wernerzimmermann beyond comparison history and theory45 2006

8/12/2019 WernerZimmermann Beyond Comparison History and Theory45 2006

1/22

Wesleyan niversity

Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croise and the Challenge of ReflexivityAuthor(s): Michael Werner and Bndicte ZimmermannSource: History and Theory, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 30-50Published by: Wileyfor Wesleyan University

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3590723.Accessed: 22/01/2014 05:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wileyand Wesleyan Universityare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistory

and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.170.129.228 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:34:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3590723?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3590723?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wesleyanhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/22

Historyand Theory45 (February 006), 30-50 ? Wesleyan University2006 ISSN: 0018-2656

BEYOND COMPARISON: HISTOIRE CROISEEAND THE CHALLENGE OF REFLEXIVITY1

MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANN

ABSTRACT

This articlepresents,in a programmaticway, the histoirecroisee approach, ts method-ological implications and its empirical developments. Histoire croisde draws on thedebates aboutcomparativehistory,transferstudies,and connected or sharedhistorythathave been carriedout in the social sciences in recentyears.It invites us to reconsider heinteractionsbetween differentsocieties or cultures,eruditedisciplinesor traditions moregenerally,between social and culturalproductions).Histoire croisee focuses on empiricalintercrossingsconsubstantialwith the object of study, as well as on the operations bywhich researchers hemselves cross scales, categories, and viewpoints. The articlefirstshows how this approachdiffers from purely comparativeor transfer studies. It thendevelops the principlesof pragmaticand reflexive inductionas a major methodologicalprincipleof histoire croisee.While underlining he need and the methodsof a historiciza-tionof both the objectsandcategoriesof analysis,it calls for a reconsiderationof thewayhistory can combine empirical and reflexive concerns into a dynamic and flexibleapproach.

I. INTRODUCTIONOver the past twenty years, ideas about the conditions and ways in which socio-historical knowledge is produced have undergone significant changes. Two setsof factors, stemming both from internal developments in the social sciences aswell as from the more general political context, have jointly produced theireffects. On the political side, the changes that have taken place since 1989, cou-pled with the expansion and proliferation of spaces of reference and action-globalization, to use the now standard term-have left their mark on researchparadigms, bringing new importance to the question of reflexivity. On the intel-lectual side, the culturalist turn, by emphasizing the specificity-indeed, theirreducible nature-of the local has contributed to refining our understanding ofthe differentiated functioning of societies and cultures, while at the same timebringing about a fragmentation of knowledge, thereby showing it in a relativist

1. This article draws upon argumentsfirst developed in Annales HSS 58:1 (January-February2003), 7-36 and in De la comparaisona l'histoire croisde, ed. Michael Wernerand B6nedicteZimmermann Le Genrehumain42) (Paris:Seuil, 2004), 15-49.Weextend our warm thanks ortheirsuggestionsand comments to SebastianConrad,Yves Cohen,AlexandreEscudier,HeidrunFriese,Jean-YvesGrenier,RainerMariaKiesow,Andr6Orlean,JacquesPoloni,JayRowell, LucetteValensi,andPeterWagner,with whom we have discussed variousaspectsof ourhistoire croisdeproposal.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOFREFLEXIVITY 31light.2The questionsresultingfrom the collapse of colonialismhave, moreover,had an impacton thepreviouslydominantpositionof Western ocial sciences.Suspectedof intellectual imperialism and strategiesof political domination,their universalistic ambition has been weakened.3 These developments haveprompted nternalreorganizationswithineach discipline,as well as new stancesregarding he place of the social sciences within the largerapparatusof the pro-ductionof knowledge.These shifts raise questions relating directly to researchpractices, the waysources and the fields themselves are approached.The proposal for histoirecroisee thatwe elaborateon hereinfits within this generaltrend.The notion ofhistoirecroisde,which has been employedfor almost tenyearsnow in the socialand humansciences, has given rise to differingusages. In most cases, it refers,in a vague manner, o one or a groupof historiesassociated with the idea of anunspecifiedcrossingorintersection; hus,it tends towarda mereconfigurationofevents thatis more or less structured y thecrossing metaphor.Sometimes,theseusages referto crossed histories in the plural.However, this common andrela-tively undifferentiateduse should be distinguishedfrom researchpracticesthatreflect a more specific approach.In the lattercase, histoire croisde associatessocial, cultural,andpolitical formations,generallyat the nationallevel, that areassumed to bear relationshipsto one another.4 It furthermoreengages in aninquiryregardingthe very process of intercrossing n practicalas well as intel-lectualterms.The presentarticle aims at clarifyingthis more specific approachthroughan explorationof the conceptof histoirecroisee within current heoreti-cal and methodologicaldebates. Once so specified in empiricaland theoreticalterms,histoirecroisle can make a useful contribution o most of the humanandsocial-sciencedisciplines.Threepreliminary emarkswill guide our examination.First,histoire croistebelongs to the family of relational pproaches hat,in the mannerof compara-tive approaches nd studiesof transfers mostrecentlyof connected nd sharedhistory )examine the links betweenvarioushistoricallyconstituted ormations.5

2. For a presentationof theproblematic n a Germanresearch ield, see Ute Daniel,KompendiumKulturgeschichte:Theorien,Praxis,SchliisselwdrterFrankfurt: uhrkampVerlag,2001).3. The literaturen this area is flourishing.For a recentoverview,refer to the dossier Une his-toire a l'6chelle globale in Annales HSS 56:1 (2001), 3-123. For an example of a case study,seeDanielDubuisson,L'Occidentet la religion: Mythes,science et iddologie(Paris:EditionsComplexe,1998).4. On this type of usage, see in particularMichaelWerner, Le prismefranco-allemand: proposd'une histoirecrois6e des disciplineslitt6raires, n EntreLocarnoet Vichy:Les relations culturellesfranco-allemandesdans les anndes 1930, ed. Hans Manfred Bock, ReinhartMeyer-Kalkus,andMichel Trebitsch Paris:CNRS-Editions,1993), I, 303-316; Le travail et la nation:Histoirecroisdede la France et de 1 Allemagne,ed. B6n6dicteZimmermann,ClaudeDidry,andPeterWagner Paris:Editionsde la Maison des sciences de l'homme, 1999).For a more completepresentationof the con-cept of histoire croisee applied to problems of transnationalhistory, see Michael Werner andB6n6dicteZimmermann, Vergleich,Transfer,Verflechtung:Der Ansatz der Histoire croisee und dieHerausforderunges Transnationalen,Geschichte undGesellschaft28 (2002), 607-636.5. Our nterest n histoirecroisee first arosethroughour own practiceof comparativemethodsandtransferstudies.The limits that this practicecame up againstfor certainobjects of study were thestartingpointfor this reflection. That is why we prefer o discuss histoire croisdein relation to com-parativehistoryand transferstudies,while considering connected, shared, nd entangled his-tories more as alternatives o these firsttwo approaches,n the same manneras histoirecroisde,even



4/22

32 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNBut, while these approaches mainly take the perspective of re-establishment/rehabilitation f buriedreality, hestress aidby histoirecroisee ona multiplicityof possible viewpoints and the divergences resulting from lan-guages, terminologies,categorizations ndconceptualizations,raditions,anddis-ciplinaryusages, adds anotherdimensionto the inquiry.In contrastto the mererestitutionof an already here, histoire croisdeplaces emphasison what, in aself-reflexiveprocess,can be generativeof meaning.

Second, histoirecroisee takesup anew the discussions carriedout over recentyears regardingcomparative approaches, ransfers,and, more generally,socio-cultural interactions.In particular, t offers new leads for getting beyond thestalemate n the debatebetweencomparativistsandtransferspecialists,6withoutdiminishingthe contributionsmade by these two approacheson which it drawsheavily.It therebymakesit possible to apprehend ntirelynew phenomenausingrenewedframeworksof analysis,and insofaras it does so, it presentsopportuni-ties for exploring,from a particularangle, moregeneral questionssuch as thoseconcerningscales, categoriesof analysis, therelationshipbetweendiachronyandsynchrony,andregimesof historicityandreflexivity.Third,histoirecroisle rais-es the questionof its own historicity througha threefoldprocess of historiciza-tion:through he object,the categoriesof analysis,and the relationshipsbetweenif each of them has particularities.On ConnectedHistory,see The Making of the Modern World:ConnectedHistories,DivergentPaths (1500 to the Present),ed. Robert W. Strayer(New York: St.MartinsPress,1989);SanjaySubrahmanyam,ConnectedHistories:Notes towarda Reconfigurationof EarlyModernEurasia, ModernAsianStudies 31:3 (1997), 735-762; Serge Gruzinski, Les mon-des mel6s de la Monarchiecatholiqueet autres 'connectedhistories', Annales HSS56:1 (2001), 85-117. The expression sharedhistory was originallyused to designatethe sharedhistoryof differentethnicgroupsandwas then extendedto the historyof gender,before being used in the discussion of

