1

The.. NeW Cu/-fvr-a( f.ftsi-ory, LyYJvi 1-!uvi+ C-e.d.\

'P>e r\.<. e\ ey (J"\Vc(S ,+y o~ Ca L'furrJ , <? ?<e~, l"JBq.
1

Introduction:
History, Culture, and Text
LYNN I-fUNT

In 1961, E, H. C(1rr lnnouncec'. thilt "tht n1orP sociolo~~ic1tl hi~

tory becornes, and the more historical sociology becomes, the
bettcr for both." 1 J\t thl' time, thc pronouncen1cnt wns n ba!tlc

cry dnected prirnarily at Carr's fellow historians-especially

those :)f the English v;iriety-whorn Cur hopl'd t\1 dr<1g ,1long,
however unwillingly, into the new age of a socially oriented
history. ln retrospect, it seems that Carr was quite right: lhe
l'Ullin-!, L'dge fur both fields 'Ni.IS lhc soci,ll-hlslorlcal.- J IJstori<.:ttl
sociol:>gy has bernnw 01w
llw rnost irnpPrtant subfit<lds \lf

,,f

sociol:igy, and perhaps thc fos'.est grnwing; meanwhiil'. social

hisfnrv h;1s ovt'rli1k<11 puli!i;;i[ Jiislory 11s lht

11111~1 i1nporl1111t

arca of rcsearch in hislory (as evidenced by the quadrupling of

American doctoral dissertations in social history between i958
and 1978, surpassing those in poltica! history).'
In history, the move toward the social was fostered by the
influence of two dominan! paradigrns of explanation: Marxism
on the one hand and the "An::1ales" school on the other. Although Marxism was hardly new in the 195os and i96os, new
1
I. ECward Hallett Carr, 1v'Y hat Is .1-fisfory? (New York, 1965; first published
1961), p. 34.
2. Robert Darnton, "lntellectual and Cultural History," in The Past Befare
Us: Canremporary Historical Writing zn flie United States, ed. Michael J<;ammen
(lthaca, '..J.Y., 1980), p. 334

Ly1111 H1111t

/11trodultio11

currents were corning to the forc within that explanalory modt

that prornoted historians' interest in social history. At the end
of the 195os and early in the 196os, a group of younger Marxist
historians began publishing books and articles on "history
frorn below," including the by now canonical studies of George
Rud on the .Parisian crowd, Albert Soboul on the Parisian
sansculottes, and E. P. Thompson on the English working class. 3
With this inspiration, historians in the 196os and 197os turned
from more traditional histories of political leaders and political institutions toward investigations of the social cornposition
and daily life of workers, servants, wornen, ethnic groups, and
the like.
The Annales school, though a more recent inf!uence, carne to
prominence at the sarne time. The original journal, Arma/es
d'histoire co110111iq11e et socia/e, was founded in 1929 by Marc

how one of the systems of a society functions or how a wh?le

collectivity functions in terms of its multiple temporal, spahal,
human, social, econornic, cultural, and eventrnental d1rnensions."' Little is left out of this efinition; consequently, in its
presumed drive toward "total history" it loses ali specificity..
Fernand Braudel, the central figure of the Annales school m
the decades after World War ll, laid out an apparently more
precise rnodel in his work on the Mediterranean world. He
posited three levels of analysis that corresponded to three d1fferent units of time: the structure or longue dure, dominated by
the geographical rnilieu; the conjoncture or rnediurn terrn, oriented toward social life; and the f!eeting "event," which included politics and ali that concemed the individual.The structure or long terrn had priority, whereas events were likened to

Bloch and Lucien Febvre. It n1oved to Paris fron1 Slrasbt)urg in

the 193os, and took its curren! name, Annales: Economies, Socits, Civilisations, in 1946. The Annales becarne a school-or at
leas! began to be so called-when it was institutionally affiliated with the Sixth Section of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes
Eludes after World War ll. Fernand Braudel provided a sense of
unity and continuity by both presiding over the Sixth Section
and directing the Annales in the 195os and 196os.' By the 197os,
the prestige of the school was international; thc 1979 lnlcrnational Handbook of Historical Studies contained more index entries for the Annales school than for any other subject except
Marx and Marxisrn. 5
But was there reZllly an Ann<.1IL'S "paradign1," as

'J'r;.li;.111

Stoianovich insisted in his book by that name? He claimed that

the Annales school ernphasized serial, functional, and structural approaches to understanding society as a total, integrated
organism. "The Annales paradigm constitutes an inquiry into
3. George Rud, The Crowd in the French Revolution (Oxford, 1959); Albert
Soboul, Les Sans-culottes parisiens en l'an II, 2d ed. (Paris, 1962); E. P. Thompson, The Making of the Englsh Working Class (London, 1963).
4. For the history of the Annales school, see Traian Stoianovich, Fi-ench
Historical Method: The Annales Paradigm (Ithaca, N.Y., 1976); and Guy Bourd
and Herv Martin, L"s Ecoles historiques (Pars, 1983).
5. Georg G. Jggers and Harold T. Parker, eds., lnternational Handbook of
Historical Studies (\i\lestport, Conn., 1979).

dust or foam on the sea. 7

Allhough tlraudel himself was o.:nornwusly in fluen lial (lhanb

at least in part to his conso!idation of irnportant acadernic positions), his example did not inspire much specifically comparable work. Rather, French historians of the third Annales generation-rnen such as Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Pierre
Goubert-established an alternative model of total regional
history, focusing not on world econornic regions but on regions
within France. In their work, econornic and social history dorninatl'd; lhl'

!011s11cd11rt~i'

ctrlo1inly gt 1 l its dut, but lht' y,tup.raphic11!

dimension, though present, appcared only as a kind of formula

at the beginning of e'1ch study, notas a guiding spirit. Still, this
modpl of historir;il cxpl;in.ition ..v;is hasic;illy ... in1ililr lo Bra11del's: climale, biology, and demugrnphy ruted over lhe long

terrn along with econornic trends; social relationships, which

were more clear!y subject to the fluctuations of the co11jo11cture
(defined usually in units of ten, twenty, or even fifty years),
constituted a second arder of historical reality; and political,
cultural, and intellectual life mace up a third, largely dependen! leve! of historical experience. The interaction between the
first and second levels assurned prirnacy.
The Annales emphasis on econornic and social history soon
6. Stoianovich, French Historical lv1ethcd, p. 236.
7. Fcrnand Braudel, La Mditerrane et fe n1011de 1ndilerra11r11 /' ioque de

Philippe 11 (Pars, 1949); English translation London, 1972-73.

