> There is a palpable public hunger for historical perspective in the 2020s. How could it be otherwise? Most citizens grasp very well that they are witnessing changes of momentous significance right now and that historical change of a profound kind is taking place in our time. Yet this moment finds the academic profession of history ill-prepared to benefit. Many historians experience their discipline as being in terrible crisis. Thousands of promising graduates are unable to find sustainable positions, while those who do often have to work under institutional constraints and pressure from administrators or colleagues, making them likely to postpone or even abandon the kind of rich, bold, innovative synthetic work that would help refresh the field and reestablish its intellectual centrality to understanding the world in the eyes of the public.
So, academia has become preoccupied measuring metrics and (temporarily) lost perspective: history isn't about the past - it's about the future.
I would argue that in this moment, history is too important to be left to just the specialists. We're not "witnessing change" - we are actively making change, and there is a lot more to be done before we're anywhere near equilibrium again. We can't go back and repeat the past (nor would we want to), but we can make better decisions about our future if we're aware of it. The generations not long before us went through a world in significant change - and now it's our turn. We should learn from their experiences.
Indeed. I have this Quarto edition [1] of his war-related writings on the small table that sits in the middle of my living-room, I have gone about one third through it, and I have to say that seeing photos of him in WW1 trenches is indeed very much "walking the talk". I don't expect many (if any) of today's intellectuals to do the same if it were to come to men fighting in the trenches again.
I'm more in awe of his voluntary engagement into world war 2 and later into the resistance. His world war 1 participation was obligatory anyway, and WW1 was an aimless conflict.
> There is a palpable public hunger for historical perspective in the 2020s. How could it be otherwise? Most citizens grasp very well that they are witnessing changes of momentous significance right now and that historical change of a profound kind is taking place in our time. Yet this moment finds the academic profession of history ill-prepared to benefit. Many historians experience their discipline as being in terrible crisis. Thousands of promising graduates are unable to find sustainable positions, while those who do often have to work under institutional constraints and pressure from administrators or colleagues, making them likely to postpone or even abandon the kind of rich, bold, innovative synthetic work that would help refresh the field and reestablish its intellectual centrality to understanding the world in the eyes of the public.
So, academia has become preoccupied measuring metrics and (temporarily) lost perspective: history isn't about the past - it's about the future.
I would argue that in this moment, history is too important to be left to just the specialists. We're not "witnessing change" - we are actively making change, and there is a lot more to be done before we're anywhere near equilibrium again. We can't go back and repeat the past (nor would we want to), but we can make better decisions about our future if we're aware of it. The generations not long before us went through a world in significant change - and now it's our turn. We should learn from their experiences.
Beside his indispensable academic work, Bloch really is a reminder to walk the talk -- no matter your age and position.
Indeed. I have this Quarto edition [1] of his war-related writings on the small table that sits in the middle of my living-room, I have gone about one third through it, and I have to say that seeing photos of him in WW1 trenches is indeed very much "walking the talk". I don't expect many (if any) of today's intellectuals to do the same if it were to come to men fighting in the trenches again.
[1] https://www.fnac.com/a1723295/Marc-Bloch-L-Histoire-la-Guerr...
I'm more in awe of his voluntary engagement into world war 2 and later into the resistance. His world war 1 participation was obligatory anyway, and WW1 was an aimless conflict.