On History [Paperback]

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.