Lynn Hunt

,'ntroduction

spread evento the more traditional historical journals. By 1972,

economic and social history had replaced biography and religious history as the largest categories after political history in
the very conventional Revue historique.' The number of economic and social history articles in the U.S. journal French Historcal Studies nearly doubled (from 24 to 46 percent) between
1965 and 1984.' Although I have looked carefully only at journals of French history, I suspect that the same trend can be detected in most fields. E. H. Carr was notan Annales historian,
but his words express the Annales position well: "Since the preoccupation with economic and social ends represents a broader
and more advanced stage inhuman development than the preoccupation with political and constitutional ends, so the economic and social interpretation of history may be said to repre-

though the book provoked great controversy among Marxists,

many of whor:i accused Thompson of a bias toward voluntarism and ideclism, it nevertheless had great authority among
younger historians."
The most striking instance of Marxist historia ns' tum toward
culture is their growing interest in language. In 1980, the editors of History Workshop, in an editorial entitled "Language and
History," recognized the growing influence of what they called
"structural linguistics" (a rnisuse of the term, but sh::iwing the
influence of the in terest in language). They argued that attention
to :anguage could challenge "reflective theories of knowledge"
and affect the poactice of "socialist historians" by focusing on the
'"semiotic' functions of language." 13 William Sewell's book on
the language of labor in the French working class is the bestknown product of Ihis intcrest within French history."'

sent a n1ore adv<lnced stage in history than the exclusively

political interpretation." 111

In recent years, however, the very models of explanation that

contributed most significantly to the rise of social history have
been undergoing a major shift in emphasis as Marxists and Annalistes alike have become increasingly interested in the history
of culture. The turn toward culture in Marxist-inspired history
was airead y present in Thompson's work en the English working class. Thompson explicitly rejected the metaphor of base/
superstructure and devoted himself to the sludy of whal he
called "cultural and moral mediations" -"the way these material experiences are handled . _ . in cultural ways." 11 In '!'he
Mak1ng of the E11glish Worki11g Class (p. 10), he described class
consciousness as "the wuy in which these experiences Jof pru-

ductive relations] are handled in cultural terms: embodied in

traditions, value-systems, ideas, and institutional forms." Al. 8. ~lain Corbin, "La Rcvue,historique: Analyse du contcnu d'une public:at;o!l r~vale des Annalcs," in Au Berccau des Annalcs: Le Milieu strasbourgcois,
l lusto1re en France au dbut du XXe siecle, ed. Charles-Olivier Carbonell and
Georges Livet (Toulouse, 1979), p. 136.
9- My figures are drawn from Lynn Hunt, "French History in the Last
Twenty Years: The R!se and Fall of the Annales Paradigm," fournal of Contcn1porary History 21 (1986): 209-24.
10. Carr, What is History? pp. 164-65.
11. Quoted in Ellen Kay Trimberger, "E. P. Thompson: Unde!"standing the
Process of History," in Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. Thcda
Skocpol (Cambridge, 1984), p. 219.
-

Yel for ,di lhl'ir 1llcnliPll l.l tite worki11gs o tite "superslrllt'-

ture," r.iost rviarxist historiJns have done lit tic rnore than finc-

tune the fundamental Marxist modl'i of histtH'ic'1i l'xpl,rn,1titH\.

As Thompson put it, "class experience is largely deterr:1ined by
the productive relations in to which men '1re

born~or

enter in-

voluntarily." ''In a self-conscious-ly Marxist book on history and

linguistics, Rgine H.obin clnin1ed th'1t sense can be n1adt:. of po-

litical discourse only with reference toan "extralinguistic" leve[

of ;_xpcri('OC"l', :iln1l'ly thc .;.xpcril'l1C't' of thc Hori<ll rc.lationH of

production. 1" In Marxist models, then, the social experience is,

by definilion, '1iw'1ys prim<Jry.
The most notpwnrthy ex~eption to this chMacterization of
12. riinbi..'rger l'Vil'W.S 1n,1ny <. lhl' crilici.s1n.s ol Thuinpson in ibiJ.

13. History Wor~shop 10 (1980): 1-5; quotes p. 1.

14. William H. Scwcll, Jr., Wa.* 1111d Rcvo!ufion in Fr1111cc: T!ic l..J111gu11gt of
Labor from thc O/d Rcgime to 1848 (Cambridge, 1980) .
15. Thon1pson, Maki11s nf the F.nsli::;h Working Class, p. 10. Even Sf'wllt's
"dialectic of revolution," despite Hs emphasis on the role played by contradictions in Enlightenment thought. retains a fundamentally Marxist schema.
Workers' cons:iousness moved forvvard under the impact of changes in labor
organization and the po!itical struggles of the various French revoluLonary
cr<l5. For a critiqt:e of Scwe!l's posi:ion, see Lynn Hunt and Ceorhe Sheridan,
"Ccrpordlisn1, Associatiun, and t"1c Language of L<1bor in FrilnCt.', 17501850," fournal of lv1..Jdern History 58 i1986): 813-44.
16. For a discu~.sion of Robin's position and those of other Marxist historians of French revo!utionary Jang..:age, see Lynn Hunt, Po/itcs, C:.;l!urc, and
Class in tht' Fre.1ch Revolution (Berke:ey and Los Angeles, 1984), p. 22.