post-colonial tudies. See Ann LauraStolerand FredericCooper, BetweenMetropoleandColony.Rethinkinga ResearchAgenda, n Tensionsof Empire:Colonial Cultures n a BourgeoisWorld, d.Ann Laura Stoler andFredericCooper (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1997), as well asStewartHall, Whenwas the Post-Colonial?Thinkingat the Limit, n ThePost-ColonialQuestion:CommonSkies,DividedHorizons,ed.lain ChambersandLidia Curti London:Routledge,1996).Forthe concept of EntangledHistory, see Jenseits des Eurozentrismus:PostkolonialePerspektiven nden Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften,d. Sebastian Conradand Shalini Randeria(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,2002), as well as Shalini Randeria, EntangledHistoriesof Uneven Modernities:Civil Society, Caste Solidaritiesand Legal Pluralism in Post-ColonialIndia, in UnravelingTies:From Social Cohesion to New Practices of Connectedness,ed. Yehuda Elkana et al. (Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,2002), 284-311.6. See, in particular,Michel Espagne, Surles limites du comparatismeen histoireculturelle,Geneses 17 (1994), 112-121; Heinz-GerhardHauptand JtirgenKocka, Geschichteund Vergleich:Ansditzeund Ergebnisse internationalvergleichender Geschichtsschreibung(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,1996);ChristopheCharle, L'histoire ompar6edes intellectuelsen Europe:Quelques pointsde m6thodeet propositionsde recherche, n Pour une histoirecompardedes intellectuels,ed. MichelTrebitsch and Marie-Christine Granjon (Paris: Editions Complexe, 1998), 39-59; JohannesPaulmann, InternationalerVergleich und interkulturellerTransfer:Zwei ForschungsansitzezureuropdiischenGeschichte des 18. bis 20. Jahrhunderts,HistorischeZeitschrift3 (1998), 649-685;Hartmut Kaelble, Der historische Vergleich: Eine Einfiihrungzum 19. und 20. Jahrhundert(Frankfurt:CampusVerlag,1999);MatthiasMiddell, KulturtransferndhistorischeKomparatistik,Thesen zu ihremVerhiltnis, Comparativ10 (2000), 7-41; Michael Werner, Comparaison t rai-son, Cahiersd'dtudesgermaniques41 (2001), 9-18; GabrieleLingelbach, Ertriigeund Grenzenzweier Ansditze:Kulturtransfer nd Vergleich am Beispiel der franz6sischen und amerikanischenGeschichtswissenschaftwiihrenddes 19.Jahrhunderts, n Die Nation schreiben:Geschichtswissen-schaft im internationalen Vergleich,ed. Christoph Conrad and Sebastian Conrad (Gtittingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,2002), 333-359.



5/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 33researcherand object. It thusprovidesa toolbox that,over andbeyond the his-toricalsciences,can be appliedacross a numberof otherdisciplinesthat combinepast andpresentperspectives.7

II. COMPARISONAND THE HISTORICITYOF ITS OBJECTSThose who engage in the comparativemethod andattempt o controlthe effectsthereof--whetherthey work on past or contemporarymaterials-are aware of anumberof difficultiesthat,whilepresent n diversesituations,all involve the ten-sion betweenthe method andthe object.To simplify,these difficultiesarise fromthe fact that,on the one hand,comparisonis a cognitive operationthat, by itsnature, unctions n accordancewitha principleof binaryoppositionbetween dif-ferences andsimilaritiesand,on the otherhand,is appliedin the social sciencesto empiricalsubjectsthat are historicallysituatedand consist of multiple inter-penetratingdimensions. The problems of self-monitoring and the continuousreadjustmentof the process resulting therefromare not in themselves insur-mountable; heyarepartof thework of comparativists, ll of whomdeal with thisin their own manner.8The basic questionsneverthelessremain; ive of them thatunderliethe problematicof histoirecroiselewill be addressedmoreprecisely.

(1) The firstdifficulty concernstheposition of the observer. Fromthe stand-point of the basic scheme of the cognitive process, the comparativeapproachassumes a pointof view external o the objectsthatarecompared.In addition,tolimit optical illusions, the vantage point shouldideally be situatedat equal dis-tance fromthe objects so as to producea symmetricalview. Finally, ogical con-sistency in the comparison mplies that the pointof observationbe stabilized inspace andin time. In the areaof observationof social and cultural acts, howev-er, such a vantage point, even if it is theoreticallyimaginable,is impossible toattain n the practiceof research.Scholars arealways, in one manneror another,

7. Histoirecroisde s partof a long-standingdebate on therelationshipbetweenhistoryandsocialsciences. The debate was initiatedat the start of the last century n Franceby Simiand n M6thodehistoriqueet science sociale, Revuede synthesehistorique(1903), 1-22 and 129-157. In Germany,it was led by Simmel andWeber, n particularn the latter'sworkon economic history,which, whilerelyingon case studies,reasons on the basis of epistemologicalconsiderations.Formore recentstepsin the debate,see the dossier Histoireet sciences sociales, Annales ESC 38:6 (1983), andthe spe-cial edition devoted to the criticalturn (Annales ESC 44:6 [1989]); Jean-ClaudePasseron,Leraisonnement ociologique: L'espace non-poppdriendu raisonnementnaturel(Paris:Nathan,1991);and L'historicit,de l'actionpublique,ed. PascaleLaborierandDannyTrom(Paris,PUF [CollectionCurapp],2003).8. On recentFrench discussions concerning comparison,see in particularStrategiesde la com-paraison internationale,ed. Michel Lallement and JanSpurk(Paris:CNRS-Editions,2003); MarcelDetienne, Comparer 'incomparable (Paris:Seuil, 2000); Qui veut prendre la parole, ed. MarcelDetienne (Le genre humain) (Paris: Seuil, 2003); the dossier in Annales introducedby LucetteValensi, L'exercicede la comparaisonau plus proche, adistance:le cas des societes plurielles,Annales HSS 57:1 (2002), 27-30; the collective Franco-Americanwork on repertoires f evaluationcoordinatedby Michele LamontandLaurentTh6venot,RethinkingComparativeCulturalSociology:Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States, ed. Michble Lamont and LaurentThevenot (Cambridge,Eng.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000); as well as PatrickHassenteufel,Deux ou trois choses que je sais d'elle: Remarques ' propos d'experiences de comparaisonseuropeennes, n Curapp,Les ne'thodes u concret: Dimarches,formes de l'experience et terrainsd'investigationen science politique (Paris,PUF [CollectionCurapp],2000), 105-124.



6/22

34 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNengaged in the field of observation.They are involved in the object, if only bylanguage,by the categoriesandconceptsused,by historicalexperienceor by thepreexistingbodies of knowledgereliedupon.Theirpositionis thus off center.Itis also subjectto variations n time and is never perfectly stabilized.The ques-tion of positioning eadsto seeking correctiveprocedures hat would make itpos-sible to accountfor these dynamics.

(2) The second difficulty is relatedto the first. It concernsthe choice of thescale of the comparison.Whether situated-to take but a few examples-at thelevel of the region, the nation-state,or the civilization, none of these scales isabsolutelyunivocal or generalizable.They are all historicallyconstitutedandsit-uated,filled with specific content and thus are difficult to transposeto differentframeworks.One need only think,for example,about the problemsraisedby theconceptof civilization,as developedunderparticularhistoricalconditions,whentryingto establishit as a genericbasis of comparison.9 n practice, t is certainlypossibleto get around his obstacleby integratingntothecomparativegrida mar-gin of deviationadapted o each particular ase understudy.But such deviationsmay well undermine he relevance of the results,in particularn cases of multi-lateralcomparisons hatrequire aking nto accounta largenumberof parameters.

(3) Inaddition, hequestionof scale exercisesindirect nfluenceuponthe def-inition of the object of the comparison.Such definition is never neutral,but isinstead always marked n advance by a particularrepresentationbringingintoplay specific historically-constituted ategories. Whetherdealing with objectsthat are clear and simple in appearanceand thus endowed with a certaindegreeof obviousness (such as the unemployed, college students,or kinship ties), ormore complex configurations such as the educationalsystem'0or the relation-shipsbetweenpublicandprivate spaces), it can easily be shown that the analyt-ical grids diverge not only on the basis of the scale selected but also as a func-tion of the particularity f the field areas,and the designationsand the researchtraditionson which the scholar relies. This can lead to great distortions;forinstance,for one and the same object of study,the scale chosen for one of theentities of the comparisonturns out not to be relevant for the other. This raisesthe problemof the historical and situatedconstitutionof the objects of the com-parison.To avoid the trapof presumingnaturalness f theobjects, it is necessaryto pay attention o theirhistoricity,as well as to the traces left by such historici-ty on their characteristics ndtheircontemporary sages. I

9. Oncomparisonof civilizations,see Kaelble,Der historischeVergleich, 9-92, as well as JtirgenOsterhammel,Geschichtswissenschaftenseits des Nationalstaats:Studienzu Beziehungsgeschichteund Zivilisationsvergleich(G6ttingen,Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,2001). Analogous observationsmay of course be made with respectto the nationalandregionallevels.10. Forexample,on distortionsabout the notion Privatdozent n thehistoryof highereducationsystems,see FrankSchultheiss, Un inconscient universitaireait homme: e Privatdozent, Actes dela rechercheen sciences sociales 135 (2000), 58-62.11. It should be pointedout thatMarcBloch, in his programmaticecture at the Oslo Congress,hadalreadyunderscoredhenecessityof historicizing hecategoriesof analysis.The differencesaris-ing in research on feudalism due to the use of the French term tenancier and the GermantermHiriger, in his view, offer the comparativistan enlighteningarea of study.Marc Bloch, Pourunehistoirecompareedes soci6t6s europ6ennes, Revue de synthese historique4 (1928), reprintednMarc Bloch, MWlanges istoriques I (Paris:Editions de I'EHESS, 1963), 16-40, especially 38ff.



