Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANN
ABSTRACT
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the past twenty years, ideas about the conditions and ways in which socio-
historical knowledge is produced have undergone significant changes. Two sets
of factors, stemming both from internal developments in the social sciences as
well as from the more general political context, have jointly produced their
effects. On the political side, the changes that have taken place since 1989, cou-
pled with the expansion and proliferation of spaces of reference and action-
globalization, to use the now standard term-have left their mark on research
paradigms, bringing new importance to the question of reflexivity. On the intel-
lectual side, the "culturalist turn," by emphasizing the specificity-indeed, the
irreducible nature-of the local has contributed to refining our understanding of
the differentiated functioning of societies and cultures, while at the same time
bringing about a fragmentation of knowledge, thereby showing it in a relativist
1. This article draws upon argumentsfirst developed in Annales HSS 58:1 (January-February
2003), 7-36 and in De la comparaison a l'histoire croisde, ed. Michael Werner and B6nedicte
Zimmermann(Le Genrehumain42) (Paris:Seuil, 2004), 15-49. We extend our warmthanksfor their
suggestions and comments to Sebastian Conrad,Yves Cohen, AlexandreEscudier, HeidrunFriese,
Jean-YvesGrenier,RainerMariaKiesow, Andr6Orlean,JacquesPoloni, Jay Rowell, LucetteValensi,
and PeterWagner,with whom we have discussed various aspects of our histoire croisde proposal.
if each of them has particularities.On Connected History, see The Making of the Modern World:
ConnectedHistories, Divergent Paths (1500 to the Present), ed. Robert W. Strayer(New York:St.
MartinsPress, 1989); SanjaySubrahmanyam,"ConnectedHistories:Notes towarda Reconfiguration
of Early ModernEurasia," ModernAsian Studies 31:3 (1997), 735-762; Serge Gruzinski,"Les mon-
des mel6s de la Monarchiecatholiqueet autres 'connectedhistories',"Annales HSS 56:1 (2001), 85-
117. The expression "sharedhistory"was originally used to designate the sharedhistory of different
ethnic groups and was then extended to the history of gender,before being used in the discussion of
"post-colonialstudies."See Ann LauraStoler and FredericCooper,"BetweenMetropoleand Colony.
Rethinkinga ResearchAgenda,"in Tensionsof Empire: Colonial Culturesin a Bourgeois World,ed.
Ann LauraStoler and FredericCooper (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), as well as
StewartHall, "Whenwas the Post-Colonial?Thinkingat the Limit,"in The Post-Colonial Question:
CommonSkies, Divided Horizons, ed. lain Chambersand Lidia Curti(London:Routledge, 1996). For
the concept of Entangled History, see Jenseits des Eurozentrismus:Postkoloniale Perspektivenin
den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften,ed. Sebastian Conrad and Shalini Randeria(Frankfurt:
Campus Verlag, 2002), as well as Shalini Randeria, "EntangledHistories of Uneven Modernities:
Civil Society, Caste Solidarities and Legal Pluralism in Post-Colonial India," in Unraveling Ties:
From Social Cohesion to New Practices of Connectedness,ed. Yehuda Elkana et al. (Frankfurt:
CampusVerlag,2002), 284-311.
6. See, in particular,Michel Espagne, "Sur les limites du comparatismeen histoire culturelle,"
Geneses 17 (1994), 112-121; Heinz-GerhardHaupt and JtirgenKocka, Geschichte und Vergleich:
Ansditzeund Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung(Frankfurt:Campus
Verlag, 1996); ChristopheCharle, "L'histoirecompar6edes intellectuels en Europe:Quelques points
de m6thodeet propositionsde recherche,"in Pour une histoirecompardedes intellectuels,ed. Michel
Trebitsch and Marie-Christine Granjon (Paris: Editions Complexe, 1998), 39-59; Johannes
Paulmann, "InternationalerVergleich und interkulturellerTransfer:Zwei Forschungsansitze zur
europdiischenGeschichte des 18. bis 20. Jahrhunderts,"Historische Zeitschrift 3 (1998), 649-685;
Hartmut Kaelble, Der historische Vergleich: Eine Einfiihrung zum 19. und 20. Jahrhundert
(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag, 1999); MatthiasMiddell, "Kulturtransfer und historischeKomparatistik,
Thesen zu ihrem Verhiltnis," Comparativ 10 (2000), 7-41; Michael Werner,"Comparaisonet rai-
son," Cahiers d'dtudes germaniques 41 (2001), 9-18; Gabriele Lingelbach, "Ertriigeund Grenzen
zweier Ansditze:Kulturtransferund Vergleich am Beispiel der franz6sischen und amerikanischen
Geschichtswissenschaftwiihrenddes 19. Jahrhunderts,"in Die Nation schreiben: Geschichtswissen-
schaft im internationalen Vergleich, ed. Christoph Conrad and Sebastian Conrad (Gtittingen:
Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,2002), 333-359.