Lynn Hunt

Marxist interest in culture may prove the rule. In his pathbreaking collection of essays Languages of C/ass, Gareth Stedman Jones tried to grapple with the inadequacies of the M;i rxist
approach. ln discussing the Chartist language of class, he observes: "What has not been sufficiently questioned is whether
this language can simply be analysed in terms of its expression
of, or correspondence to, the putative consciousness of a particular class or social or occupational group." Likewise, he criticizes Thompson for assuming "a relatively direct relationship
between 'social being' and 'social consciousness' which leaves
litt!e independent space to the ideological context within which
the coherence of a particular language of class can be reconstituted." Yet by showing the importance of the ideological tradition of radicalism and of the changing character and policies
of the state, Stedman Jones is in effect moving away from a
Marxist an<1lysis. J\s he hin1sLff n1ainlnins in his inlroduction,

"We cannot therefore decode political language to reach a primal and material expression of interest since it is the discursive
structure of political language which conceives and defines interest in the first place." 17 Can such a radical displacement of
the Marxist agenda still be considered Marxist?
The challenge to old models has been especially dramatic
within the Annales school. Although economic, social, and demographic history have remained dominnt in the i\nnalcs ilscif
(accounting for more than half the articles from 1965 to 1984),
mtellectual and cultural history ha ve taken a strong second place
(c!a1mmg sorne 35 percent of the articles, as opposed to 11-1
percent on political history). As the fourth generalion of An-4
nales historians have become increasingly preoccupied with
what the French rather enigmatically term menta/its, economic
and. social history have receded in importance." This deepenmg mteres_t m _mentalits (even among the older generation of
Annales h1stonans) has likewise led to new challenges to the
Annales paradigm.
18

17.

~areth

Stedman Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working

Class Hzstory, 1832-1982 (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 94, 10 1, and .

22
18. Hunt, "The Last Twenty Years," table l.
.1~. Volker Selli.n__ traces t~e his;?ry_of t~e word and of the concept in "Mentahtat und Mentahtatsgeschichte, H1stonsche Zeitschnft 241 (1 8 ): 55)- 8..
9 5
9

In~roducton

Fourth-generation Annale5 historians. su~h as Roger Cha_rtier

and Jacqt.res Revel reject the charactenzahon _of mentafrtes as
being part of thc so-called third leve! of h1stoncal. expenence.
For them, thc third level is n'1t a leve! al al! but a pmnry ckterminant of hiEtorical reality. As Chartier claimed, "the relat1onship thus established is not one of dependence of the mental
structures on their material determmat1ons. The representa-ions of the social world themselves are the constituents of so~ial reality."" Economic and social relations are not prior to or
determining :if cultural ones; they are themsdves f1elds of cul:ural practice and cultural produchon-whICh cannot be _ex:ilained deductively by reference to an extracultural d1mens1on

2l
of expenence.
.
In turning to the investigation of cultural prachces, Annales
~istorians su:h as Chartier and Revel have been mfluenced by
l;OllL'dLlil's L'l'itit.is111 of thL' fund.inll'l\l,il tl!i~H1111plio1t~1 nf ~1n,io1l

~istory. Foucault demonstratEd that there are no "natura.1''. in:ellectual objecls. As Charlier expbined, "M,1dnl'ss, medicine,
and the statE are not categmies that can be conceptuahzed 111
:erms of universa Is whose contents each epoch particularizes" ;"
:hey are historically given as "<liscursive objects," and since
:hey are histcrically grounded and by implicatio1: alwys chang.ng, they cannot provide a transcendent or universal founda~ ion :1r

historic.11 111l'lhnd.

Certain similarities exist between Foucault ami l'Vt'n the firsl,111d sccond-genemlion An11,1les hislmi,1ns; ,i1 lhtse schul,1rs
were lo<)king for anonymous rules governing collective prilC-

"~uhjlct"
from history. Unlike the first generations of Annales historians,
nowever, Fo:.icault was fundamentally antipositivist. He d1d

!icL's, and all .participi.llL'd in tlisplacing thl.' individual

20. Roger Chartier, "lntellectual History or Socio17ultural Histo:y? The

?rench Trajectories," in Modern European Intellectual H1story: Reappra1sals and
.\lew Perspectves. ed. Dominick LaCapra and Steven L. Kapl_an (lthaca, N. Y.,
1982), p. 30.
.
.
21. As Foucault explained in his work on d1scourse, he was not interest~d
in determining the "underlying" causes of discursive.fo~mati~ns but rathe~ 1n
seeing "historically how truth-effe:::ts ar~, produce~ 1ns1de dtscour~;s wh1ch
are not in themse!ves either true o~ false (guoted 1n Mark Poster, Foucault
ilnd History," Social Research 49[1si-32]: 116-42; quotc p. 128).
22. Chartier, "Intellectual Histc'fy," p. 43.

not believe that the social sciences could be united in investigating the nature of man, precisely because he disavowed the
very concept of "man" and the very possibility of method in the
social sciences. lndeed, sorne cornrnentators have called his
"genealogies" an "antirnethod." 23
Although historians have been intrigued by Foucault's trenchant criticisrns, they have not taken his rnethod-or antirnethod-as a rnodel for their practice. Foucault refused to
offer causal analysis and denied the validity of any reductive
relationship between discursive forrnations and their sociopolitical contexts-between changes in views of madness, for
exarnple, and social and political changes in seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century France. He vehernently argued against research in to origins, and his "genealogies" required none of the
usual grounding in economcs, society, or politics. As a consequence, though his local insighls into lhL' funclioning of particular institutions and types of discourse have generated considerable research (rnuch of it airning to correct Foucault's own
often jerry-built constructions), his overall agenda rernains
idiosyncratic. And how could it be otherwise, when Foucault
described his version of history as one that "disturbs what
was previously considered irnrnobile; ... fragments what was
thought unified; ... shows the heterogeneity of what was irnagined consistent with itself," and when he proclairned that "I am
well aware that 1 have never written anything but iictions"? Adrnittedly, he went on to say: "l do not mean to go so foras lo say
that fictions are beyond truth [hors vrit]. It seems to me that it
is possible to n1ake fiction work insid<..' o lrulh."' 1 Yl'I hl' lll'Vl'r
23. For a useful discussion of Foucault's methods, see Larry Shiner, "Reading Foucault: Anti-Method and the Genealogy of Power-Knowledge," History
and Theory 21 (1982): 382-97; and Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow,
fv!ichel Foucault: Betjond Structuralism and Henneneutics (Chicago, 1982). The
d1fference between the Annales school and "structuralism" is discussed in
Stuart Clark, "The Annales Historians," in The Return of Grand Theory in the
Human Sciences, ed. Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 177-98. Clark
observes that "the structural history of Braudel and the Annales owes more to
their hostility to any form of phenomenology than to their anticipation of
structuralism" (p. 195). Braudel's determinism was based on a preference for a
natural rather than a cultural account of experience (p. 192).
24. Quoted in Allan Megill, Propltets of Extre1r1ity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Fou~
cau/t, Derrida (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985), pp. 235, 234.