7/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THECHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 35(4) This historicizationof the objectsandproblematicsmay give rise to con-

flicts between synchronic and diachronic logics. The comparative approachassumes a synchroniccross-sectionor, at the very least, a pause in the flow oftime, even where comparativistsare also dealing with processes of transforma-tion or comparisonsover time. Even in these cases, they must fix the object,freeze it in time, andthus in a sense suspend t. If the scholar delves too deeplyinto the descriptionof a chronological sequence of events leading to specificchanges, it will be difficult to justify why, in the comparative grid-whetherexplicit or implicit-one element of the process is emphasizedand anotherneg-lected.The result is a search for balance that in practiceturns out to be tenuousandunstable.

(5) An additionaldifficulty stems from the interactionamong the objects ofthecomparison.When societies in contactwithone anotherarestudied, t is oftennoted thatthe objectsandpracticesare not only in a state of interrelationshiputalso modifyone another eciprocallyas a resultof theirrelationship.This is oftenthe case, for instance, in the humanand social sciences where disciplines andschools evolve throughmutualexchanges; n culturalactivities such as literature,music, and the fine arts;and in practicalareas, such as advertising,marketing,organizationalcultures,or even social policies. Comparativestudy of areas ofcontactthataretransformedhrough heirmutual nteractions equiresscholars oreorganize heirconceptualframeworkand rethink heiranalytical ools.'2These five difficulties all relate to the problem of articulation between anessentiallysynchronicanalytical ogic andhistoricallyconstitutedobjects.'3Thechallengesthey raise for the scholarrequiregreaterconsiderationof the histori-cal dimensionof both the tools andobjectsof study.Transfer tudies, specifical-ly grounded n historicalprocesses,meet this requirement,butthey neverthelesspose additionalproblems.

III.TRANSFERSAND FRAMES OF REFERENCEWhile the comparativemethodtends to focus on synchrony, nquiryinto trans-fers is clearly situated n a diachronicperspective.'4Whatevertemporalscale is

12. In his introduction o Ethnic Groupsand Boundaries: The Social Organization of CultureDifference (Bergen and Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,1969), 9-38, FredrikBarthhad alreadyunder-scored the necessity of takinginto accountthe interactionat the borders rom which spread he dis-tinctive traitsof the entities understudy-here ethnicgroups. But while assigningto them a deter-minativerole, Barth limits the transformational ffects of interactions o the processes of definitionand the characteristicsof the groups,withoutcalling into questionthe cohesion of the groupor thedichotomizingfunction of the borders.AlthoughBarth defines ethnicityat the borders,he still con-ceives of it as structuredby the principlesof sameness and difference.13. Jean-Claude Passeron has addressedthem as difficulties of the sociological reasoningcaughtbetween the two extremes of experimentationand historicization.See Passeron,Le raison-nementsociologique, esp. 57-88.14.For a presentation f thetransferapproach, ee Michel Espagneand MichaelWemer, Lacon-structiond'une r6f6renceculturelle allemande en France,genese et histoire, Annales ESC 42:4(1987), 969-992. Foradditionalworkcontributedhrough he studyof Germano-Britishransfers, eeAneignungundAbwehr.InterkulturellerTransfer wischenDeutschland undGrofJbritannienm 19.Jahrhundert,ed. Rudolf Muhs, JohannesPaulmann,and Willibald Steinmetz (Bodenheim:Philo,1998); for the relationshipsbetween America and Europe,see Transfertsculturels et metissages:



8/22

36 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNused, such an inquirypresupposesa process that unfolds over time. In analyzingphenomenaof displacementandappropriation,t reconstituteschainsof events.Consequently,nquiry nto transfers s not based on an assumptionof staticunitsof analysis,but on the studyof processesof transformation.As in the case of thecomparativemethod,the contributionsof this researchapproachare obvious andthe lines of inquiryopened up have provenfertile,not only at the level of trans-fers betweennationalandregionalcultures,but also in specific areas,such as therelationshipsbetween disciplines, artisticpractices,the history of writing, andeconomichistory.'5Butalthough ransfer tudies offerresponsesto questions eftunansweredby the comparativeapproach, hey also create their own blind spots.Four in particular tandout. For simplicity's sake, we will restrict ourselves totransfersbetweennationalunits, in the belief thatthe blind spots we identifyarestructuralproblemsthataffect all areasof research nto transfers.

(1) The firstproblemconcerns rames of reference.While focusing on trans-actionsbetweentwo poles, a transfer mplies a fixed frameof reference nclud-ing pointsof departure ndarrival.Any descriptionandany analysisof transferspresupposesa beginning and an end through which the process under studybecomes intelligible and interpretable. n the case of transnational xchanges,these points of departureand arrival are generally located within the nationalsocieties andcultures hat are in contact.Consequently, he originalsituationandthe situationresultingfrom the transferare apprehendedhroughstable nationalreferences thatarepresumedknown: for example, German r French histo-riography; he particularpatternsof urbanizationof GreatBritain or Russia;andthe like.

(2) The fixed natureof the points of departureand arrival s reflectedin theinvariabilityof thecategories of analysis.The categoriesused to analyzea trans-fer belong to the differing nationalperspectives. In other words, not only theobjectof the transferbut the activitiesassociated with it as well-translation, forexample-are apprehended hroughconcepts elaborated within national tradi-tions. Even when measuringacculturationgaps and/orresistanceto accultura-tion, these phenomenaare evaluated n termsof staticmodels. The significanceof a transfer s determinedon the basis of categorieswhose historicityand labil-ity must be set aside for the purposesof the investigation.

(3) Moregenerally,both of the above-mentioneddifficulties reveala reflexivi-ty deficitdueto a lack of controlover important elf-referentialoops.Thus,if onthe level of relationshipsbetween nationalunits, the initialpurposeof a transfer

Amdrique Europe (XVIe-XXesiecles)/Cultural Transfer America and Europe: 500 Years ofInterculturation,d. LaurierTurgeon,Denys Delage, and R6alOuellet (Sainte-Foy:Les presses del'universit6Laval, 1996).

15. For these variousexamples, see in the order listed Jean-Yves Grenier and BernardLepetit,L'expdrience istorique:A proposde C.-E. Labrousse, AnnalesESC44:6 (1989), 1337-1360; Lepaysageen Franceet en Allemagne autourde 1800, ed. ElisabethDecultotandChristianHelmreich,Revue germaniqueinternationale7 (1997); the special section compiled by Fr6d6ricBarbier, Lecommerce culturelentreles nations, Revuede synthhse1:2(1988), as well as Helga Jeanblanc,DesAllemands dans l'industrieet le commerce du livre a Paris (1811-1870) (Paris: CNRS-Editions),1994;andSidneyWilfredMintz,Sweetnessand Power: The Place of Sugarin ModernHistory(NewYork:Viking, 1985).



9/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THECHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 37studywas to show thatborderswere more permeable n order to undermine hemythof thehomogeneityof nationalunits,the result s thatthecategoriesof analy-sis reintroduce,hrougha sort of boomerangeffect, the nationalreferencesthatwereto be putin question.The studyof exchangesdoes lead to a richerapproachof thecultureof reception: t underlines oreigncontributions ndhelpsto histori-cize the conceptof nationalculture.But the representationtself of this culture snot reallycalledinto question.Thus,rather hansofteningthe nationalgroundingof historiographies ndhumanand social-sciencedisciplines,research nto trans-fersparadoxically ftenleads to strengtheningt. Moregenerally, o the extentthatthereferencepointsof the analysisare notquestionedas such,transfer tudiesruntherisk inherentn anyapproachhatoverlooksits self-referential imension: heyonly reinforce he prejudices hatthey seek to undermine.