researcherand object. It thus provides a toolbox that, over and beyond the his-
torical sciences, can be appliedacross a numberof otherdisciplines thatcombine
past and presentperspectives.7
Those who engage in the comparativemethod and attemptto control the effects
thereof--whether they work on past or contemporarymaterials-are aware of a
numberof difficultiesthat, while presentin diverse situations,all involve the ten-
sion between the method andthe object. To simplify, these difficulties arise from
the fact that, on the one hand, comparison is a cognitive operationthat, by its
nature,functionsin accordancewith a principleof binaryoppositionbetween dif-
ferences and similarities and, on the other hand, is applied in the social sciences
to empirical subjects that are historically situated and consist of multiple inter-
penetratingdimensions. The problems of self-monitoring and the continuous
readjustmentof the process resulting therefrom are not in themselves insur-
mountable;they are partof the work of comparativists,all of whom deal with this
in their own manner.8The basic questions neverthelessremain;five of them that
underliethe problematicof histoire croiselewill be addressedmore precisely.
(1) The first difficulty concernsthe position of the observer. From the stand-
point of the basic scheme of the cognitive process, the comparative approach
assumes a point of view externalto the objects that are compared.In addition,to
limit optical illusions, the vantage point should ideally be situated at equal dis-
tance from the objects so as to producea symmetricalview. Finally,logical con-
sistency in the comparisonimplies that the point of observationbe stabilized in
space and in time. In the areaof observationof social and culturalfacts, howev-
er, such a vantage point, even if it is theoretically imaginable, is impossible to
attainin the practiceof research.Scholars are always, in one manneror another,
(4) This historicizationof the objects and problematicsmay give rise to con-
flicts between synchronic and diachronic logics. The comparative approach
assumes a synchronic cross-section or, at the very least, a pause in the flow of
time, even where comparativistsare also dealing with processes of transforma-
tion or comparisons over time. Even in these cases, they must fix the object,
freeze it in time, and thus in a sense suspendit. If the scholardelves too deeply
into the description of a chronological sequence of events leading to specific
changes, it will be difficult to justify why, in the comparative grid-whether
explicit or implicit-one element of the process is emphasized and anotherneg-
lected. The result is a search for balance that in practiceturnsout to be tenuous
and unstable.
(5) An additionaldifficulty stems from the interactionamong the objects of
the comparison.When societies in contactwith one anotherare studied,it is often
noted that the objects and practicesare not only in a state of interrelationshipbut
also modify one anotherreciprocallyas a resultof theirrelationship.This is often
the case, for instance, in the human and social sciences where disciplines and
schools evolve throughmutualexchanges;in culturalactivities such as literature,
music, and the fine arts; and in practicalareas, such as advertising, marketing,
organizationalcultures, or even social policies. Comparativestudy of areas of
contactthatare transformedthroughtheirmutualinteractionsrequiresscholarsto
reorganizetheir conceptualframeworkand rethinktheir analyticaltools.'2
These five difficulties all relate to the problem of articulationbetween an
essentially synchronicanalyticallogic and historicallyconstitutedobjects.'3The
challenges they raise for the scholar requiregreaterconsiderationof the histori-
cal dimension of both the tools and objects of study.Transferstudies, specifical-
ly groundedin historicalprocesses, meet this requirement,but they nevertheless
pose additionalproblems.
12. In his introductionto Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture
Difference (Bergen and Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,1969), 9-38, FredrikBarth had already under-
scored the necessity of taking into account the interactionat the bordersfrom which spreadthe dis-
tinctive traitsof the entities understudy-here "ethnicgroups."But while assigning to them a deter-
minative role, Barth limits the transformationaleffects of interactionsto the processes of definition
and the characteristicsof the groups, without calling into question the cohesion of the group or the
dichotomizingfunction of the borders.Although Barthdefines ethnicity at the borders,he still con-
ceives of it as structuredby the principles of sameness and difference.
13. Jean-Claude Passeron has addressed them as difficulties of the "sociological reasoning"
caught between the two extremes of experimentationand historicization.See Passeron, Le raison-
nementsociologique, esp. 57-88.
14. For a presentationof the transferapproach,see Michel Espagneand Michael Wemer,"Lacon-
struction d'une r6f6rence culturelle allemande en France, genese et histoire," Annales ESC 42:4
(1987), 969-992. For additionalwork contributedthroughthe study of Germano-Britishtransfers,see
AneignungundAbwehr. InterkulturellerTransferzwischen Deutschland und GrofJbritannien im 19.
