The Evolution of French Historiography: From Social Science to Cultural Turns and Pluralism

The two decades following the Second World War witnessed a profound transformation in French historical studies. The number of practicing historians in France more than doubled, a expansion coinciding with a successful campaign to reposition history as a social science rather than a branch of the humanities. This redefinition, achieved with greater success than in other countries, moved the discipline away from the traditional domains of literature and philosophy. The international impact of French historiography in the 1960s and 1970s stemmed directly from this shift, which mobilized a new generation towards coordinated, quantitative studies of social stratification based on fiscal sources.

This initial optimism for a quantifiable histoire totale was challenged by the seminal classe et ordre debate. On one side, Ernest Labrousse and his disciples argued for economic determinants of social hierarchy. On the other, Roland Mousnier and Robert Mandrou advocated a more culturalist interpretation, emphasizing the role of social recognition, profession, and cultural behavior. This critique fragmented the consensus, replacing grand synthesis with focused studies on marginalized groups, urban settings, family, sexuality, and private life. Concurrently, a third generation of historians at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) assumed control of the Annales journal.

In 1974, this generation issued a manifesto centered on the concept of mentalités, heralding the nouvelle histoire. This approach promised to retain social history’s synthesizing ambition while embracing new cultural themes. The international prestige of French historiography reached its zenith during this period, fueled by the EHESS's prolific output and its attraction of global scholars. This era produced monumental collaborative series on topics like the history of the peasantry, French cities, and the history of women, blending scholarly rigor with public appeal.

However, by the 1980s, significant criticisms emerged. The vague, catch-all nature of the mentalités concept failed to prevent scholarly fragmentation and was attacked by critics like Hervé Coutau-Bégarie as a rupture with the founders, Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre. A reaction against Fernand Braudel’s longue durée led to a revival of narrative history, while engagement with postmodern philosophy and Foucaultian concepts remained marginal. A third critique argued that the model’s global success relied more on its enthusiastic reception by innovative North American historians like Natalie Zemon Davis and Robert Darnton than on its inherent fecundity.

A fourth argument highlighted the transformative role of media and publishing. Following the massive success of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s Montaillou (1975) and interest in Michel Foucault’s work, publishers commissioned large, popular collections from historians like Jacques Le Goff and Pierre Nora. This interaction with television and magazines introduced market forces, altering academic power dynamics between university professors and research-focused directeurs de recherche at the EHESS.

The convergence of novel approaches, ambitious publications, and public engagement allowed the nouvelle histoire to cultivate the powerful myth of the Annales School as an international paradigm. Criticism in the 1980s heralded both an epistemological crisis and a period of transformation. New sub-disciplines and marginalized groups, such as practitioners of new political history, gained ground, founding competing journals like Genèses that embraced international trends more rapidly than the established Annales.

In 1989, the Annales editorial board itself called for a return to the founders’ principles, instigating a programmatic shift. This new direction emphasized human agency over impersonal structures, the importance of cultural representation, and a renewed commitment to comparative history. It advocated interdisciplinary coalitions with anthropology and area studies. Although the death of reformer Bernard Lepetit was a setback, the journal distinctly evolved, reopening itself to global interdisciplinary scholarship.

By the early 21st century, the overwhelming global influence of the Annales School had waned, making room for a more multipolar historiographical landscape. Within France, three significant trends challenged its dominance. The first was the rehabilitation of the historical event (histoire événementielle) and political narrative, a movement connected to the rise of histoire du temps présent and biography.

The second trend sought to rejuvenate the original comparative and epistemological spirit of Bloch and Febvre. Scholars like Daniel Roche turned to histories of consumption and daily-life practices, while Alain Corbin pioneered the history of emotions. Roger Chartier and others advanced the history of the book (histoire du livre), studying reading practices and the print market. Simultaneously, historians like Daniel Nordman engaged in the spatial turn, re-examining territory and space as fundamental categories.

The third trend emerged from the study of cultural transfers, a concept developed by Michel Espagne and Michael Werner. This approach analyzed the mutual interactions between cultures, moving beyond diffusionist models to understand modernization as a product of transnational flows of people, goods, and ideas. It provided crucial tools for understanding transnationalization and the exercise of power over these flows.

Today, French historiography is characterized by pluralism rather than a single hegemonic program. While the unique postwar conditions that fueled the Annales' dominance have passed, the tradition remains a vital source of innovation, as seen in Pierre Nora’s influential concept of lieux de mémoire (sites of memory). Current renewal occurs in closer dialogue with international developments, less fixated on strictly national history, ensuring the discipline’s continued dynamism and relevance.