(4) Last is the issue of reciprocityand reversibility.While the projectrelatingto transfersdid not lay down a rule on this point right from the start,empiricalsurveyshavegenerallyinvolved simplelinearprocesses,fromone cultureor onedisciplineto another, ollowing a logic of introduction, ransmission,andrecep-tion. Even in those relativelyrarecases of triangular onfigurations, he object islimited to successive transfers.16Quite often, however,a situation s morecom-plex thanthis, bringinginto play movements between variouspoints in at leasttwo and sometimesseveraldirections.Such activitiesmay follow each otherin atemporal equence-in some cases, this is referred o as re-transfer 17-butmayalso overlapone another,partiallyorwholly.They mayalso crisscrossandengen-der a numberof specific dynamics hroughvariouskindsof interrelationships. llof these cases are resistantto any analysis thatmerelyestablishesa relationshipbetweena pointof departureand a point of arrival.The studyof these differentconfigurationsrequires devising theoretical frameworks and methodologicaltools that makeit possible to examinephenomenaof interaction nvolvinga vari-ety of directionsandmultipleeffects.To ourmind,histoire croisee with its cross-ing figure providesa guide to thinkingaboutsuchconfigurations.

IV.AN INQUIRY NTOINTERCROSSINGSIn the literal sense, to cross means to place or fold crosswise one over theother. '8This creates a point of intersectionwhere events may occur that arecapableof affectingto variousdegrees the elementspresentdependingon theirresistance,permeabilityor malleability,and on theirenvironment.The notion ofintersectionis basic to the very principle of histoire croisee that we intend toelaboratehere.This centralityof intersections mpliesfourconsequencesthatwewish to highlight.

16. See Philologiques IV TransfertsculturelstriangulairesFrance - Allemagne - Russie, ed.KatiaDimitrievaandMichelEspagne(Paris:Editions de la Maisondes sciences de l'homme, 1996).17. Cases of this type form partof the originalresearchagendaon transfers,butthey have rarelybeen followed up by empiricalstudies.18.It is only by extension thatthe termtakes on the meaning tomeet in passing,esp. fromoppo-site directions. Webster'sNinth New Collegiate Dictionary (SpringfieldMA: Merriam-Webster,1983), p. 309.



10/22

38 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNFirst, the notion of intersectionprecludes reasoning in terms of individual

entities, consideredexclusively in themselves, with no external referencepoint.Histoire croisee breaks with a one-dimensionalperspectivethat simplifies andhomogenizes,in favorof a multidimensional pproach hatacknowledgesplural-ity and the complex configurations hat resultfrom it. Accordingly,entities andobjects of researchare not merelyconsideredin relation to one anotherbut alsothroughone another, n terms of relationships, nteractions,and circulation.Theactive anddynamic principleof the intersection s fundamental n contrast o thestatic frameworkof a comparativeapproach hat tends to immobilizeobjects.

Second, referringhistoire croisee to relationalconfigurationsand active prin-ciples also requirespayingparticular ttention o the consequencesof intercross-ing. The view that something occurs within the crossing process is a basicassumptionof histoire croisie, which deals with the crossings as well as withtheir effects andrepercussions.The approachdoes not limit itself to an analysisof the point of intersection or a moment of contact, it takes into account morebroadlythe processes thatmay resulttherefrom,as suggested moreoverby theterm history n the designationhistoirecroisde.Third,to cross is also to crisscross,to interweave,thatis, to cross over sever-al times at a tempo thatmay be staggered.This process-orienteddimensionis afundamentalaspectof inquiry nto any intercrossings. t pointstowardan analy-sis of resistances, inertias,modifications-in trajectory,orm, and content-andnew combinations that can both result from and develop themselves in theprocess of crossing. Such transformations re moreover not necessarilylimitedto elements in contact:they may also affect their local or remote environmentand manifest themselves at a deferredmoment.

This bringsus to the fourthpoint: the entities, persons, practices,or objectsthat are intertwinedwith, or affectedby, the crossingprocess,do not necessarilyremain intact and identical n form.19Their transformations retied to the activeas well as the interactivenatureof their coming into contact. Such transforma-tions areusuallybased on reciprocity(bothelements are affectedby their com-ing into contact), but may also derive from asymmetry (the elements are notaffected in the same manner).In this respect,intercrossingcan be distinguishedfrom intermixing. The latter emphasizes the specificity of the product ofhybridization the interbreeded) ndbringsus beyondthe originalelements, thepreviouslyidentified constitutive entities of the convergence.20n contrast,his-toire croisle is concernedas much with the novel andoriginalelementsproducedby the intercrossingas with theway in which it affects each of the intercrossedparties,whichare assumedto remain dentifiable,even if in alteredform. This isanotherhallmarkof histoire croise'e.

To investigaterelationalconfigurationsthat are active and asymmetrical,aswell as the labile and evolving natureof things and situations,to scrutinize notonly noveltybut also change,is one of the aims of histoire croisde.Insteadof an

19. On thephilosophicalfoundationsof a discussion on transformations roughtaboutby cominginto contactwith the Other,see in particularMichaelTheunissen,The Other:Studies in the SocialOntology of Husserl,Heidegger,Sartre,and Buber [1965] (Cambridge,MA: MITPress, 1984).20. Onintermixing, ee SergeGruzinski,Lapensdemdtisse Paris:Fayard,1999),especially33-57.



11/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 39analyticalmodel-which would result in a static view of things-our aim is onthe contrary o articulatevariousdimensions andplace them intomovement;thisrequiresa toolbox that,while integrating he well-tested methodologicalcontri-butions of the comparativeapproachand transferstudies, makes it possible toapprehendn a more satisfactoryway the complexity of a composite and pluralworldin motion,andthereby he fundamentalquestionof change.The failure toachieve this is a weak if not blind spot withincomparative,and to some extenttransfer,approaches.21Therelational, nteractive,andprocess-orienteddimensionsof histoirecroistelead to a multiplicityof possible intercrossings.We shall not seek here to enu-merate all of them or to proposea typology.We shall restrictourselves to iden-tifying four broad families based on the object and its operator.The intercross-ing that without doubt most immediatelycomes to mind is that which is intrinsi-cally related to the object of research(1). But intercrossingmay also occur inviewpoints or ways of looking at the object (2). It may likewisebe envisagedinterms of the relationshipbetween the observer andthe object,thereby implicat-ing issues of reflexivity (3). If we identify these empiricaland reflexive dimen-sions for heuristicpurposes,the varioustypes of intersectionsthat resultnever-theless interweave with one another.Intercrossingnever presents itself as an

alreadygiven thatneed only be observed and recorded. It requiresan activeobserver to construct t and only in a to-and-fromovement between researcherand object do the empiricaland reflexive dimensions of histoirecroise'e ointlytake shape. Intercrossing hus appearsas a structuringcognitive activity that,through various acts of framing, shapes a space of understanding.By suchmeans,a cognitive processarticulatingobject,observer,and environment s car-ried out. The intercrossingof spatial and temporalscales, which can be bothinherent n the object as well as the result of a theoretical and methodologicalchoice, is a particularly evealing example of this interweavingof the empiricaland reflexive dimensions(4).

(1) Intercrossings ntrinsicto the object. Intercrossingsn this case have anempiricalgroundingand constitutethe objectof research.A particular rossing,togetherwith the analysisof its componentelements andthe manner n which itoperates,as well as its resultsandconsequences,stands n the center of the study.Inpractice, t is oftenextremelydifficultto dissociatethese variousaspectsandtoisolate themaccuratelybecausecrossingsandintercrossings an never be reducedto linearschemasorsimplecausalities.Dependingonthecircumstances, ne or theotherof theseaspectsis placedat the centerof theanalysisdependingon theentrypointselectedin the process.The emphasiscanbe placedon thehistoricaldimen-sion constitutingthe intersectingelements and the history of the intercrossing

21. To the extentthattheyare concernedwithtransformations,ransfer tudies do in fact deal withcertainaspectsof change, but limitationto transfersalone does not make it possible to accountforradicalchangewhere new things,categories, practices,or institutionsarise for the firsttime. Inotherwords,in manycases transfers akepart n the change,butunderstanding f the latter s not general-ly exhaustedby the former.The same appliesto connectedhistory,which certainlytakes into con-siderationcertainaspectsof change,buthardlymakespossible analysisof changeas such.



12/22

40 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNitself.22The inquiry husfocuses on momentsandphenomenapreceding he inter-crossingas well as on its modalities.But it is also possibleto concentrateon whathappensafterwards,on the results and processes more or less directly broughtaboutby the intercrossing.23 egardlessof the point of departure hosen, inter-crossingfunctionsas the basic matrix or constructionof the objectthat,depend-ing on thecircumstances,will be moreor less closely connected o analysesof themomentsprecedingor subsequent o the pointsof intersectionproperlyspeaking.In this respect,we aredealingwith novel objectsof research hat the methodolo-gies of comparative nd transfer tudiesgenerallyhavedifficultygrasping.

(2) Theintercrossingofpoints of view.Here we aredealingin the areaof inter-secting fields, objects, and scales, that is, the area of thingsthat the researchercrosses, whereas the previousintersectionsoccur withouthis or her direct inter-vention(even if the mere fact of identifyinganobjectas comingwithinthe scopeof histoire croisee is itself a significant act of interventionon the part of theresearcher). n contrast o the precedingtype of intersection hatthe scholarmaytry to describeor to understand,while not necessarilybeing familiarwith all ofthe details,some of which will always remainbeyondhis or hercontrol,this sec-ond type of intercrossing implies a structuring,voluntaryintellectual action,throughwhich aredefinedthe contoursnot only of the objectof studybut of theline of inquiryas well. This raises the questionof the constructionof the objectboth froman empiricalas well as froman epistemological standpoint.Thus,forexample, a study of the receptionof Tacitus'sGermania n Europebetween thefifteenthand the twentieth centuries can reveal instancesof historical intersec-tions-the circulationof argumentsandtheirreinterpretationccording o nation-al contexts-but it mayalso place emphasison the necessityof crossingdifferentnationalreceptionsto createa research opic of a Europe-widedimension.