Jntrod11ctio11

Lynn Hunt

ti t1s
"t tt1tl1
" nr evt'll ..vhi.1t its

speciies how he cnn <.. 1e~ern11ne

.
episternological status m1ght be.
.
.
.
Even though Foucault may not have enhrely succeeaed m
blazing a third path through the terrain_of cultural h1slory, beside Marxisrn and the Annales school, h1s mfluence on the conceptualization of the field has been undeniab~y tr;rnendous. In
her essay in this volurne, "Mi ch el Fou.cault s H1story of ,Culture" (chapter 1), Patricia O'Brien examines both Foucault s mfluence and his practices as a historian of culture. She argues
convincingly that Foucault studied culture through the pnsm
of the technologies of power, which he located strateg1cally m
discourse. He did not try to trace the workings of power to the
state, the legislative process, or the cl~ss strugg~;; rather, he
looked for thern in "the most unprorn1smg places -m the operltions of feclin~s, !ove, cnnscience, instinct, .C1nd in p .. is~n
blueprints, doctors' obscrvnlon~, an~I ~ar-rt'Ht'h111g chn11Ht.'H 111
disciplines such as biology and hngu1st1cs.
.
"
What, then, is the agenda for the "new niltural b.1sll>rv ?
Like Foucault's work, the broader history of ""'11/a/1/c> has been
criticized as Iacking clear focus. Frarn;ois Furet denou_nced th1s
lack of definition for fosterin} an "unendmg pursu1t of new
topics" whose choice was governed only by the fasl~'.''" d the
day. 25 Similarly, Robert Darnton has charged that, des pite a
sp<lll' of prohgnmcn.1 lnd discnurs<'s nn n1r~thnci ..... t_hP
French have not developi:d a coherent conceptwn t>t 111c11t11/1/c>
s , field of study."'''
.
The criticisms of Puret nd f)arnton strong!y w<1rn u~ aga1nst
1

dl'vt'luping

.i

l'tillur.d lti~ll1ry dtH1nd p11ly i11

ltrr11.1

~11 !c11 1 1t~i

inquiry. justas social history sornetirnes moved frorn one group

to another (workers, wornen, children, eth111c groups.' the old,
the young) without developing rnuch sens~ of cohes1on or 1~
teraction between topics, so too a cultural htstory defined. top1cally could degenerate into an endless _search for new cu:tural
practices to describe, whether carnivals, cat rnassacres, -or 1mpotence trials."
25. Fran<;ois Furet, "Beyond the Annales," fournal of Moden1 J-!istJry 55
(1983): 389-410; quote p. 405.
.
,,
26. Darnton, "lnte!lcctual and Cultural H1story, p. 346.
27 . For a rathcr sanguinc vicw on social history, but c~~c t~at l'. lclSt rccognizes the existence of criticisms, see Peter N. Stearns, Social H1story and

10

Lynn Hunt

J11

tro1i (/et itl11

l 1

. But Furet and Darnton are in sorne ways unfair in thcir critic1sm, not. least because they themselves work in the genre they
attack. H1stonans such as Chartier and Revcl have not simply
proposed a new. set of topics for investigation; they have gone
beyond mentalztes to question the methods and goals of history
generally (wh1ch 1s why their work is so filled with prolegomena
on method). They have endorsed Foucault's judgment that the
very top1cs of the human sciences-man, madness, punishment, and sexuahty, for mstance-are the product of historically contingent discursive formations. This radical critique has
a bas1c problem, however, and that is its nihilistic strain. Where
will we be when every practice, be it economic, intellectual, soC!al, or. political, has been shown to be culturally conditioned?
To put 1t another way, can a history of culture work if it is shorn
of .JI theoretic~I. <i~:->un1ptions <ibout culturc's relationship tu tht

ary theory, ficlds in which s'1cial explanation is not tak~n for

granted; nevertheless, cultural history must wrestle with new
tcnsions within and betweer. lhe models they offer. We hope
that the essays in this volume will give sorne sense of both the
prospects and the potential problems of using insights from
these neighboring disciplines.
Al the moment, the anthr-::>pological model reigns supreme
in cultural approaches. Rituds, carnivalesque inversions, and
riles of passage are being fff_md in every country and almos!
every century. The quantitative study of mentalits as the "third
leve]" of social experience never had many followers outside of
France. The influence in Anglo-Saxon and especially American
approaches to the history of culture carne as much (or even
more) from English and English-trained social anthropologists
as from an Annoles-style history of mcnta/ils. In her pioneering

social world-1f, 1ndced, its genda is conl'L'ivtd <lS !he under-

l'Ssays in Su1irly r111rl ( '11//11r. 11.r l:flr/y Mnrl<'rlt f'rrt11/'1', N;1lali1 '/..

mining of all assumptions about the relationship between culture and the social world?
. The essays in this volume are devoted to an exploration of
ust. such queslions. Par! One examines, critically and apprecrnlively, the models that have already been proposed for the
h1story of culture. Par! Two presents concrete examples of the
new kinds. of work that are currently under way. The reader
w11l find little 1n th: w<1y of sociologicill theorizing in thcsl'

Davis showed the relevance of concepts borrowed from Max

Gluckrnan Marv DDubbs, <rnd VirtDr Turnl'r, ;is wl'il ,\s tlw
French an;hrop;logist'Arnold Van Gennep. Her work, along
with that of E. P. Thompson :n "The Moral Economy of the
English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century," promoted widespread interest in the motive powerof"community.""' As Davis
explained in "The Reasons of Misrule," she hoped "to show
th;it rol her thon l:wing o mere 'safety valvc,' deflecting attention

pages because the nse of !he new cultural history has been
marked by a decline of intense debate over the role of socio~og1cal theory within history (at least among historians of cul-

uf thl' ronrn1u11ily." Sirni!Mil', in int1rp1\lin)', rit1s pf vi1,lt-nct

during the French religious wars, she concluded that "they can

ure In An1er1ca). For th1s reason, the 196os pronouncen1ents of

K H. Carr on the subject seem very dated. Now, in place of so-

c1ology, !he mfluential disciplines are anthropology and literHistory: A Progress. Report," fournal of Social Hislory 19 (1985): 3i9- . As
~tearns htmsel.f adm1tted 1n an earlier essay, "Topical social historv has34an inerently centnfugal tende.ncy_. The topical approach thus not ony reflects a
lack of broader. concep!ua~1zah?n but ~lso positively hinders the development
of an appropnate soc1oh1stoncal penodization" ( "Toward a Wide y 5 .
Trends in Social History," in The Past Befare Us, ed. Kammen, p. : / ;~?~
n~te"'."orthy that cultural history a ppeared in The Past Befare Us in tandem
~1th 1n.tellect1:1al h.istory (Darnton, "Intellectual and Cultural History") rather
t an w1~h social h.1story. But of course, Darnton himself is the rnost social history-onented of 1ntellectual historians.

