PIRENNE AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL THEO
economists. He appreciated their use of collect
above, and their integration of sociology and his
"… sociology and general psychology ought to
individual psychology is the starting point for the stu
He continued that
"just as men are different, all groups of men are diff
use abstract rules to explain reality. Those rules can
view, always to be adjusted by undertaking careful
(Pirenne, 1917, 192).
F
IGURE
2:
KARL BÜCHER
(1847-1930)
&
GUSTA
Following the direction of his teachers, he ag
being careful about the general application of
necessity to contextualise and verify the theoreti
In the introduction he wrote for Karl Bü
already expressed his preference for Schmoller
only less deductive but also much more 'sociolo
Many historians who have studied the work of
influence of Karl Lamprecht (1856-1915) on
Lamprecht convinced Pirenne of the value of in
writing (see Lyon, Prevenier, Dhondt, and Gans
economists in this area is often underestimated
the influence of the historian Karl Lamprecht o
for years before they parted ways after Lampre
the German authorities at the beginning of
ORY
[329]
ctive psychology, as described
story. In 1917 he wrote:
be the starting point, just as
udy of sources".
ferent. It is impossible to simply
an only be used to note point of
study of the historical context"
AV VON SCHMOLLER
(1838-1917)
gain emphasised the need for
f 'rules' and patterns and the
tical point de vue.
ücher's book (1901), Pirenne
r's work as work that was not
logical' (Pirenne, 1901, X-XI).
f Pirenne have emphasised the
Pirenne's ideas and writings.
nterdisciplinarity for historical
nshof). While the impact of the
d, we do not want to minimise
on Pirenne. They were friends
echt began to collaborate with
the First World War. This
[330]
E. THOEN / E. VANHAUTE
historian and art historian was also at the core of a 'Methodenstreit' with
traditional historians and art historians who opposed the combination of an
interdisciplinary focus and close study and interpretation (Chickering, 1993,
269ff). Pirenne was lucky to have witnessed these discussions during the
final decades of the 19th century as well. However, the connection of this
'Streit'
with the Methodenstreit dividing the economists is often forgotten.
13
In the works of Bücher, for example, one can find many references to
Lamprecht and vice versa. For a long period Lamprecht even invited a
specialist in economics to his students' examinations (Ibid.).
Pirenne's interest in economic history, awareness of interdisciplinarity, and
reliance on 'institutions' to explain evolution, as well his nuanced view
towards models and concepts, result from his contacts with the German-
speaking world, in which huge methodological changes have been taking
place, not only in history but also in other fields such as economics. His
education in France was less important in the formation of his theoretical
views on history, although it was of huge importance for his skills in textual
analysis and his acquaintance with the work of Vidal de la Blache, the
founding father of human geography. Our view is that his 'German' and to a
large extent economic education was at the core of his nuanced theoretical
view on historical methodology which made him so famous.
In that sense, we believe that some studies that have been published about
Pirenne's views need to be nuanced. It is probable that a scholar from the
university at which Pirenne taught most, Jan Dhondt (1979), together with
the Pirenne's American admirer Bryce Lyon (1997), and later scholars such
as Prevenier (1986
14
) and Witte (2007) overestimated the change in Pirenne's
methodology after World War I. They based this view on Pirenne's memoirs
of the war and articles he wrote later on methodology. According to Dhondt
(1979), after the war "un Pirenne 'lamprechtien' n'était guère de mise".
15
Dhondt also cites the fact that Pirenne presented three papers between Octo-
ber 1931 and March 1933 about the importance of coincidence in history.
However, the content of these papers is unknown (Dhondt, 1979).
16
Bryce
13.
www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Methodenstreit (22-3-2009).
14.
Although he also relativised the "radical" change in Pirenne's "determinism" after 1918
(Prevenier, 1986, 44).
15.
But was this method "Lamprechtien"? In fact, Pirenne's appeal in 1897 in favour of Karl
Lamprecht was probably more of an appeal for the use of social sciences in history, rather than
an appeal to Marxist or similar influences. "It is easy to characterise Lamprecht's method. It is
to consider history from the viewpoint of the social sciences" p. 5 (via Digithèque ULB).
16.
If in these papers (the content of which is unknown) he expressed the same ideas as in his
mémoires of 1917, his point of view might have been nuanced. Indeed, in these mémoires he
said that he did not believe that world history was directed by coincidence. See e.g. Pirenne
PIRENNE AND ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL THEORY
[331]
Lyon added that after the First World War Pirenne paid much more attention
to individuals and accidental events than to collective movements. Both
Dhondt and Lyon may have engaged in wishful thinking for ideological
reasons; Dhondt may have found Pirenne too much to the right; Lyon
probably considered some of Pirenne's writing too much to the left.
This position is rather difficult to prove decisively since there are few
articles from Pirenne's early career which address methodology. He only
systematically began to write on method after he had become famous in the
Anglo-Saxon world. However, if his formative connection to the German
Historical School of Economics – which he continued to admire throughout
his career – is taken into consideration, it is likely that Pirenne held a nuanced
view on using concepts in economic and social history from the very
beginning. If we analyse the works of Pirenne from the start of his scholarly
production, it is clear that he had already begun nuancing causal
relationships. The fact that he used concepts such as 'class' more often does
not contradict this position (see below). Lyon used Pirenne's Réflexions d'un
solitaire
to 'prove' that Pirenne had changed his position. However, we can
clearly see that even in 1917, when these 'reflections' were written, he was
still influenced by the 'historical school' in his opposition to starting with the
present and working backwards to explain economic developments of the
past (e.g., Pirenne, 1917, 194). When Pirenne wrote about the possible role of
coincidence and contingency in history, he was always nuanced.
17
One
example comes from his Réflexions and can illustrate this:
"Yet again, not exaggerating the impact of events at court or extra-marital affairs,
what could Spain have done without the resources of the New World? And what
could she have been able to do if those two natural states, France and England, were
not there to stop her? In acting for themselves, as in the Boniface VIII affair, they
acted for the world" (Ibid., 212).
Many other similar examples can be found in these notes. The same is true
for the role of individual behaviour. His 1917 writings are anything but a plea
to emphasise the role of individual behaviour as can be read in this quote:
"I think that it is necessary to consider it differently, that is to imagine from the
beginning that one is dealing with human groups with identical essences, but whose
actions are modified by circumstances: geographical position, climate, economic
(1917, p. 187-188, 212-213, 215, 233) "mais encore une fois, n'exagérons pas la portée des
événements de cour et d'alcôve malgré les mariages…".
17.
The remarks of Brice Lyon, who edited the Réflexions, are completely misleading, as he
mainly quotes from only half of Pirenne's notes (maybe hoping that Pirenne was less nuanced
that he really was) (Lyon, 1997, 293)
Dostları ilə paylaş: |