Basically, the construction of the object, which may be envisaged in aWeberianperspectiveas the adoptionof one or moreparticular ointsof view onthe object,24s already he resultof variousacts of crossing.To the extent that itmay evolve in the course of the inquiry,the chosen vantage point implies newintersections.Scholarsare in fact led to accountfor the way in which their ownchoices do or do not integrateother perspectives, to cross different potentialpoints of view, and if necessaryto engage in a process of translationor balanc-

22. See, for instance,the researchby SebastianConradon the makingof Japanesehistory throughthe confluence between local tradition and importationof European national historiography.SebastianConrad, Laconstitutionde l'histoirejaponaise:Histoirecomparee, ransferts,nteractionstransnationales, n Wernerand Zimmermann,ed., De la comparaisona l'histoire crois6e, 53-72.National historiographies eneratedduringthe periodof colonialism may likewise be analyzed ntermsof intercrossing.See, for example,RomilaThapar, Laqueted'une traditionhistorique: 'Indeancienne, AnnalesHSS53:2 (1998), 347-359.23. This is true of the studycarriedout by Kapil Rajon the effects of the intercrossingbetweenIndianandEnglishmethods n the birthof Britishcartography t the beginningof the nineteenthcen-tury,which thusno longerappearsas anauthentically English reation,butas the resultof an inter-action betweentwo distinct traditions hat mutuallynourishedone another.Kapil Raj, Connexions,croisements,circulations:Le detour de la cartographiebritanniqueparl'Inde, xvIIIe-xlxe siecles,in WernerandZimmermann, d., De la comparaisona l'histoirecroisde,73-98.24. The expression pointof view is used here not in a subjectivesense,but in the literal mean-ing of pointof observation hat determinesan angleof view. Max Weber,OntheMethodologyof theSocial Sciences, (Glencoe,IL: FreePress, 1949), 81ff.



13/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 41ing of the approachesresultingfrom the specific vantagepoints. These variouspointsof view are also socially structured, eflecting particularpositionsin com-petitionor power struggles.25Consequently,variationamong them also means,in empiricalterms,the scholar'stakinginto accountdifferingsocial viewpoints:of thegovernorsandthe governed,workersandemployers,and so on. Whatmat-ters here is less the reflexive element inherent n any work involving intellectu-al positioningthanthetechnicalprocessesof intercrossingas a whole that nformit. By this is meant,for example, the ways of managingthe articulationbetweenseveral possible vantage points as well as the numerouslinks between theseviewpointsto the extent thatthey areacknowledgedto be historicallyconstitut-ed. In this respect,the framingof the objectandthepositioningof the researcherinvolve a doublehermeneutic, 26n which objectsandpointsof view are creat-ed through ntercrossing nteractions.

(3) The relationsbetween observerand object. Once one begins to reasoninterms of a cognitive approach,the question of the relationshipbetween theresearcherand the object necessarilyarises and in a sense becomes inherenttothe two precedingtypes of intercrossing.The questionconcerns, first and fore-most, the way in which the preliminary tagesof the inquiryshapethe objectandconverselytheway in whichthe characteristics f theobjectinfluencetheparam-eters of the inquiry.The question of the intercrossingrelations between theobserverand the objectis especiallypertinentwherethe researchers required owork with a language, concepts, and categories that are not partof his or hersphereof socialization.27 n the case of comparisonsand transferstudies, thisgives rise to anasymmetry n therelationshipsbetween researchersand theirvar-ious field areas or sources. It would seem evident that a researcher rainedinFrance28nvolved in a Franco-Germanic esearchproject could not deal withboth sides in a symmetricalmanner, f only by reasonof the impactof the mas-tery of the subtletiesof language and of categoriesentailed, and more broadlybecause of his or her own placementwithin Frenchsociety. It would be bothfutile and naive to try to free oneself once and for all from this problemarisingin any scientific inquiry.29One may neverthelessattemptto limit its effects by

25. PierreBourdieuplaced greatemphasison this point in his work as a whole. See in particularChosesdites (Paris:Editionsde Minuit, 1987), 155ff.26. In the sense used by Anthony Giddens, in New Rules of Sociological Method (London:Hutchinson,1974).27. This questionhas been treated n particularby Jocelyne Dakhlia, 'La culturen6buleuse'oul'Islam'a '6preuvede la comparaison, Annales HSS 56 :6 (2001), 1177-1199,here 1186ff.28. We knowwell the complexityof this typeof designation,especially to the extentthat coursesof studyareincreasingly nterconnectedandprovideformsof integrationhat blur the variousassign-mentsto categoriesof membership.29. Thisproblem s particularly cutein the social scienceswhere nquiriesaresubject o anongo-ing tensionbetweenproceduresdesignedto be objective anddescriptive,on the one hand,anda nor-mativeandprescriptivedimension,on the other,resultingfrom the fact that the researchers also asocial being. However,many studieshave shown thatthis problemalso exists in the hard sciences.See, in particular,Bruno Latourand Steve Woolgar,LaboratoryLife: The Social ConstructionofScientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Barry Barnes, David Bloor, and John Henry,ScientificKnowledge:A Sociological Analysis (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996); DominiquePestre, Pourune histoiresociale et culturelledes sciences:Nouvelles d6finitions,nouveauxobjets,nouvellespratiques, Annales HSS 3 (1995), 487-522, with a descriptionof the state of researchandnumerousbibliographical eferences.



14/22

42 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNtryingto objectifythe multivariousrelationships o the object-keeping in mindthatsuch objectificationwill always remainincomplete-in order betterto con-trol the biases thatmight be introduced nto the resultsof the inquiry.The waythe researcher akes hold of the object, the object'sresistance, the presupposi-tions impliedby the researcher'schoices, or even the way in which the relation-shipbetween researcherandobject maychangein the course of the inquiry-forexample,througha redefinitionof the inquiryor a readjustment f its methodol-ogy and analyticalcategories-these are all aspects of a reflexive process inwhich thepositionof the researcherandthe definitionof the objectaresuscepti-ble to evolving in which the respective shifts in each are a productof specificinteractions.The spaceof understanding penedup by the inquirydoes not exista priori,but is created in the dynamicintercrossingrelationshipsbetween both.Thus, the empiricalandreflexive dimensionsare simultaneouslyconfigured.

(4) Thecrossing of scales. The questionof scale offersan opportunity o illus-tratethe way in which the empiricaland reflexivity can be articulatedwithin aperspectiveof histoire croisde. Such an approachraises the problemof spatialandtemporalunits of analysis,andof choosing themdependingon theobjectandthe adoptedpointof view. To approach he questionof scale bothas a dimensionintrinsic o theobjectandas a cognitiveandmethodologicaloptionchosenby theresearcher mplies a break with a logic of pre-existingscales to be used off theshelf, as is often the case for national studies or for the major dates in thechronology of politics that are relied on as naturalframeworks of analysis,definedindependentlyof the object.The problemof scale has alreadybeen the subjectof much discussion.It hasbeen raised in particular n terms of the relationshipbetween the micro andmacrolevels andexploredfor instance in Italianmicrostoria,the French multi-scopique approach,as well as the GermanAlltagsgeschichte.Despite theirpar-ticularities,30ll threeapproacheshave in common the ideathat the level of scaleis primarilya matterof the researcher'schoice of level of analysis.Thus,micro-storia adoptsthe micro level to show how it can enrich and advance the cate-gories traditionallyused in macroanalysis.31 Its most radicalfollowers go so faras to bring all phenomenadown to a micro scale by means of an underlyingassumptionaccording o which the micro level engendersthe macro.32The pro-posal formultiscopiqueapproachesdevelopedin France or its partaimsto avoidsuch a dichotomousperspective,by conceiving of the variation of scales (jeud'dchelles) as a changeof focus to vary points of view on the past. By meansofthis principle,the local comes to be a particularmodulation of the global and,at the same time, a different version of macro-social realities.33Finally,

30. For thepositioningof themultiscopiqueapproachn relation o microstoria, see, in particular,Paul-Andr6Rosental, Construiree macropar le micro: FredrikBarth et la microstoria, n Jeuxd'echelles: La micro-analyse a l'experience, dir. Jacques Revel (Paris, Editions de I'EHESS/Gallimard/Seuil,1996), 141-159.31. See, in particular,Carlo Ginzburgand Carlo Poni, La micro-histoire, Le debat, no. 17(1989), 133-136;GiovanniLevi, Lepouvoirau village: La carrikred'un exorciste dans le Piemontdu XVIIesiecle [1985] (Paris:Gallimard,1989).32. MaurizioGribaudi, Echelle,pertinence,configuration, n Jeuxd'echelles, 113-139.33. JacquesRevel, Micro-analyse t constructiondu social, inJeux d'echelles, 15-36, here 26.



