TOTAL HISTORY AND FRANCE’S FUTURE
Cem Oguz

New Anatolian, Turkey
May 11 2006

Late last night I finished a book by Emine Caykara that contains an
interview of nearly 500 pages with Professor Halil Inalcik. In several
parts of the interview, Inalcik, the doyen of Ottoman studies who
used to teach me during my short academic career as well, asserted
the importance of the concept of “total history.”

Towards the end of the interview, Professor Inalcik points out
a fundamental dilemma faced by historiography: While the natural
sciences, such as mathematics, offer a kid of even the age of 12 the
opportunity to show genius, the social sciences, first and foremost
history, require long-term dedication as well as experience supported
by fastidiousness. Without knowing the fundamental elements and marking
points of history one would lose the focus. This, in turn, demands
knowledge about each aspect of history or the notion of total history.

The concept of total history is the most significant contribution
of the “Ecole des Annales” to modern-day historiography. Born of the
well-known French scholarly journal “Annales d’Histoire Economique et
Sociale,” the Ecole des Annales was founded in 1929 by prominent French
historians Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre. However, the most popular name
among those from annales has been Fernand Braudel, the author of “The
Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II.”

Previously, traditional history was built around the acts and
facts of the leading personalities of the time. The Annales
school, in turn, proposed a shift in the historian’s focus and a
global vision of history, particularly emphasizing the medium- and
long-term evolution of societies and civilizations. Its followers
pioneered a new and stimulating approach to the study of historical
structures over events. Committed to broadening the range of history,
they incorporated the other humanities, ranging from economics and
sociology to linguistics and geography, into historical study. Over
time mentalities (attitudes) became their focus as well.

The influence of the Ecole des Annales soon spread well beyond the
borders of France, and Turkish historians, too, were not immune to its
rapidly growing attraction. It was first Omer Lutfi Barkan who applied
annales principles to his works. He then was followed by Inalcik.

The Annales school is actually the world-renowned foundation on
which modern-day French historiography is grounded. It is in this
regard that French historians’ outspoken opposition against political
involvement in history and historic events over the last two years
deserves particular appreciation. Nevertheless, the reason I’ve touched
on it is not because I naively believe that praising motivated by a
narrow opportunism will help strengthen the Turkish standpoint. It
is rather related to my desire to conduct a little projection into
France’s future.

As some French themselves admit, France, once the worldwide leading
promoter of universal values, is a rapidly decaying power in this
new global era. Paradoxically, the political elite rather seem to be
merely mourning this self-imposed isolation. What I am particularly
wondering about, however, is whether this gradual transformation,
or the “long duree” as Braudel described it, is simply the outcome of
some French politicians’ narrow-mindedness or lack of vision. It is,
of course, the French people that will judge their politicians.

However, I humbly need to warn them that if this judgment is late in
coming, sooner or later they themselves won’t be able to escape from
the transformation that has affected their politicians.

As far as some French politicians’ attitude towards the Armenian
allegations is concerned, there remains nothing left to say except to
assert what my dear professor, Halil Inalcik, used to repeat during
his lectures: “Understanding is forgiving.”

How otherwise will we Turks be able to tolerate certain French
politicians, with their longings to be geniuses in the field of
history at age 12?