The Rankean Model and the Professionalization of Mexican Historiography in the 1940s

The professionalization of history in Mexico accelerated after 1940, with the figure of the German historian Leopold von Ranke emerging as the emblematic model for aspiring scholars. Revered as the father of academic history, Ranke’s legacy was defined by rigorous source criticism and an unwavering pursuit of objective truth. His methodology, centered on archival research and training historians in small seminars, became a global norm through university reforms in Europe and the United States. Although this adoption occurred later in Mexico, the Rankean approach quickly became synonymous with professional historical practice.

This dominance was facilitated by the arrival of exiled Spanish academics like Rafael Altamira and José Gaos, who introduced Rankean ideas directly to Mexican institutions after 1939. A key figure was Silvio Zavala, a disciple of Altamira, who helped establish the history degree at El Colegio de México in 1940 and explicitly championed Ranke as his model. These scholars organized seminars that propagated not only Ranke’s techniques but also a broader European scholarly tradition, cementing the German historian's influence during the formative period of Mexican academic history.

The embrace of Ranke is particularly notable as it coincided with the rise of innovative critiques elsewhere, such as the work of Carl Becker in the United States and the Annales School founders Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre in France. Mexican intellectuals had access to these diverse theories through ambitious translation projects. Nevertheless, the early professional community gravitated toward Ranke’s model, sparking a foundational methodological debate between "positivist" and "historicist" camps within Mexican historiography.

The positivist camp advocated for a history focused on empirical facts and national narratives, aligning with Ranke’s ideal of objectivity. In contrast, the historicist movement, influenced by philosophers like Benedetto Croce and R.G. Collingwood, prioritized ideas and interpretation, engaging with the risks of subjectivity and historical relativism. This divide framed a central intellectual conflict regarding the nature and purpose of historical science in Mexico.

The foremost representative of the historicist position was Edmundo O’Gorman, often considered more a philosopher of history than a traditional historian. In 1947, he published “Crisis y porvenir de la ciencia histórica,” a critical treatise directly challenging Rankean postulations. This work was emblematic of the period’s theoretical ferment but was largely ignored by positivist scholars, who dismissed it as mere philosophy. The debate underscored the tension between a search for objective facts and a more interpretive, theoretical approach that would later gain ground. Thus, the professionalization of Mexican history was forged not through unanimity, but through this critical engagement with competing visions of the historian’s task.