15/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 43Alltagsgeschichtebases its choice of the micro and criticism of the macroon ananthropologyof social relationships.34 owever,by treating hequestionof scaleas exclusively a matterof theoreticalandmethodologicalchoice, microstoria, hemultiscopiqueapproach,andAlltagsgeschichtedo not reallydeal with the prob-lem of the empiricalarticulationandmatchingof different scales to the level ofthe object itself. Scale, however, is as much a matter of the concrete situationsparticularo the objects studied as it is of intellectualchoice.As a generalrule, empirical objects relate to several scales at the same timeand are not amenable to a single focal length.This is the case, for example, ofthe make-upof the categoryof the unemployedin Germanybetween 1890 and1927.35Constructors f this categoryact, simultaneouslyor successively, on dif-ferent levels: municipal,national,even international,n such a manner hat thesevaryingscales arein partconstituted hroughone another.These scales could notbe reducedto an externalexplicatoryfactor but ratherare an integral partof theanalysis.Thus,from a spatial pointof view, the scales referback to the multiplesettings,logics, and interactions o which the objectsof analysisrelate.36From atemporalperspective, they raise the questionof the time frames of both observ-er andobject and of theirinterferencesat the confluence between the empiricalandmethodology.The focus brought o bear on theircouplingsandarticulationsmakes it possible to accountfor interactions hat arepartof complex phenome-na that cannotbe reducedto linear models.

The transnationalscale provides a good illustration of this double aspect.Withina histoire croisee perspective,the transnational annotsimply be consid-ered as a supplementaryevel of analysis to be addedto the local, regional,andnationallevels accordingto a logic of a change in focus. On the contrary, t isapprehendedas a level that exists in interactionwith the others, producingitsown logics with feedback effects upon other space-structuringogics. Far frombeing limited to a macroscopicreduction,the study of the transnational evelreveals a network of dynamic interrelations whose components are in partdefined through he links they maintainamongthemselves and the articulationsstructuring heirpositions.37Viewed from this perspective,histoire croisee canopen up promisinglines of inquiryfor the writingof a historyof Europethat isnot reduced to the sum of the histories of member states or their political rela-tions, but takes into accountthe diversityof transactions,negotiations,andrein-terpretations layedoutin differentsettingsarounda greatvarietyof objectsthat,combined,contribute o shapinga Europeanhistory aigeomitrie variable.

34. Histoire du quotidien,ed. Alf Ltitdke[1989] (Paris:Editions de la Maison des sciences del'homme, 1994); Sozialgeschichte, Alltagsgeschichte, Mikro-Historie, ed. Winfried Schulze(G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); Mikrogeschichte Makrogeschichte:komplementdiroder inkommensurabel?,d. JtirgenSchlumbohm(Gdttingen:Wallstein,1999).

35. B6n6dicteZimmermann,La constitutiondu chomage en Allemagne:Entreprofessionset ter-ritoires(Paris:Editionsde la Maison des sciences de l'homme, 2001).36. Martina L6w underlines in her sociology of space this relationaland labile dimension ofspaces composed of objectsand individualsthat move beyond the systemsof geographical, nstitu-tional,political,economic andsocial coordinatesthat aim to stabilizespacesby establishingbound-aries. MartinaLbw,Raumsoziologie Frankfurt m Main,SuhrkampVerlag,2001).37. For additionaldevelopmentson the relationshipsbetween histoirecroisee and the transna-tionaldimension,see WernerandZimmermann, Vergleich,Transfer,Verflechtung, 628ff.



16/22

44 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNAn approachbased on intercrossingsarguesin favor of going beyond reason-

ing in termsof microversusmacro,emphasizing nsteadtheir inextricable nter-connections.The notion of scale does not refer to the micro or the macro level,butrather o the variousspaces withinwhich arerootedthe interactionsmakingup the process analyzed. In other words, the relevant scales are those that areconstructedor brought nto play in the very situationsunderstudy.They arespa-tial as well as temporal, and their variationsare not solely dependenton theresearcher,but also result from the protagonists n the situationsunder study.Intercrossings thusobviously an aspectof boththe realmof the objectof studyandtherealm of the proceduresof researchrelated o the researcher's hoices. Inits most demanding version, histoire croisle aims to establish connectionsbetweenboth of these realms.

V. HISTORICIZINGCATEGORIESConnecting heempiricalobjectto the researchprocedureopensthe centralques-tion of categoriesand categorization.Given the pitfalls of asymmetriccompar-isons-postulating a similarity between categories on the basis of a simplesemantic equivalent,without questioningthe often divergent practicesencom-passed by them--or negative comparisons-evaluating a society based on theabsenceof a categorychosen because of its relevanceto the initialenvironmentof the researcher-great care is called for in assessing the analyticalimpactofthe categoriesused. Such care can be exercised throughsystematicattentiontothe categoriesin use, in the dual sense of categoriesof action and of analysis.38While any form of reasoning proceeds by categorization,such categorizationoften remains implicit, even if any comparativeresearch should theoreticallyexplicate the categoriesreferred o. To know whereofandwhence one is speak-ing: this twofold issue is centralto histoirecroise'e.Since categoriesareboth theproductof an intellectualconstructionandthebasis for action, theyunavoidablypose the questionof the relationshipbetweenknowledgeand action,both in thesituationsstudiedandin termsof the protocolsof inquiry.The focus upon themclearsa potential pathto bring togetherthe empiricalandreflexivity.This focus on categories is not so much aimed at categories in themselves asat theirvarious constitutiveelements and how they fit together.These elementsare subjectto variationsandfluctuationsover time and space.To get beyondtheessentialismof categories mpliesreasoning n termsof situatedprocessesof cat-egorization-with the processreferringback to the temporalandspatial nterac-tions that makeup the category. Categoriessuch as landscape, or example-the same could be shown for unemployment, culture, oldage, sickness,

workers, white collar managers, and so on-are historicallydatedand par-tially structuredby the hypotheses that helped to form them. With respect tolandscape and its equivalents-always rough approximations n other lan-guages and cultures-such formationhas been progressiveandhas brought nto

38. For an example of such work on categories,see, in particular,L'enquetesur les categories:De Durkheim ' Sacks, ed. BernardFradin,Louis Qu6r6,and Jean Widmer(Raisons pratiques,5)(Paris: Editions de I'EHESS, 1994); see also the special section Hommage a BernardLepetit:L'usagedes cat6gories, Annales52:5 (1997), 963-1038.



17/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THECHALLENGEOFREFLEXIVITY 45play, within each nationalentity,a multiplicityof categorialschemes particularto the various groups,places, and individualsinvolved in the process: artists,botanicalassociations,local beautification eagues and societies, neighborhoodassociations,and so on. Only a situatedapproachenables elucidationof the spe-cific issues of categorization,which,while no longerperceptible,still contributeto shapingculturalheritagepracticesthat are currentlyprevalentin France andGermany, or instance.39A process-orientedapproach hus makes it possible tograspmorefully the implicationsof categorialdelineations, n particular hroughexaminationof their various more or less stabilizedcomponents.Reference tocategorization herefore nvolves reasoningnot in an abstractand generalfash-ion, butin associationwith the studyof the interpretive chemes andgeneraliza-tion procedures hat lead to the institutionof a generic category.40 uch a cate-gorial approachmakes it possible, thanks to the introductionof a diachronicdimension,to avoid the influence of implicit and reductiveculturalmodels.Itraisestheissue of historicization ndtheway in which histoire croiseerelatesto the field of history.Initiatedat the beginningof the nineteenthcentury,rein-forcedby the successive crises of differentcurrentsof positivism,and accelerat-ed by the calling into questionof scientificobjectivism,41 istoricization odayisan inescapabledimensionof theproductionof knowledgeabouthumansocieties.Itconcernsall of the social sciences,even those, like economics,thattendto viewthemselves above all as sciences of the present.Considered rom the perspectivetaken here, historicizationmeans articulating he essential aspect of reflexivityand the multipletime frames thatenterinto the constructionof an objectto theextent that it is envisaged as a productionsituated in time and space.Histoirecroisdeplays a role in thisundertaking y opening uplines of inquiry hatencour-age a rethinking, n historicaltime, of the relationshipsamong observation, heobjectof study,and the analytical nstrumentsused.Further,he referenceto his-tory is justified by the attentiongiven to the process of constitutingboth theobjects and the categoriesof analysis.Here too, it is not so much the temporaldimension in itself as the incidenceof a pluralityof temporalitiesnvolvedin theidentificationand constructionof the objectsthatis in question.Thisreliance onhistorythusencompassesa substratum ommon to those disciplinesthat, in onerespector another,are confrontedwiththe historicityof theirmaterialsand tools.Finally,the term history lso refers o the narrative omponentof any empirical

39. See DannyTrom, Laproductionpolitiquedu paysage:Eliments pourune interpretation espratiquesordinairesde patrimonialisation e la natureen Allemagne et en France Doctoralthesis,Institutd'dtudespolitiques,Paris, 1996).40. Alain Desrosibresaccounts for these generalizationproceduresn the case of statisticcatego-rization.AlainDesrosieres,Lapolitiquedes grandsnombres:Histoirede la raison statistique Paris:La Ddcouverte,1993). For a case study,see also DannyTrom and BdnddicteZimmermann, Cadreset institutiondes problkmespublics: les cas du chomage et du paysage, in Lesformes de l'actioncollective: Mobilisationdans des arknespubliques,ed. Daniel Cefai andDanny Trom Raisonspra-tiques, 12) (Paris:Editions de I'EHESS,2001), 281-315.41. See Ian Hacking, Representingand Intervening:IntroductoryTopics in the Philosophy ofNatural Sciences (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1983); Lorraine Daston and PeterGalison, TheImage of Objectivity, Representations40 (1992), 81-128; for the culturalsciences,see Michael Lackner and Michael Werner,Der Cultural Turn in den Humanwissenschaften:AreaStudiesimAuf- oder Abwinddes Kulturalismus?Bad Homburg,WernerReimers Stiftung,1999).



