Hi all, I’m looking for advice on any significant developments in theory of history in the past two decades or so. Something like a new “Civilization and Capitalism”.
By way of background: I studied history at the Moscow University, and got my PhD in 2009, but then left academia. Moreover, post-Soviet historical education is shaky on theory anyway, in my experience (blame decades of institutionalized, lobotomized Marxism). Back then, we drew most of our understanding of history from the Annales School - Bloch was the first love, and Braudel (longue durée) remains my main methodological tool for understanding the past (and present). Of course, there were Marx, Toynbee, even Adam Smith etc., but they are Newton to Annales’ Einstein IMO.
But Annales peaked half a century ago. And so I’m wondering, what is state of the art in modern historical science? I know Wallerstein (to the extent that’s history) and postmodernism (and Jared Diamond, yes), but beyond that? I’m talking methodological framework - theories explaining historical processes that merit attention and/or are popular in the professional community in the 21 century? My evil-tongued ex-classmates say there are no such things, but I would be glad to any pointers that show otherwise.
I have no faith in the latest fad - no matter the decade. History-related research based on facts and interpretation builds on itself, and it is is important to know what has been written, but how it was written is only a matter of the seasonal garment that is fashionable at the time - and that is guaranteed to fall out of fashion with the next season.
Thirty years ago, I took a paper, written during a PhD seminar, to one of the leading experts on ethnic studies at the time. I asked him if I was using cutting-edge method in the study of ethnicity or if he could recommend a different approach so I could be more current. He told me not to worry about what was cutting-edge methodologically because that was just a fad and fads change. He told me that he simply, always tried to do good, solid work and that he used whatever method seemed to suit the circumstance. I often fall back on the old favorites - I, too, was trained in the Annales School - and I find inspiration in other, diverse works, current and written long ago. I am also keenly aware that I was trained and molded in a very specific methodological "school," but I would (and have) put that aside in a minute if the subject at hand did not fit the evidence.
The good news in our post-modern environment is that diverse methods are available and readily employed. The bad news is that fashion-dictates have been more cruelly applied by some people, perhaps more than ever. I would avoid what is happening on the fashion-runway of history and just do good work, drawing inspiration from what seems appropriate rather than what seems fashionable.