‘The Gift of Theory’ : A Critique of the Histoire des Mentalités by Michael Gismondi - pp.211-230
References
Footnotes - Michael A. Gismondi, ‘“The Gift of Theory”: A Critique of the Histoire des Mentalités’, Social
History, 10:2, (London: Taylor and Francis Group, 1985) 211-230.
Bibliography - Gismondi, Michael A.. ‘“The Gift of Theory”: A Critique of the Histoire des Mentalités’,
Social History, 10 (May 1985) 211-230.
Notes and Quotes
- ‘the central problems of the histoire des mentalites do not arise because it is theoretically bankrupt, but
because it annexes concepts from the social sciences in an uncritical manner.’ - 212
- This analysis demonstrates that the problems of histoire des mentalites are closely linked to its
imprecision and encroachment on other fields of academia without the appropriate contextual
understanding of said fields
- ‘in searching for causes of the Crusades, Le Goff contends that traditional explanations such as
demographic swings, the greed of merchants and papal policy are perhaps not essential.’ - 213
- Le Goff’s position here demonstrates the value of the concept of histoire des mentalites for historians
for interrogating sources from an entirely different angle than that which has previously been taken.
Furthermore the lack of importance placed on concrete facts in this method allows the historian to
explore all possibilities of motives for people’s actions in history, whereas when focusing on the facts
social historians often come to the conclusion which has the most factual evidence to support it
- ‘most mentalities resemble islands of resistance unaffected (and not affecting) the mechanisms of social
change. Sometimes, however, their 'dephasing ' suggests mentalities are more than 'prisons of the
longue duree' and are actual causal variables in the drift of history’ - 214
- Argument here suggests that although studying mentalities can uncover details about individual
thoughts and revolutionary ideas, especially in highly censored societies, this method is not
necessarily valuable for understanding the attitudes of the majority of any given society
- ‘that more than one dominant mentalite can operate in society at any stage in its evolution’ - 215
- Le Goff’s argument here demonstrates the primary issue with the methods of historians like Darnton
and Ladurie, as in their works they only focus on one primary text, but as Le Goff says here, more than
one prevalent attitude can be present in a society at any given moment. This presents significant
limitation to their methods and draws into question the pertinence of their argument that from one
source we can extract the mentalities of the wider society
- ‘Demands recognition that society is not 'a whole way of life' but a 'whole way of conflict' based on
class antagonisms which 'entail essential objective antagonisms and conflicts of interest’ - 215-6
- Again, Gismondi demonstrates that Le Goff’s assertions highlight a crucial element of the histoire des
mentalites as in order for this method to be of utility to historians it must be used in conjunction with
context and cannot be used to explore mentalities of a whole society, but instead on individual facets
of society, for example of a specific class, gender or occupation.
References
Footnotes - Michael A. Gismondi, ‘“The Gift of Theory”: A Critique of the Histoire des Mentalités’, Social
History, 10:2, (London: Taylor and Francis Group, 1985) 211-230.
Bibliography - Gismondi, Michael A.. ‘“The Gift of Theory”: A Critique of the Histoire des Mentalités’,
Social History, 10 (May 1985) 211-230.
Notes and Quotes
- ‘the central problems of the histoire des mentalites do not arise because it is theoretically bankrupt, but
because it annexes concepts from the social sciences in an uncritical manner.’ - 212
- This analysis demonstrates that the problems of histoire des mentalites are closely linked to its
imprecision and encroachment on other fields of academia without the appropriate contextual
understanding of said fields
- ‘in searching for causes of the Crusades, Le Goff contends that traditional explanations such as
demographic swings, the greed of merchants and papal policy are perhaps not essential.’ - 213
- Le Goff’s position here demonstrates the value of the concept of histoire des mentalites for historians
for interrogating sources from an entirely different angle than that which has previously been taken.
Furthermore the lack of importance placed on concrete facts in this method allows the historian to
explore all possibilities of motives for people’s actions in history, whereas when focusing on the facts
social historians often come to the conclusion which has the most factual evidence to support it
- ‘most mentalities resemble islands of resistance unaffected (and not affecting) the mechanisms of social
change. Sometimes, however, their 'dephasing ' suggests mentalities are more than 'prisons of the
longue duree' and are actual causal variables in the drift of history’ - 214
- Argument here suggests that although studying mentalities can uncover details about individual
thoughts and revolutionary ideas, especially in highly censored societies, this method is not
necessarily valuable for understanding the attitudes of the majority of any given society
- ‘that more than one dominant mentalite can operate in society at any stage in its evolution’ - 215
- Le Goff’s argument here demonstrates the primary issue with the methods of historians like Darnton
and Ladurie, as in their works they only focus on one primary text, but as Le Goff says here, more than
one prevalent attitude can be present in a society at any given moment. This presents significant
limitation to their methods and draws into question the pertinence of their argument that from one
source we can extract the mentalities of the wider society
- ‘Demands recognition that society is not 'a whole way of life' but a 'whole way of conflict' based on
class antagonisms which 'entail essential objective antagonisms and conflicts of interest’ - 215-6
- Again, Gismondi demonstrates that Le Goff’s assertions highlight a crucial element of the histoire des
mentalites as in order for this method to be of utility to historians it must be used in conjunction with
context and cannot be used to explore mentalities of a whole society, but instead on individual facets
of society, for example of a specific class, gender or occupation.