18/22

46 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNsocial science. Such narration an be carriedout in the present, o describe a situ-ation,orbe appliedto thepast,to makeintelligiblecertainessentialaspectsof theobjectof study.42

Being process-oriented,histoire croisee is an open approachthat takes intoaccount,from an internalpointof view, variations n its componentsand,fromanexternalpointof view, its specificity withrespectto otherpossible formsof his-tory. It can be likened to a historyof problemsand queries (histoireprobleme)thatattempts o avoid the dual essentialismof an objectivationthroughfacts-regardedas directlyaccessibleto the observer-and a reificationof structures-thatby tautologicalreasoningpredetermineshe results of the inquiry. n opposi-tion to anessentialistperspective, he idea of intercrossingdentifiesfirst an inter-action that-and this is one of its decisive characteristics-modifies the elementsthat areinteracting. n this sense, it pointstowardsa second-degree istory.

VI. PRAGMATIC NDUCTIONBut how does one studyor objectify variousforms of intercrossing,situated intime andspace?The exampleof scales has providedan opportunity o formulatea few suggestions, which should now be developed in further detail.Emphasizing he need to startwith the objectof researchandits concrete situa-tion leads to an inductive and pragmaticapproach.From an epistemologicalstandpoint,any productionof sociohistoricalknowledge does indeed combineinductive and deductiveprocedures,but in varying proportions.43n the case ofthe comparativemethod,where the deductiveaspect is often significant,nation-al issues, pre-existingandcrystallized n a languageand in specific categoriesofanalysis, pose a risk of partly prefiguringthe results. Histoire croisde cannotescape the weight of such pre-establishednationalformatting,but its inductiveorientationaims to limit these effects throughan investigative mechanism inwhich the objects, categories,and analyticalschemes are adjusted n the courseof research.This is illustratedby a studycarriedout by Nicolas MariotandJayRowell on visits of sovereigns in France and Germanyon the eve of the FirstWorldWar,a studythat aims to test the transpositionof a research heme and aninquiry protocolfrom one countryto another.44 y illustratingan asymmetry nthe situations,pointing out significant differencesin the various ways of con-ceiving and categorizing public action or the relations between center andperiphery,he test led themto revise the initialhypothesisand to reformulate hecategoriesstructuringt. The principleof induction nvokedhere thusrefersto aprocess of productionof knowledge in which the various elements are defined

42. See AlbanBensa, De la micro-histoirevers une anthropologiecritique, n Revel, ed., Jeuxd'&chelles,37-70; Kultur, oziale Praxis, Text:Die Kriseder ethnographischenRepriisentation, d.EberhardBergandMartinFuchs(Frankfurt: uhrkampVerlag,1993);DannyTrom, Situationnismem6thodologiqueet histoire:une approche par inductiontriangulaire, n Laborierand Trom, ed.,L'historicitede 1'actionpublique.43. For a recentdiscussionof thequestion,see HilaryPutnam,RenewingPhilosophy(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1992),passim.44. Nicolas Mariot and Jay Rowell, Une comparaisonasym6trique:Visites de souverainet6etconstructionnationale en Franceet en Allemagne Bla veille de la PremibreGuerremondiale, nWernerandZimmermann, d., De la comparaisona l'histoirecroisle, 181-211.



19/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THE CHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 47and, if necessary,repositionedin relation to one another. Its pragmaticnatureshould furthermoremake it possible to restrict the temptationof a priori con-structionsandget around he trapof essentialism andits overly staticcategories.

Pragmatic nductionthusimplies starting romthe objectof studyand the sit-uations in which it is embedded,accordingto one or more pointsof view-pre-viously defined,it is true,butsubjectto continualreadjustmentsn the courseofempirical investigation. Reliance on specific situations makes it possible toescape the convenientandlazy usage of context 45 y rejecting ts generic andpre-establishednatureandintegratinga reflectionon the principlesgoverningitsdefinition.Such a lazy usage is replacedby an analysisof the manner n whichindividualsactuallyconnect themselves to theworld,the specific constructionofthe worldandthe elements of context producedby this activity in each particu-larcase, andfinally the uses arisingfrom such construction.By focusing on spe-cific situations, t is thuspossible to get away from the external,often artificial,natureof the context in orderto make it an integral partof the analysis.Justasin the case of scales, the definitionof the context is not the prerogativeof theresearcher. t also involves referencepoints that are specific to the objects andactivitiesunderstudy.Thus,histoire croisee integrates nto the operationof con-textualization carried out by the researcherthe referentialdimension of theobjects andpracticesanalyzed,takinginto account both the varietyof situationsin which the relationshipsto the context are structuredand the effect that thestudyof such situations exerts on the analyticalprocedures.46 ragmatic nduc-tion does not thereby mply confining the analysisto a micro level or limitingitto a juxtapositionof situations,to the detrimentof any form of generalization.But generalization n such cases is carriedout througha combination of thesevarioussituations.47The emergence,for example, of common forms of concertorganization n nineteenth-centuryEuropecan thus be studiedfrom highly var-ied local constellations andthrough he concretepracticesof the relevantactors.Institutions,such as concertsocieties, or generic figures, such as the impresarioor the concertagent, arisein a multiplicityof configurationsaccordingto logicsthat cannot be reducedto a process of linearevolution, which some would liketo subsume nto a progressivecommercializationor a generalizeddifferentiationof functionsrelated o the organizationof concerts.Theirmain featuresare muchmore defined throughthe interactionof the expectationsand strategies, some-

45. Responding o criticism madeby JacquesRevel, Micro-analyse t constructiondu social, inRevel, ed., Jeuxd'echelles, 15-36, here25.46. Passeron(Le raisonnementsociologique, esp. 85-88 and 368-370) has gone furthest n theanalysisof the challengeposed by the constructionof the context, in particularwith respectto thecomparative method, without, however, advancing concrete methodological proposals. Histoirecroisee,for its part,proposesto link two levels of constructionof context,thatof the analyticaloper-ationscarriedout by the researcherandthatof the situationsof actionanalyzed.47. Undera procedureclosed to the combinativeethnographyoundedby IsabelleBaszangerandNicolas Dodier on the establishmentof an ethnographic urisprudence. sabelle Baszanger andNicolas Dodier, Totalisation t alterit6dansl'enquite ethnographique, evuefrangaisede sociolo-gie 38 (1997), 37-66. For anattemptata transpositionntohistory,see Zimmermann,La constitutiondu chomage.On the relation betweencase study andgeneralization,see Penserpar cas, ed. Jean-ClaudePasseronandJacquesRevel (Paris:EHESS,2005)



20/22

48 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNtimes contradictory, f actorsto whichtheyrespondwhile at the same time struc-turingthem.48

Similarly, pragmaticinduction does not imply restrictingoneself to short-action time-frames without regardfor the long term.On the contrary, he longterm of the structuress combinedwith the short uncturesof action, in an analy-sis of social activity based on the study of the dynamicrelationshipsbetweenactionand structure.From this perspective, he activityof individualsappearsasboth structured ndstructuring,49n arelationshipof reciprocalrelationsbetweenstructuresand action. However, such structurings not so much determinedbythe necessity of an irreversibleprocess as by the intercrossing n the course ofaction of constraintsand resourcesthat are in partstructurally iven andin parttied to the contingencyof the situations.50 hus, for example, most of our insti-tutions stem from a dual grounding,both within a structurally ong historythataffects theirlogic andfunctioning,andin singularcontexts of action thatplayeda decisive role in bringingthem about andtransforminghem.51The perspectiveof a social pragmaticsmakes it possibleto thinkin terms of the interdependenceof these two dimensions throughthe identificationof the slides and lags occur-ring in the course of the action that enable moments of institutional nnovation.Mindful of both short-termcontexts of action and the long-termstructural on-ditions that make it possible, such an approachopens up new perspectivesforanalyzing change andstabilityat the same time.