24

from social re<llity, festive life can ... perpetuate certain v,1Jues

be reduced ton reperlory o ticlions . .. intendl d to purify thL

1

religious community."'" A straightforward social interpretation

seemed much less fruitful than concepts introduced from the
anthropological literature. In her essayin this volume, "Crowds,
Community, and Ritual in be Work of E. P. Thompson and
Natalie Davis" (chapter 2), Sc.zanne Desan explores the virtues
as well as the problematic aspects of this notion of community.
She concludes that historians of culture must develop a more
differentiated notion of community and ritual, one more sen28. Thornpson's seminal article is in Past and Present 50 (1971): 76-136.
29. Natalie Zemon Davis, Soce!y and Culture in Early Modcrn France (Stanford, Calif., 1975), pp. 97, 178.

1
12

!11trod11Ction

Lynn Hunt

sitive to the ways in which different groups, including women,

use ritual and community to foster their own separate posi
tions. Violence, in her view, can transform and redefine com
munity as rnuch as it defines and consolidates it.
In recent years, the rnost visible anthropologist in cultural
historical work has been Clifford Geertz. His collection of es
says The Interpretation of Cultures has been cited by historians
working in a wide variety of chronological and geographical
settings. 30 In The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French
Cultural History, for exarnple, Robert Oarnton clearly stated the
advantages of Geertzian interpretive strategies. Cultural his
tory, he announced, is "history in the ethnographic grain ....
The anthropological rnode of history ... begins frorn the prern
ise that individual expression takes place within a general
idiorn." As such, it is an interpretive science: its airn is toread

13

urge to see order lnd n1e:ining obscures thc E.'XistencP of con-

flict and struggle.

.
In her essay "Local Knowledge, Local Htstory: Geertz ,1nd
Beyond" (chapter 3), Aletta Biersack echoes sorne of these cnh
cisrns. She suggests that a dose of Marshall Sahims m1ght be
salutary for future work on the history of culture, given his "re
thinking" of structure and event, or structure and h1story,
in dialectical terms that rejuvenate both halves. 1t should be
noted, however, that Geertz's own increasingly literary understanding of rneaning (the construing of cultural rneaning as a
text to be read) has fundamentally reshaped current direc:1ons
in anthropological selfreflection. In the final sectio~ of hr es
say, Biersack traces Geertz's influence on th1s textuahzmg move
in anthropology and shows how the concerns of anthropologists are intersecting increasingly with those of h1stonans of

"far n1eaning-the n1eaning inscribed by conternpor<:lries." 11

culture.

The deciphering of rneaning, then, rather than the inference of

causal Jaws of explanation, is taken to be the central task of cul
tura] history, just as it was posed by Geertz to be the central
task of cultural anthropology.
Sorne of the problerris associated with the Geertzian ap
proach have been discussed by Roger Chartier in a long review
in the fournal of Modern History. He questions the assurnption
that "symbolic forms are organized into a 'system' ... fforl this
would suppose coherence arnong them and interdependence,
which in turn supposes the existence of a shared and unified
syrnbolic universe."" How, in particular, can a "general idiorn"

Chartier himself advocates "a definition of history primarily

sensitive to inequalities in tlw <1ppropriation t'f et'mmon rnatl'
rials or practices."" In proposing this reorientation away trom

be capab!c of <iccounting foral! t>xprcssinns pf culturv? !11 nlhtr

words, Chartier questions the validity of a search for 11H_;_1ning

~',lHJtls." ( l'fl\r.d !o th<1l IP(',l" 11n th1 WlYH 111d 11110111~-1 f ;1p1n1-

in the Geertzian interpretive rnode because it tends to efface

differences in the appropriation or uses of cultural forrns. The

work, Oistinction, has been translated into English, h1s tnflu

ence on historians of culture will !ikely grow."'
Chartier insists that historians of culture rnust not replace a
reductive theory of culture as reflective of social reality with an
equally reductive assurnption that rituals and other forms of

JO. Clifford Geertz, The Jnterpretation of Cultures (New York, 1973).

Jl. Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultura/ History (New York, 1984), pp. 3, 6, 5.
32. Roger Chartier, "Text, Symbols, and Frenchness," Journal of Modern
Histon; 57 (1985): 682-95; guate p. 690. Darnton replied at length in "The
Symbolic Element in History," fournal of Modern Histon 58 (1986): 218-34. See
a!so the exchange of Pierre Bourdieu, Roger Chartier:and Robert Darnton in
"Dialogue a propos de l'histoire culturelle," Actes de la rechcrc/c C/1 scicnces 50ciales 59 (1985): 86-93.

community and toward difference, Chartier shows the influ-

ence of the French sociologist P.ierre Bourdieu (also discussed

in Biersack's wideranging essay). Bourdieu recast the \1arxist
explanatory rnodel of social life by giving rnuch more attention
to culture; though he insisted that "the mode of express1on
characteristic of a cultural produclion always depends nn !he
Jaws of tlw markl'I in which it is offerecl," hl' din'ctt'd hi> t>wn
work to the uncovering of the "specific logic" oi "cu!turnl
priating cultural objects. ~ow that Bourdieu's rn<.ist 1nl_lu~ntil

33. Chartier, "Texts, Symbo~s, and Frenchness," p. 688.

34. Bourdieu is perhaps best kno~n for hi.s concept of "habit~;," v..~hic~
he defined in difficult but nonetheless 1nfluent1al terms as follows: The nab1tus is no! only