Jahrhundert,ed. Rudolf Muhs, Johannes Paulmann,and Willibald Steinmetz (Bodenheim: Philo,
1998); for the relationshipsbetween America and Europe, see Transfertsculturels et metissages:
Amdrique / Europe (XVIe-XXe siecles)/Cultural Transfer America and Europe: 500 Years of
Interculturation,ed. LaurierTurgeon, Denys Delage, and R6al Ouellet (Sainte-Foy: Les presses de
l'universit6Laval, 1996).
15. For these various examples, see in the order listed Jean-Yves Grenier and BernardLepetit,
"L'expdriencehistorique:A propos de C.-E. Labrousse,"Annales ESC 44:6 (1989), 1337-1360; "Le
paysage en Franceet en Allemagne autourde 1800,"ed. ElisabethDecultot and ChristianHelmreich,
Revue germanique internationale 7 (1997); the special section compiled by Fr6d6ricBarbier,"Le
commerce culturelentre les nations,"Revue de synthhse 1:2 (1988), as well as Helga Jeanblanc,Des
Allemands dans l'industrie et le commerce du livre a Paris (1811-1870) (Paris: CNRS-Editions),
1994; and Sidney WilfredMintz, Sweetnessand Power: ThePlace of Sugar in ModernHistory (New
York:Viking, 1985).
In the literal sense, to cross means "to place or fold crosswise one over the
other."'8This creates a point of intersection where events may occur that are
capable of affecting to various degrees the elements present dependingon their
resistance,permeabilityor malleability,and on their environment.The notion of
intersectionis basic to the very principle of histoire croisee that we intend to
elaboratehere. This centralityof intersectionsimplies four consequencesthat we
wish to highlight.
21. To the extent thatthey are concernedwith transformations,transferstudiesdo in fact deal with
certain aspects of change, but limitationto transfersalone does not make it possible to account for
radicalchange where new things, categories, practices,or institutionsarise for the first time. In other
words, in many cases transferstake partin the change, but understandingof the latteris not general-
ly exhaustedby the former.The same applies to connected history, which certainly takes into con-
siderationcertainaspects of change, but hardly makes possible analysis of change as such.
ing of the approachesresulting from the specific vantage points. These various
points of view are also socially structured,reflectingparticularpositions in com-
petition or power struggles.25Consequently,variationamong them also means,
in empiricalterms, the scholar's taking into accountdiffering social viewpoints:
of the governorsand the governed,workersand employers,and so on. Whatmat-
ters here is less the reflexive element inherentin any work involving intellectu-
al positioningthanthe technical processes of intercrossingas a whole thatinform
it. By this is meant,for example, the ways of managingthe articulationbetween
several possible vantage points as well as the numerous links between these
viewpoints to the extent that they are acknowledgedto be historically constitut-
ed. In this respect,the framingof the object and the positioning of the researcher
involve a "doublehermeneutic,"26 in which objects and points of view are creat-
ed throughintercrossinginteractions.
(3) The relations between observer and object. Once one begins to reason in
terms of a cognitive approach, the question of the relationship between the
researcherand the object necessarily arises and in a sense becomes inherentto
the two precedingtypes of intercrossing.The question concerns, first and fore-
most, the way in which the preliminarystages of the inquiryshape the object and
conversely the way in which the characteristicsof the object influence the param-
eters of the inquiry. The question of the intercrossing relations between the
observerand the object is especially pertinentwhere the researcheris requiredto
work with a language, concepts, and categories that are not part of his or her
sphere of socialization.27In the case of comparisons and transferstudies, this
gives rise to an asymmetryin the relationshipsbetween researchersand theirvar-
ious field areas or sources. It would seem evident that a researchertrained in
France28involved in a Franco-Germanicresearch project could not deal with
both sides in a symmetricalmanner,if only by reason of the impact of the mas-
tery of the subtleties of language and of categories entailed, and more broadly
because of his or her own placement within French society. It would be both
futile and naive to try to free oneself once and for all from this problemarising
in any scientific inquiry.29One may nevertheless attemptto limit its effects by
25. PierreBourdieuplaced great emphasis on this point in his work as a whole. See in particular
Choses dites (Paris:Editions de Minuit, 1987), 155ff.
26. In the sense used by Anthony Giddens, in New Rules of Sociological Method (London:
Hutchinson, 1974).
27. This question has been treatedin particularby Jocelyne Dakhlia, "'La culture n6buleuse'ou
l'Islam 'al'6preuve de la comparaison,"Annales HSS 56 :6 (2001), 1177-1199, here 1186ff.
