자료: A Dictionary of Marxist thought (공)저: T. B. Bottomore
※ 깊이가 그다지 별로 없는 개괄적 내용. 일반적 참고 용도로 스크랩.
항목 기술자: Immanuel M. Wallerstein.
Why should one discuss the ^Annales^ school in a dictionary of Marxist thought? None of the the great names of this schoolㅡLucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudelㅡconsidered himself a Marxist. And many a Marxist has denounced the ^Annales^ school as anti-Marxist. And yet it does seem appropriate. For just as there are many rooms in the house of Marx, so are there many in the ^Annales^ tradition, and there are points of significant convergence and overlap.
If one can trace Marxist thought back to the 1840s, one can trace an ^Annales^ tradition back to circa 1900 with Henri Beer and his ^Revue de synthèse historique^ From 1900 to the end of the second world war there was virtually no direct intellectual link, certainly no organizational link, between the Marxist and the ^Annales^ schools of thought. For one thing, at that time, Marxist thought had virtually no entry into the world of academia; its locus was in the movement, or rather the movements, which proclaimed themselves Marxist. The ^Annales^ school was, by contrast, pre-eminently an intellectual thrust within academia, especially of course in France. The two currents did not cross; one may wonder how much the intellectuals associate with the one read or knew of the other current.
Still they pursued parallel paths in regard to certain key issues. They both shared the view that beneath the immediate public interplay of political forces, there were deeper, underlying long-term economic and social forces, whose mode of functioning could be analyzed and whose elucidation was essential to rational action. They both shared a holistic epistemology with resisted simultaneously an empiricist, idiographic approach to knowledge and a trans-historical universalizing nomothetic approach. In that sense they both advocated a 'middle path'. And they both shared a sense that they were rebels against the intellectual Establishments of the modern world.
Whereas, up to the second world war, they were as ships passing in the night, in the immediate post-war period they were both turned into direct antagonists and paradoxically pushed together for the first time. In the atmosphere of the early Cold War, where everyone had to choose sides, ^Annales^ historiography was roundly denounced by communist historians in the USSR and in the West. (This was, of course, particularly true in France and Italy where both the ^Annales^ school and Communist parties were strong. For the different reaction of British communist historians, see Hobsbawm 1978.) Conversely, however, the ^Annales^ historians were more restrained. Fernand Braudel said that ^Annales^ 'did not hold [Marxism] at a distance'(1978). It was precisely because French intellectuals were resisting being overwhelmed by Cold War exigencies that ^Annales^ insisted on a balanced view. (For an elaboration of this complex process, see Wallerstein 1982.)
And it was in the period after 1968. less marked by the Cold War, that the two schools seemed to draw apart again. On the one hand, Marxism became less identified with one particular dogmatic version. We had entered the era of a thousand Marxisms, and many of these found enormous profit in the work of ^Annales^ historians. On the other hand, many of the ^Annales^ historians were entering into a 'post-Marxist' mood. This involved a turning away from or minimizing of economic history and a renewed emphasis on mentalities or representations which linked up with a similar turn to the symbolic sphere among anthropologists and among those interested in political culture. In an empirical sense, while the writings of many Marxists were becoming more 'global', the writings of many of those identified with the so-called 'third generation' of the ^Annales^ were becoming more 'local'.
Given the fast-moving pace today of intellectual rethinking, this may not be the end of the story. If 'Marxism' and 'Annales^ historiography' continue to be identifiable currents of thought in the decades ahead, their paths may come closer once again, given their past history.
Braudel, Fernand 1978: 'En guise de conclusion'.
Hobsbawm, Eric 1978: 'Comments'.
Wallerstein, I. 1982: 'Fernand Braudel, Historian, homme de la conjoncture'.