<l

slructuring structurc, which organi,,..cs pra~tic'.~s <in~ t:~c. p_er-

ception of practices, but a!so a structured structure: the pnnc1ple ot drv1s1on

l11/rod11/io11

Lyn11 Hunf

symbolic action simply express a central, coherent. communal

meaning. Nor must they forget that the texts they work with
affect the reader in varying and individual ways. Documents
describing past symbolic actions are not innocent, transparent
texts; they were written by authors with various intentions and
strategies, and historians of culture must devise their own
strategies for reading them. Historians have always been critica! about their documents: therein lies the foundation of historical method. Chartier goes further by advocating a criticism
of documents based on a new kind of history of reading. He
offers an example, with its emphasis on difference, in his essay
"Texts, Printing, Readings" (chapter 6). Taking the sixteenthcentury prologue to the Celestina as his point of departuce,
Chartier shows that the meaning of texts in early nodern Europe depended on a variety of factors, ranging fron1 the age of
readers to typographiciJ innovations such as the n1LltiF)lic<:ltion

of stage directions. His focus on the triangular relatonship between the text as conceived by the author, as printed by the
publisher, and as read (or heard) by the reader brows in to
doubt sorne of the canonical conceptions of the history of culture, in particular the diChotomy between popular and educated or elite culture.
Unlike Roger Chartier, most historians of culture have been
relatively reluctant to use literary theory in any direct way.
In his essay "Literature, Criticism, and Historical lmagination: The Literary Challenge of Hayden White and Dominick
LaCapra" (chapter 4), Lloyd Kramer surveys the \\'ork of the
two historians most closely associated with literary theory. His

focus on documents that are texts in the literary sense, but cultural historians who work with documents other than great
books have not found literary theory to be especially relevan!.
One of the purposes of this volume is to show how a new generation of historia ns of culture use literary techniques and approaches to develop new materials and methods of analysis.
Kramer's essay also demonstrates the great vanety of hterary
influences at wrk. The writings of White and LaCapra alone
display significan! divergences in emphasis-White aligns himself with Foucault and Frye, LaCapra with Bakhtin and Derrida.
There are, after al!, theories that emphasize the reception, or
reading, of texts and those that emphasize their production,
or writing, those that emphasize the unity and coheren~e of
meaning and those that emphasize the play of difference and
the ways in which texts work to subvert their apparent goals."
Jusl a:-> (~eerl:1. ;.111d Sahlins rl'prcstnl l wo poi es in inthrop(l.og1-

cal writing-Geertz em phasizing unity, Sahlins d ifferer.ceso too does literary criticism have its similarly dichot\>mized
approaches: in Fredric jameson's words, "old-fashioneC. 'interpretation,' which still asks the text whal it 111cans, and the
newer kinds of analysis which .. -. ask how it works" (that is, in
particular, deconstruction, a critica! approach closely associated with ]acques Derrida)."' The former emphasizes unity; the
latter, difference.
Unity is made possible in interpretation" by what Jameson
calls "an allegorical operation in which a text is systematically
rewritten in terms of sorne fundamental master c\lde ur 'ultimately determining instance."' Following this line of reason-

essay shows clearly how literary approaches h!ve enziblcd

ing,

White and LaCapra to expand the boundaries of cultural history, yet it remains sensitive to the reasons for the continued
marginalization of such work. lt is no accident that, in America,
literary influences first emerged in intellectual history, with its

violer.ce are read-or rewritten-as allegories for community.

Jt is precisely this allegorizing that jameson finds objectionable
in literary criticism. As he insists, "The discredit in to which interpretation has fallen is thus at one with the disrepute visited
on allegory itself." 37

into logical classes which organizes the perception of the social world is itself
the product of intemalization of the division into social classes" (Distinction:
A Social Critique of the fudgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice [Cambridge,
~ass., 1984], pp. xiii, 1, 170). This quote captures very well Bourdieu's relat1onship ~o Marxism: the habitus is both determined by the social world and
determ1n1ng of the perception of it.

VJl'

n1ighl say th<.1l in D;,1vis anti 'I'hon1pson the ritu;: Is of

35. A brief review of Uterary theories currently in vogue can be fot:nd in

Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: ~~ Introductio~ (Minneap?lis, 1983) ..
36. Fredric Jameson, The Pol1f1cal Unconsc1aus: Narrat1ve as a Socta!ly Symboiic Act (!thaca, N.Y.. 1981), p. 108.
37 Ibid ' p. 58.

L_11111

Jiunt

Yct at thc san1c lin1L', ]<1111L'son cuncludcs that tl_L' tensiun L)L'tween the analysis of what a text means and how it works is a
tension inherent in language itse!f." Unity is not possible without a sense of difference; difference is certainly not graspab!e
without an opposing sense of unity. Thus, historia ns of culture
reaiiy do not have to choose (or reaiiy cannot choose) between
the two-between unity and difference, between :neaning and
working, between interpretation and deconstruction. just as
historians need not choose between sociology and anthropology or between anthropology and literary theory in conducting
their investigations, neither must they choose once and for ali
between interpretive strategies based on uncovering rneaning
on the one hand and deconstructive strategies based on uncovering the text's modes of production on the other. His'.orians do not have to ally themselves single-mindedlv with either Clifford Geertz or PiL'ITL' Bourdieu, with eithL'r ~~urthrop
Frye or jacques Derrida.
Although there are many differences within and bctween anthropological and literary models, one central tendencv in both
seerns currently to fascina te historians of culture: the u~e of language as metaphor. Symbolic actions such as riots or cat massacres are framed as texts to be read or languages to be decoded.
In his criticism of Darnton, Chartier has drawn attention to the
problems caused by the "metaphoricol use of the v-"cabuhry of
linguistics": it obliterates the difference between symbolic actions and written texts, it defines syrnboiic forrn' so brn:idly
that nothing is excluded, and it tends to consider svmbols as
fixed in their n1eaning. w Yet, though theSL' w;.1rni11gs ;1rL' L\.'r-

tainiy weil taken, the use of language as metaphor cr model leas

proved undeniably significant and, l would argue, critica! to
the formulation of a cultural approach to history. In short, the
linguistic analogy establishes representation as a problem which
historians can no longer avoid.
In both art history and literary criticism, representation has
long been recognized as the central problem in the discipline:
. 38. Ibid., pp. 108-9. Ido not have the space here to comment more exter:s1vely_ ~n- Jameso~'s own particular variety of Marxist, poststn.:cturalist !iterary cntic1sm._ Un't'd now, it has had little influcnce on historic,1! ivriling.
39. Charher, Text, Symbols, and Frenchness," p. 690.