28. We know well the complexity of this type of designation,especially to the extent that courses
of studyare increasinglyinterconnectedandprovide forms of integrationthatblurthe variousassign-
ments to categories of membership.
29. This problemis particularlyacute in the social sciences whereinquiriesare subjectto an ongo-
ing tension between proceduresdesigned to be objective and descriptive,on the one hand,and a nor-
mative and prescriptivedimension, on the other,resulting from the fact that the researcheris also a
social being. However, many studies have shown that this problemalso exists in the hard sciences.
See, in particular,Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, LaboratoryLife: The Social Constructionof
Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Barry Barnes, David Bloor, and John Henry, Scientific
Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996); Dominique
Pestre, "Pourune histoire sociale et culturelledes sciences: Nouvelles d6finitions, nouveaux objets,
nouvelles pratiques,"Annales HSS 3 (1995), 487-522, with a descriptionof the state of researchand
numerousbibliographicalreferences.
30. For the positioningof the multiscopiqueapproachin relationto microstoria, see, in particular,
Paul-Andr6Rosental, "Construirele macro par le micro: FredrikBarth et la microstoria,"in Jeux
d'echelles: La micro-analyse a l'experience, dir. Jacques Revel (Paris, Editions de I'EHESS/
Gallimard/Seuil,1996), 141-159.
31. See, in particular,Carlo Ginzburg and Carlo Poni, "La micro-histoire,"Le debat, no. 17
(1989), 133-136; Giovanni Levi, Le pouvoir au village: La carrikred'un exorciste dans le Piemont
du XVIIesiecle [1985] (Paris:Gallimard, 1989).
32. MaurizioGribaudi,"Echelle, pertinence,configuration,"in Jeux d'echelles, 113-139.
33. Jacques Revel, "Micro-analyseet constructiondu social," in Jeux d'echelles, 15-36, here 26.
V. HISTORICIZINGCATEGORIES
39. See Danny Trom, "La productionpolitique du paysage:Eliments pour une interpretationdes
pratiquesordinairesde patrimonialisationde la natureen Allemagne et en France"(Doctoralthesis,
Institutd'dtudespolitiques, Paris, 1996).
40. Alain Desrosibresaccounts for these generalizationproceduresin the case of statisticcatego-
rization.Alain Desrosieres,La politique des grands nombres:Histoire de la raison statistique(Paris:
La Ddcouverte, 1993). For a case study, see also Danny Trom and BdnddicteZimmermann,"Cadres
et institutiondes problkmespublics: les cas du chomage et du paysage," in Lesformes de l'action
collective: Mobilisationdans des arknespubliques, ed. Daniel Cefai and Danny Trom(Raisons pra-
tiques, 12) (Paris:Editions de I'EHESS, 2001), 281-315.
41. See Ian Hacking, Representingand Intervening: IntroductoryTopics in the Philosophy of
Natural Sciences (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1983); Lorraine Daston and Peter
Galison, "The Image of Objectivity,"Representations40 (1992), 81-128; for the culturalsciences,
see Michael Lacknerand Michael Werner,Der Cultural Turn in den Humanwissenschaften:Area
Studies im Auf- oderAbwind des Kulturalismus?(Bad Homburg,WernerReimers Stiftung, 1999).
VI. PRAGMATICINDUCTION
times contradictory,of actorsto which they respondwhile at the same time struc-
turingthem.48
Similarly, pragmatic induction does not imply restricting oneself to short-
action time-frames without regardfor the long term. On the contrary,the long
term of the structuresis combined with the shortjuncturesof action, in an analy-
sis of social activity based on the study of the dynamic relationshipsbetween
action and structure.From this perspective,the activity of individualsappearsas
both structuredand structuring,49 in a relationshipof reciprocalrelationsbetween
structuresand action. However, such structuringis not so much determinedby
the necessity of an irreversibleprocess as by the intercrossingin the course of
action of constraintsand resourcesthat are in part structurallygiven and in part
tied to the contingency of the situations.50Thus, for example, most of our insti-
tutions stem from a dual grounding,both within a structurallylong history that
affects their logic and functioning, and in singularcontexts of action that played
a decisive role in bringingthem aboutand transformingthem.51The perspective
of a social pragmaticsmakes it possible to think in termsof the interdependence
of these two dimensions throughthe identificationof the slides and lags occur-
ring in the course of the action that enable moments of institutionalinnovation.
Mindful of both short-termcontexts of action and the long-term structuralcon-
ditions that make it possible, such an approachopens up new perspectives for
analyzingchange and stability at the same time.
VII. REFLEXIVITY