Version classiqueVersion mobile

Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités en France et dans les îles Britanniques (xie-xxe siècle)

 | 
Bates David
, 
Gazeau Véronique

Introduction

David Bates

Texte intégral

1The conference held in Glasgow in 2002 at which the papers published in this volume were first given was a model of international collaboration. Intellectually stimulating, convivial and, ultimately, simply very enjoyable, it was characterised by an openness to different approaches which is the only foundation on which genuine international collaborative work can flourish. It was also one of those increasingly rare conferences at which historians of very different chronological periods gathered together and discussed the common themes and methodologies of one another’s papers. From the perspective of a historian who has worked extensively on both sides of the Channel, and of one who has long sought to encourage dialogue between historians in France and Britain, it was an immense personal pleasure to be involved in the organisation of such a successful event and to learn from French colleagues of the other conferences which are taking place under the auspices of the excellent CNRS project “France-îles Britanniques”.

2All who participated in the Glasgow conference were unanimous in the belief not only that collaboration must continue, but that it must be enhanced through the establishment of more formal structures. Some of the arguments in favour of this opinion are long-standing ones; others are much more the product of contemporary trends in historical writing and in changing patterns of international relations. The histories of the territories in which France and England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales were created have been inter-connected from long before the five nations came into existence. At certain times they, or at least parts of them, have shared what amount to common histories. Specialists on great subjects such as the Norman Conquest of England, the Hundred Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and the two great World Wars of the twentieth century have long collaborated to mutual profit. British historians have always been interested in France and their French colleagues likewise in Britain. For very basic reasons of international understanding, such interest is to be encouraged and mechanisms are required to allow it to develop. Yet even in what might be termed traditional areas of cooperation, if my own experience is anything to go by, there is scope for further development through more regular exchanges, the establishment of collaborative supervisions of research students and structures to support research which is cross-Channel in content and methodology. At the more complex level at which historians contribute to debates about public policy and bring historical understanding to bear on current events, understanding and exploration of similarities and differences is vital.

3The last thirty years or so have witnessed an immense expansion in the subjects in which historians are interested. They have also seen considerable debate about the purpose and relevance of History as an intellectual discipline. Although any statement about broad trends must be a simplification, there can be no doubt that the writing of national histories has declined in the face of the spread of a more international discourse based on the social sciences. A new framework for historical discussion has developed around theoretical constructs such as networks, which was the theme of the Glasgow conference, gender, ethnicity, state formation and comparative belief systems which does not invalidate older types of discourse, but which does of necessity have to inform them. The need for international collaboration is axiomatic in the new; the discourse is international, so by definition international collaboration is a necessity. The globalisation of ideas does, however, throw into relief long-standing differences and the difficulties of genuine international understanding among scholars. In this context, language is both a barrier and an opportunity. Those of us who have tried to write and lecture in our two languages are only too aware that certain ideas are more easily expressed in French than English, and vice versa. Comparative History conducted by scholars seeking intellectual enrichment through collaborative exchanges offer the most immediately productive way forward.

4Those who advocate enhanced international collaboration must now justify their arguments for a particular collaboration. Our university campuses are after all now populated with students from all over the world and many scholars have by now participated in numerous international exchanges. Every collaboration justifies itself in ways which are subtly different. The development of stronger links between France and Britain cannot be seen in isolation and in the eyes of many may not necessarily be more important than links between either of them and other parts of the world. Yet it is the mix of common histories and very fraught periods of conflict which make dialogue a necessity. And this is not simply so that we can understand one another better. France and Britain have over many centuries played roles of considerable importance in European and world history. Collaborative and comparative discussion and formal links are indispensable to a further deepening of our collective understanding of those roles. It is also important that the careers of the new generation of young researchers will be much more international than those of my own time. The geographical proximity of France and Britain and the notably warm relationships built up at conferences such as the Glasgow one are an ideal foundation to support further developments.

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search