!ni rrir/11({ 1011

whdt does

picture ur nuvel do,

d11d

ho\.V dues it do lt? v:1h . 1t

LS

the reiation between the picture or novel and the world it purports to represent7 The new cultural history asks the s_ame
kinds of questions; first, though, it has to estabhsh the obects
cf historical study as being like those of literature and art. An
example of this endeavor can be seen in Thomas Laqueur's
essay in Part Two, "Bodies, Details, and Humanitarian Narrative" (chapter 7), in which autopsy reports are shown to constitute a kind of literary canon.
I attempted a similar task in the first chapter of m~, recent
book on the French Revolution when 1 claimed to treat the d1verse utterances of revolutionary politicians ... as constituting
one text."'0 The oniy basis for this claim was its potential fruitfu!ness for anaiysis and explanation, and the claim rnust stand
eor fall on those grounds. My aim was not to reduce revolutionarv discoursl' to

UllL' s!;hlL

systl'nl of llH'aning (lhl'

nfllclon

of

co-mmunity, for exarnple) but rather to show how politicai lang,uage could be used riwtoricallv ll> build a stnst' l>I n>mmun1tv
and at the same time to establish new fields of social, poltica!,
and cultural struggle-that is, make possible unity and difference at the same time. The point of the endeavor was to examhe the ways in which linguistic prnctice, rather than simply reflecting social reality, could actively be an instrument ot (or
constitutc) ro\l\'{'f. Whcn n;ition;i] gui1r<lsmcn i1Skcrl, "/\re you

of the Nation?" they were not trying merely to identity their

friends in troubkd limes; lhey \\'l'l'l' t\Clu.1\ly hl'if'i\\~ ll> \'rt'<1t' <1
sense of national community-and, at the same time, they
v"'L'f"L' L'sL1hlishi11g IH'W w.iys tu uppusv lli<1t scn.;l u/

l"t>/1111111

rjty. Words did not just relect social and political reality; they
were instruments for transforming reality.
Mary Ryan makes a similar point in her essay in Part Two,
"The American Parade: Representations of lhe NineleenlhCentury Social Order" (chapter 5). This essay brings the unityand-difference therne into sharp relief. Parades created a sense
cf comrnunity (pluralist democracy) in American cities precisely by expressing important lines of social and gender division. Ryan shows how critica] a historical understanding of rit40. Hunt, Politic5, C11lt11re, a11d Class, p. 25

Ly11n Hunf

ual can be bydemonstrating how p<irading changl'd in f111H'litlll

over time: whereas in the 182os, 183os, and 184os the parading
of differences under a unifying banner of civic pride served
to foster civic unity, after mid century the parade was transformed into an ethnic festival that more exclusively emphasized differences. Ryan also points to the role of gender in these
constructions of civic identity, and, like Desan in her piece on
Davis and Thompson, she reminds us that gender was one of
the most critica! lines of differentiation in culture and society.
No account of cultural unity and difference can be complete
without sorne discussion of gender.
The importance of gender goes beyond its undeniably central positioning in social and cultural life, however; studies of
women's history in the 196os and 197os and the more recent
emphasis on gender differentiation played " significilnt role
in the developrnent of the

nH.~lhods

of lhe history

o(

cullure

more generally. In the United States in particular (and perhaps

uniquely), women's history and gender studies have been at
the forefront of the new cultural history. Natalie Davis, for example, relies on the distinctions between men and women to
illuminate the workings of early modem culture. The work
of Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, too, is exemplary of the WilYS in
which women's or gender history can advance the history of
culture as a style of investigation and writing. In the essays colJected in the volume Disorderly Conduct, for example, SmithRosenberg brings to bear both anthropological and Jiterary
styles of analysis, ranging from the work of Mary Douglas to
that of Roland Barthes. As she describes her project, "By tracing
differences between nineteenth-century won1en's and nien's

mythic constructs, 1 sought to re-create the way gender channeled the impact of social change and the experience and exercise of power. The dialectic between language as social mirror
and language as social agent formed the core of my analysis.""
Here gender as a system of cultural representation that is al
once social, literary, and linguistic is especially in view.
The methodological implications of the study of gender have
41. Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Cond11ct' Visions of Gender in Vicforian A111erica (New York, g85), p. 45.
-

lll'L'I\ 1l1p~;l furclfully L'Xplic.ited by

Jlllll

vv,t1l.1l'!t Sl'ull \11 hL'I' e~

say collection Gender nnd tlie Politics of History (which includes

critiques of E. P. Thompson and Gareth Stedman ]<mes'. among
others)." Scott hils been particulMly influent1al 1n 11nk1ng gender history with the analysis of discourse. In the work o_f joan
Scott, Carroll Srrith-Rosenberg, and Nata!ie Zemon Dav1s, the
rising influence of literary techniques of reading and literary
theories can be clearly seen. Natalie Davis's most recen! book,
Fiction in the Archives, puts the "fictional" aspect of the documents al the center of the analysis. Rather than reading letters of
pardon as sources reflective of contemporary social norms, she
focuses on "how sixteenth-century people told stones ... ,
what they thought a good story was, how they accounted for
motive, and how through narrative they made sense ot the41un-

cxpectc'd <1nd built cohprence in to immedi;ite ('Xpf>ri('nCt'."

'l'hL e~s;\ys by l\ogL'r L'h;1rlil'r a1H.I 'J'luin1.is l .<1qu<."ur in P.irl

Two of this volume are striking examples of the trend toward

the literary. Readers will find in Chartier's essay, "Texts, f'rinting, Readings," a good introduction to his important new book,
The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modcrn Francc. No one has
done more than Chartier to movethe history of the book into
the mainstream of cultural history. In Thc C11/t11ml Uses of Print.
Chartier reitera tes his conviction that "culture is not over and
above economic and social relations, nor can it be ranged beside them."" Ali practices, whether economic or cultural, depend on the rep~esentations individuals use to make sense of
their world.
Laqueur's essay, "Bodies, Details, and Humanitarian NarrZ1tive," dernonstrntes the potcntial of new liternry techniquts

in cultural history for enriching more traditional social history

topics. He argues that hurnanitarianism depended in part on
the development of a constellation of narrative forms-the realistic novel, the enquiry, and the medica] case history-which
created a sense of veracity and sympathy through narrative de42. Joan Wailach Scott, Cr11d1..r a11d thr Politics of Hstory (Ne\v York, i908).
43. Natalie Zemon Davis, Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tell~
ers in Sixteenth-Centun France (Stanford, Calif., 1987), p. 4.
44 . Roger Chartic, Thc Cultural Uses of Print, trans. Lydia G. Cochranl'
(Princeton. N.J .. 1987), p. 11.

