Course Introduction - European Modernity
1.1) Why study History?
Why is history important?
● To escape the present/nostalgia
o Understand how things were before, searching for habits, norms, values, … that are lost.
o “In my time it used to be like …”
▪ Risk: overestimate the ‘pastness of the past’ → assuming that the past has
happened and that it has no importance anymore. We should look at the
continuity and consequences of past actions rather than overstating
rupture/discontinuity
● To learn lessons from the past
o How to deal with moral dilemmas. Looking into the past to search for solutions to
modern problems.
▪ Risk: Bias of history: “The Great men of history”1
● To identify structural laws
o Teleology (Marx/Fukuyama), How things happened - and how things could happen in the
future.
o To identify patterns, schemes, … - makes history somewhat predictable (happens in a
normal trajectory)
▪ Risk: causality and the risk of overdetermination - Is A really causing B? We
should analyze all factors.
● For Political and/or ideological problems
o Selection mechanism in higher education, decolonization of countries, nationalist
projects, etc.
▪ Risk: Using the past to justify modern actions - overlap of ideology /politics and
science
Why study history?
● To understand change and how ‘the present’ came to be.
o Understand the continuity and change.
o Understand all factors that led to institutionalization and (r)evolutions, and the impact
they had had.
▪ Eg: Fake news then (John Adams) and now (Trump) - is our time really
unprecedented?
1
I would personally add that history is made by winners. History, how we know it and how it is taught to us, is not
subjective. People are choosing what is deemed important to know, and what is not. Learning history by hard does
not give the assurance of knowing what really happened. There is a lot that is not taught to us, even if that had an
enormous impact of the modern life
, ● Put the present day into perspective.
→ Dismantle what is taken for granted. → Seeing the strange in the familiar.
o To acknowledge the power struggles that are the basis of today’s institutions, way of
lives, ...
o To question the uniformity of European experience
o To “provincialize” Europe, to account the multiple paths and meanings leading to
modernity.
▪ Europe ≠ the whole world
▪ Not universal thoughts - challenge the linear trajectory
→ historicism and the limitations of linear and singular conceptions of history - ‘waiting rooms’
o One man’s present becomes another man’s future
▪ When we understand history and development as a linear trajectory, we
are in a way creating this imaginary waiting room.
Example:
- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) on “Liberty on Representative Government” proclaimed self-rule as
the highest form of government and yet argued against giving Indians or Africans self-rule.
- Mill believed that Indians or Africans were not yet civilised enough. Some historical time of
development and civilization had to elapse before they could be considered prepared for such a
task, consigning them to an imaginary waiting room of history.
o Of particular relevance for the 19th century - The birth of modern Europe.
▪ Mask the heterogeneity of the ‘European’ experience.
▪ Modernity did not happen in only one way - to account for multiple
paths/meanings
1.2) The long 19th century
Great changes in Europe
● Estates → Classes
o From 1789 the French revolution (collapse of French absolutist monarch) to 1914 and
the beginning of the first world war
o New forms of political sovereignty and legitimation.
● Economic and social transformation
● Demographic explosion and mass migrations
● Dramatic changes in the political landscape
o Birth of new European powers, Italy and Germany.
o The consolidation of nation-states and imperialism.
o The incorporation of the masses in politics.
1.1) Why study History?
Why is history important?
● To escape the present/nostalgia
o Understand how things were before, searching for habits, norms, values, … that are lost.
o “In my time it used to be like …”
▪ Risk: overestimate the ‘pastness of the past’ → assuming that the past has
happened and that it has no importance anymore. We should look at the
continuity and consequences of past actions rather than overstating
rupture/discontinuity
● To learn lessons from the past
o How to deal with moral dilemmas. Looking into the past to search for solutions to
modern problems.
▪ Risk: Bias of history: “The Great men of history”1
● To identify structural laws
o Teleology (Marx/Fukuyama), How things happened - and how things could happen in the
future.
o To identify patterns, schemes, … - makes history somewhat predictable (happens in a
normal trajectory)
▪ Risk: causality and the risk of overdetermination - Is A really causing B? We
should analyze all factors.
● For Political and/or ideological problems
o Selection mechanism in higher education, decolonization of countries, nationalist
projects, etc.
▪ Risk: Using the past to justify modern actions - overlap of ideology /politics and
science
Why study history?
● To understand change and how ‘the present’ came to be.
o Understand the continuity and change.
o Understand all factors that led to institutionalization and (r)evolutions, and the impact
they had had.
▪ Eg: Fake news then (John Adams) and now (Trump) - is our time really
unprecedented?
1
I would personally add that history is made by winners. History, how we know it and how it is taught to us, is not
subjective. People are choosing what is deemed important to know, and what is not. Learning history by hard does
not give the assurance of knowing what really happened. There is a lot that is not taught to us, even if that had an
enormous impact of the modern life
, ● Put the present day into perspective.
→ Dismantle what is taken for granted. → Seeing the strange in the familiar.
o To acknowledge the power struggles that are the basis of today’s institutions, way of
lives, ...
o To question the uniformity of European experience
o To “provincialize” Europe, to account the multiple paths and meanings leading to
modernity.
▪ Europe ≠ the whole world
▪ Not universal thoughts - challenge the linear trajectory
→ historicism and the limitations of linear and singular conceptions of history - ‘waiting rooms’
o One man’s present becomes another man’s future
▪ When we understand history and development as a linear trajectory, we
are in a way creating this imaginary waiting room.
Example:
- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) on “Liberty on Representative Government” proclaimed self-rule as
the highest form of government and yet argued against giving Indians or Africans self-rule.
- Mill believed that Indians or Africans were not yet civilised enough. Some historical time of
development and civilization had to elapse before they could be considered prepared for such a
task, consigning them to an imaginary waiting room of history.
o Of particular relevance for the 19th century - The birth of modern Europe.
▪ Mask the heterogeneity of the ‘European’ experience.
▪ Modernity did not happen in only one way - to account for multiple
paths/meanings
1.2) The long 19th century
Great changes in Europe
● Estates → Classes
o From 1789 the French revolution (collapse of French absolutist monarch) to 1914 and
the beginning of the first world war
o New forms of political sovereignty and legitimation.
● Economic and social transformation
● Demographic explosion and mass migrations
● Dramatic changes in the political landscape
o Birth of new European powers, Italy and Germany.
o The consolidation of nation-states and imperialism.
o The incorporation of the masses in politics.