VII. REFLEXIVITYAs illustratedby the example of scales, such pragmatic nduction is also reflex-ive. This is one of the points thatdistinguisheshistoirecroisdefrom both com-parativism-which, ideally, postulatesthe existence of an externalpointof viewmaking it possible both to constructcomparableobjects and to apply to themcommon analyticalquestionnaires-and transferstudies-which, in most cases,do notquestiontheir mplicitframesof reference.Nevertheless we will not delveinto the reflexivity issue debatedfor more than a centurynow in the social sci-ences.52By way of example, we shall limit ourselves to pointing out a fewinstances n whichhistoirecroisedean contribute o meetingthe challenge posedby reflexivity.Both pragmatic nductionand the proceduresfor historicization

48. See Concerts et publics: Mutations de la vie musicale 1789-1914: France, Allemagne,Grande-Bretagne, d. Hans-ErichBideker, PatriceVeit, and MichaelWerner Paris:Editions de laMaison des sciences de l'homme, 2002).49. See, in particular, n this point, AnthonyGiddens,TheConstitutionof Society:Outlineof theTheoryof StructurationCambridge,Eng: Polity Press, 1984).50. For a reinterpretation f the notion of structure n terms of schemas and resources,andthoughtson its integrationnto a theoryof action anda problematicof change,see William H.Sewell,ATheoryof Structure:Duality,Agency andTransformation, mericanJournalof Sociology 98:1(1992), 1-29.51. For an illustrationof this dual grounding,see Paul-AndreRosental, L'intelligence dimo-graphique:Sciencesetpolitiquesdes populationsen France (1930-1960) (Paris,OdileJacob,2003).52. For the nineteenthcentury, he main referenceremainsDroysen'sHistorik,as well as Dilthey'sproject or a critiqueof historicalreason.Formorerecent debates on reflexivity in the social sciencesand its relationship o theories of modernity,see, in particular,AnthonyGiddens,ConsequencesofModernity Oxford:Polity Press, 1990); UlrichBeck, Anthony Giddens,and Scott Lash,ReflexiveModernizationOxford,PolityPress, 1994).



21/22

HISTOIRECROISEEAND THECHALLENGEOF REFLEXIVITY 49inherentwithin histoire croisee generateforms of reflexivity.Tied to logics ofaction,pragmatic nduction eadsto areadjustment f theprinciplesandthe logicof the inquirywhile it is being conducted.As for historicization, t elucidates therelationshipbetween variousspatio-temporal cales anddifferentregimesof his-toricityandpositionsof observation hat are themselveshistoricallysituated.A histoirecroisee of disciplines helps to illustratecertainaspectsof the reflex-ivity issue. Depending on whether one treats the interpenetrationsbetweenGermanand Americanhistoriographiesafter 1945 from a German, Ameri-can, or French point of view, one obtainsperspectives,and thus interpreta-tions, that are quitedifferent.The emigrationand exile of Germanhistorians othe United States, the re-importation nto Germany after 1950 of originallyGerman heorieshavingbeen in the meantimeacclimatedand Americanized(thiswas thecase with broadaspectsof Weberian ociology), coupledwithrecep-tion theories such as at the Chicago School, caused considerableinterweavingthatrequiresre-evaluationof the viewpointsfrom which the various interpreta-tions have been developed.Commonlyused terms,such as German ociology,became fluid, difficultto use withoutcaution,not to mentioncomplex notionssuch as Historismusand its translationsas historicism,historicisme, istorismo,and so on, each of which relatesto differentperceptions, raditions,and method-ologies.53Consequently, he scholartoday is likely to look upon his or her ownconcepts and analytical nstrumentsas the result of a complex process of inter-crossing in which nationalanddisciplinary raditionshave been amalgamatednvarying configurations,andto reintroduce he correspondingviewpointsinto theinquiry.The aim of histoirecroisee is to shed light on this thick fabricof inter-weavings. In so doing, it does not withdraw nto a spaceof relativist ndecisive-ness or infinite speculativerelationships.54 n the contrary,t aims to utilize theintercrossingof perspectivesand shiftsin pointsof view in orderto studyspecif-ic knowledge effects. Starting from the divergences among various possibleviewpoints,by bringingout their differences and the way in which, historically,they emerge,often in an interdependentmanner,histoire croisle makes it possi-ble to recomposethese elements.55The reflexivityto which it leads is not emptyformalism,butis rathera relational ield thatgeneratesmeaning.

53. Ontheepistemological mplicationsof thisquestion,see AlexandreEscudier, Episthmologiescroishes?L'impossiblelecture des thhoriciensallemandsde l'histoireen Franceautourde 1900, inWernerandZimmermann,De la comparaisona l'histoirecroisde,ed.,139-177. For a presentation fthe problem n the contextof a Germandiscussion,see Otto GerhardOexle, GeschichtswissenschaftimZeichendes Historismus G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,1996).54. On the problem of historical relativism, see Hilary Putnam,Reason, Truth,and History(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1982); Alasdair MacIntyre,Whose Justice? WhichRationality?(NotreDame, IN: Universityof NotreDame Press,1988),349ff. Finally,on the historyof the idea of historical relativity, see Reinhart Koselleck, Geschichte, in GeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe,ed. Otto Brunner,WernerConze, and ReinhartKoselleck (Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,1972-1997), vol. 2 (1979), 647-717, here695-701 andKoselleck,L'experiencede l'histoire(Paris:Gallimard/Seuil,1997),75-81.55. The grounding n the dynamic of social activities makes it possible to place histoirecroisdewithin the debateover constructionism.Onthe one hand,all of theobjectsof histoirecroisee,as wellas the categoriescapableof describingthemandthe problematics o whichthey relate,are assumedto be socially constructed.But, on the otherhand,this does not meanthatthey are all placedon thesame level and that theirrespective positions are irrelevant.Quite to the contrary,we advance the



22/22

50 MICHAELWERNERAND BENEDICTEZIMMERMANNNeitherdoes histoirecroisderesultin a logic of infinite historicalregression.Historicization houldnot be confusedwitha contextualizationhatrequiresdelv-

ing further ndfurther ntohistoricalnvestigation, o as to arriveatamoredetailedrepresentationf the past and its relationship o the present.On the contrary,t isconstructedand circumscribedn relationto an objectanda problematic,makingpossiblethe identificationof the relevanttemporalitiesand thus a delimitationofthe processof historicization.Oncethis has been madeclear,it becomespossibleto examine anew the relationshipsbetween diachronyand synchrony,whichremaindifficult to coordinate,withrespectboth to comparisonand transfer tud-ies. Oneof thecontributions f histoirecroisde s that t makespossiblethe articu-lationof bothof thesedimensions,whereascomparison avorstheimplementationof a synchronic easoning,and ransfer tudiestendtowardananalysisof diachron-ic processes.Crossedhistory, n contrast,enables the synchronicand diachronicregisters o be constantlyrearrangedn relation o eachother.Intercrossing, s has been shown,affects both the researchobjectand researchprocedures.It functions as an active principle in which the dynamics of theinquiryunfold in accordancewith a logic of interactionswhere the various ele-ments are constituted n relationto or throughone another.Considerationof thisaspectof active inclusionand bothits constitutiveandtransformationalffects isat the heartof histoirecroisde.It involves mobile groundingprocessesthat linknot only the observer to the objectbut also objects among themselves. The ele-ments of the space of understandinghus configured-in which the observer ispersonallyengaged-are not fixed, but are instead defined on the basis of theirdynamicinterrelationships.The result is a processof permanentadjustment hatsimultaneously concerns the respective positions of the elements and theprocessesof theircoming intobeing.Over and beyond these distinctive traits that stem from the concept of inter-crossing,histoirecroisefealso results n the rethinkingof the fundamental ensionbetween the logical operationsinvolved in producing knowledge and the his-toricity of both the object and the approachproduced by such knowledge.Asnotedearlier,with respectto questionssuch as the choice of scales, constructionof context,andprocessesof categorization,histoirecroisle engages in a to-and-fro movement between the two poles of the inquiryandthe object.By systemat-ically questioningthe relationshipsbetween these two poles, it seeks-in choos-ing its fields-to respondto the questionof the historicalgroundingof knowl-edge producedby the social sciences. The epistemological challenge of courseremains,and shall continue to remain. But the implementationof the researchagendaof histoirecroiseleas outlinedin this articleleads to the openingof newlines of inquiry capable of changing the conditions under which intellectualexperienceis carriedout.Ecole des Hautes Etudes en SciencesSociales, Parishypothesis that the configurationof the intercrossingand the intellectualoperationcorrespondingthereto ead to a logic thatproduces meaningon the basis of semantic interactionsbetween situatedpositions.Viewed from this perspective, ntercrossingappearsas a social construction hatproducesspecific forms of knowledge.See IanHacking,The Social Constructionof What? Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1999), especially36-59.

wernerzimmermann beyond comparison history and theory45 2006

Documents