20

/11tn~f1JC/1!11

Ly1111 H1111/

"

tail. By focusing on thc narrJtivc lechniques uf th ... ;1t1lnps~1 rl'-

nf .111 .iutlior':; 1()!i!it.iJ l,i.n, u11 tryl11g

port, Laqueur does not aim to avoid the tradition2_ questio~s of

class and power, nor to remove humanitarianism from the domain of social history; rather, he hopes to expand social history
to include !he sociology of narrative form.
The final essay, Randolph Stam's "Seeing Culture in a Room
fer a Renaissance Prince" (chapter 8), takes us back in time but
forward into new questions about the techniques of cultural
history. Although Starn's essay shows the influence of litecary
theory in its analysis of the fifteenth-century frescoe;; of Mantegna, it also takes us into the domain of "seeing as opposed
to "reading." Here, the linguistic analogy is no longer preeminent. Instead, Stam lays out a new typology of seeing that includes what he terrns the glance, !he measured view, and the
sean. In this way Starn is able no! only to show the relevance of

torian in the broader social and poltica! world. The questiDns

are now more subtle, but no less importan!. Historians are becoming more aware that their supposedly matter-of-fact choices
of narrative technicues and analytical forms also have social
and political imp!ications. What is this introductory chapter,
fer example? Essays on the state of the discipline often have
a canonical form ali beir own: first a narrative on the rise of
new kinds of history, then a long moment for exploring thc
problems posed by r.ew kinds of history, and finally either a
jeremiad on the eviJs of new practices or a celebration of the
potential overcoming of ali obstacles. My story Jine is quite different from Carr's: where he saw the epic advance of social and
econornic history, the hernie historian marching hand in hand
with the forces of progress, I tell the perpetua! romance, the

art-historical docun1entation for cultural history ~111t 01.so, .ind

quesl without end, lhl ironic doubling bnck ovl'r tl'rritory 111-

more surprisingly, to recast the terms of art-historical debate itself. He historicizes the process of seeing by showing that even
forms have historical content. This approach is tr~mendously
exciting because it pushes cultural history beyond the stage of
incorporating insights from other disciplines and into a position of refashioning adjacent disciplines in its tum_
Al! of the essays in Par! Two are centrally concerned with the

ready presumably rnvered. By implication, history has been

treated here as a branch of aesthctics rather than as the handmaiden of social theory.''

mechanics of representation. This concern almost nccess-1 :-ily

ments by literary cribes and frce-ranging or metacritics, and

entails a simultaneous reflection on the methods :>f history as

new techniques of analysis are brought in to use. ;\nd perhaps
melhods is too narrow a word in this tontext. Foras historians

lobbed like grenades in to unsuspecting history ckpartmcnls." "

Tlw pr(ld11cls of sud1 an explosinn will mit fit m\1111' l\lf;l'tlwr
as though preplanned, for there is no single agrced-upnn

learn to analyzc their subjl'cts' rcprt>Sl'nL1tinns uf '.l1l'ir ~-vorLls,

they inevitably begin to reflect on the nature of t.-.eir own efforts to represent history; the practice of history :s, alter ali,
a process of text creating and of "seeing," that is, giving form
to subjects. Historians of culture, in particular, are bound to
become more aware of the consequences of their often unselfconscious literary and formal choices. The master narratives, or codes of unity or difference; the choice of allegories,
analog1es, or trepes; the structures of narrative-these have
weighty consequences for the writing of history.
In the 196os, great emphasis was placed on the icentification

!t)

i;Jtu,t!t

llllt'.'tll .1!1 l

Id!'.

Reflection on suc/~ issues is not always pleas.Jnt for his-

torians. As Nancy Pcctner said .recently about the writing of

history, "language-rnodel episternology" (as she termed it)
has been "smugglec cut of linguistics and philosophy depart-

111v!!1t1d.

;\,e;

( 'Jirft11:J

( ;v1rl/. .1r~',t1vd

in

Jii~;

t'~1.1,1y

"!Htl!Tl'd

Genres" (the very title indicating, 1 think, the ambiguity he felt

about the situation), "The text analogy now taken up by social
sciectists is, in sorne ways, tlw broldcst of the n'cl'nt refi~url45. The implications of ~his aestheticizing of history are very imprtant,
but tco complex to deve]op in an essay of this length. See my "Histo:y Be~
yond Social Theory," to be publishcd in a collection edited by David Carrol!
for Columbia Unlversity 7ress, for a fuller, but by no means defin:tive,
discussion.
46. Nancy F. Partner. "'vfaking Up Lost Time: Writing on the Writ:ng of
fl1story," Spini/1111161 (rq86:: 90

117; <unte

9.'i

22

Lynn

H1111t

tions of social theory, the most venturesomc, ond tlw fpasl wplf
developed.""
For the moment, as this volume shows, the accent in cultural
history is on clase examination-of texts, of pictures, and of actions-and on open-mindedness to what those examinations
will revea!, rather than on elaboration of new master narratives
or social theories to replace the materialist reductionism of
Marxsm and the Annales school. (Are we headed here far a
"comc" ending in literary terms? An ending that promises reconciliation of all contradictions and tensions in the pluralist
manner most congenia! to American historians?) Historians
working in the cultural mode should not be discouraged by
theoretical diversity, far we are just entering a remarkable new
phas when the other human sciences (including especially literary studies but also anthropology and sociology) are discovering us anew. Thc very use of thc tern1 11c70 1Tisforil'is111 in

literary studies, far example, shows this development. The emphasis on representation in literature, art history, unthropology, and sociology has caused more and more of our counterparts to be concerned with the historical webs in which their
objects of study are caught. Someday soon, presumably, another E. H. Carr will announce that the more cultural historical
studies become and the more historical cultural studies become, the better far both.
47. Clifford Geertz, "Blurred Genrcs: Thc Rcfiguration ofSoci.1l Thought,"
in Loen/ K11ou1/edgc: Furllwr f,.,say:-: i11 l11lcr1r'fh1r /\11//Jro11ofosy (Nt'W York, ft)HJ),

pp. 19-35; quote p. 30.

l'11rl 011<'

Models for Cultural History