certainly are pivotal to all social sciences since he recycles the marxists ideas such as that <>. It is also an important atgument to realize that <> and <> are worthless to understand society now a days. Structuralism at its peak!