In the recent edition of the Norwegian historical journal Historisk Tidsskrift (84:1, pp.13-34) Thomas Krogh, Professor of History of Ideas at the University of Oslo, has an article called ‘History of Ideas and Modernity, or: It was the Economy, stupid’. This post is an answer to this article.
Abstract from the journal:
In the first part of this paper I argue that in the last decennia the history of ideas has become largely a debate about modernism and modernity. Older debates, too, are now seen in this perspective, even though themes such as modernisation and modern society already lay in the periphery of this field. Based on the interpretation of several central works on modernity, I present a short list of the basic themes discussed in this literature: the form of the process of modernisation; the chronology and periodisation of this process; the layer where the main changes take place; the fundamental characteristics of modernity; and finally, the geographic space of modernisation. I follow up on this typology with a general criticism of theories of modernity: while certainly valuable as studies of cognitive change, these are concentrated too exclusively on attempts to find the essence of the fundamental trait of modernity.
I argue that the academic subject we know as intellectual history proper should not surrender its character as an activity of interpretation and reading of texts – indeed this type of study should become integrated in a more comprehensive type of modernity theory. In the second part I give some historical examples of this type of research. I argue that at least one promising way of researching this vein is to focus on the relationship between modernisation on the individual, cognitive level, on the one hand, and the great institutions of modern society, marked and state, on the other. Despite obvious deficits, Norbert Elias is of course one exponent of this approach, but in this paper my main example is Thomas Haskell and his studies of the link between the new morality behind the antislavery movement and the new economic reality in which it developed.
Krogh tries to describe the typical literature of modernity from a history of ideas perspective and then he argues that this literature should be integrated in the interdisciplinary research in modernity theory. He takes it for granted that history of ideas now is linked to modernity theory, and that this is the only form of history of ideas and intellectual history. He claims this is a result of the last 20 years’ research, and suggests that the post-modern debate created this turn within the discipline. However, he writes that nothing in the foundation of history of ideas, as it was created by Lovejoy et al, suggested that the discipline should centre on the change between a pre-modern and modern society. (p.15) Though within the histories of sciences has there been a focus on the scientific revolutions for many decades.
In Krogh’s view there are five characteristic interests of modernity theory:
1. The form of the modernisation process and the form of its origin.
2. The chronology and periodisation of this process and the categorisation of the different stages of development.
3. To define the layers in which this process developed or where a change to place.
4. The fundamental characteristics of modernity.
5. The framework of the geographic space of modernisation.
It is not mine impression that most intellectual history has these five points as their methodological framework. Krogh writes that; ‘We see today a larger and larger part of intellectual history now concerns the period 1550 to 1750, give and take a few decades’ (p.21, my translation). Is it so?
Studying history of ideas in Oslo was very much a study of modernity (Krogh is and was amongst the ones deciding the curriculum) and I know that this has influenced my interest in modernity. However, my impression is that histories of ideas are not the same as modernity studies when one look further than Scandinavia. To check my impression I had a look at the latest volumes of The Journal of the History of Ideas. There was nothing there that suggested a turn to modernity theory. Of course there were articles on modernity and the - according to Krogh - essential modernisation period 1550-1750, but these did not constitute the majority. Also there were articles that could be characterised as been on early-modern or modern periods, but which, at least from their titles, did not seem to take a modernisation perspective.
If looking at Krogh’s footnotes it seem as if he has read a lot of German histories of ideas. I believe this might be where his and mine argument disagrees. I mainly read Anglophone historiography, so this influences my perspective on what happens in history of ideas. My knowledge of Scandinavian and German history of ideas seems to be more in accordance with Krogh’s thesis. However, Krogh’s article seems to claim universal validity. In my opinion this is a generalisation that does not hold.
There are differences in history of ideas and how intellectual history is performed in, i.e., Britain. (Krogh writes that he will use history of ideas and intellectual history as synonyms, p.15) And I believe this is one reason why one branch might have been more influenced by modernity theory than the other. In Oslo, and in some other Scandinavian universities, history of ideas is separated from the history departments. This encourages the development of different methodology. In Britain, however, intellectual history is integrated in the history departments and thus there is not necessarily a methodological gap between intellectual history and traditional (social) history. My impression is that social history and political science has taken the responsibility for investigating modernity in Britain. Some of these social historians have become linguistically interested, but this does not make them intellectual historians. Although this is not my major field of knowledge, my impression is that Anglophone intellectual history has kept more of the “well educated” mark and thus have been more interested in literature, biography and other fields discussing human nature, than strictly the man and modernity question.
Krogh suggests the post-modern debate as the root to the modernity change in history of ideas. Both historical theory and post-modernism develops differently in different countries and language areas. Perhaps the focus on pre-judice and horizon of understanding – the German version of perspectivism – influenced a focus on pre-modernity and modernity to be able to understand the process that has shaped present day thinking and perspective. Hermeneutics and the ideas of Hans-Georg Gadamer have not had the same in Britain as in Germany and Scandinavia. Perhaps this is one reason why intellectual history not has developed into modernity history.
Thomas Haskell is suggested by Krogh as a historian of ideas who has integrated history of ideas and modernity theory. I have not read Haskell, so I do not want to comment upon Krogh’s use of him. However, Haskell seems to be an American historian and I might have to modify my thoughts on the lack of modernity theory in Anglophone history of ideas.
When trying to sum up my thoughts, I was interested by Krogh’s article because I could recognise the state of Scandinavian history of ideas in it. However, I felt that Krogh made a too simple generalisation of the character of history of ideas. If one avoid questioning what happened to all the non-modernity historiography, there is still at least one thing missing in the article; a world perspective. I have tried to point out that a general modernity perspective is not valid for British intellectual history – perhaps despite Skinner and Pocock who Krogh uses as examples – and perhaps not for American intellectual history too. I suggest that long reaching methodological roots have developed differences within histories of ideas and intellectual history and thus opened up a path of modernity theory. A path that not all historians of ideas stroll down.
