The attached essay was originally written as an introduction to a special issue of Irish Historical Studies (May 2013) which I edited and contributed to. The published version is somewhat different in focus and shorter than this one and I thought it might be of interest in the context of how historians construct different chronological periods for research.
The
Origins of Contemporary Ireland: New Perspectives on the Recent Past
Introduction
The contributions to this special issue of Irish Historical Studies explore recent
Irish history from a variety of perspectives. It is possible to publish this
special issue now because a significant output of new research on the period
has appeared.[1]
This was reinforced by the large number of proposals received for a conference
organised in UCD in November 2010 on a similar theme and from which the
articles presented here have been drawn.[2]
The on-going release of government archives and the availability of diverse
other sources for research provides the means for the application of historical
methodologies to Irish history into the 1980s if not beyond. One of the aims of
this issue is to engage with the existing literature in the field and to review
interpretations of the period offered by the social sciences and journalism. It
does not claim to be comprehensive as research on many topics is still at an
early stage.[3]
These articles provide new perspectives on specific topics and investigate
themes and questions that emerge in the 1960s and 1970s in a changing Ireland. Surveying
this period, Roy Foster concluded that, we live in ‘contemporary history’,
adding that ‘For Ireland, it is the rate of change in the last thirty years of
the Twentieth Century that is most bewildering’.[4]
There is an implicit view in the contributions that this is the period when
contemporary Ireland appears as a focus for discussion and research.
I
The notion of contemporary history as a distinctive
period for historical study remains controversial. Many historians would accept
Arthur Marwick’s view that the term ‘contemporary’ is merely a convenient label
for the study of the most recent past. According to this view, ‘the
contemporary historian employs the same concepts and the same methodology as
any other historian’. Despite this, Marwick concedes that there are specific
problems associated with such research, ‘often one simply does not know “what
happened next”, and one finds difficulty in supressing the influence of
personal recollection’.[5]
A more radical and conceptually nuanced analysis has been provided by Geoffrey
Barraclough who maintained that contemporary history needs to be treated in a
distinctive fashion and involves a rupture with the methods employed when
researching modern history. For Barraclough, contemporary history focuses on
the recent past, but it is not merely the study of the most recent period of
history as Marwick maintains. This rupture between the modern and the
contemporary is central to Barraclough’s claim that historians of the
contemporary era have to take account of the substantive and subtle differences
between the two eras. He also challenges the working assumptions of most
historians that each successive period is ‘the most recent phase of a
continuous process’, emphasising instead the disruptive and unstable aspects of
the contemporary period. In brief, Barraclough suggests that the contemporary
era begins around the 1890s and is characterised by the decline of Europe, the
redistribution of power to the United States and the Soviet Union as well as
the emergence of new problems, conflicts and institutions.[6]
Peter Catterall revisited the question of distinctiveness and concluded
cautiously that the methods, themes and sources employed in studying the recent
past does set contemporary history apart from the modern period.[7]
More recently Spohr Readman reviewed the question extensively, concluding that
while historians do not follow Barraclough’s specific periodization they do
treat the period 1945-1990 as a distinctive period in their research.[8]
Contemporary history can be written in a number of
ways and not always by historians. Journalists often provide early assessments
of the recent past, based on extensive interviews and the examination of
available documentation.[9] Social
scientists contribute to an understanding of the contemporary era by their
research on economic policy, elections and the social system.[10]
Historians also contribute to discussions of the contemporary era when they are
engaged in longer term studies. For example, J. J. Lee’s influential study Ireland: 1912-1985 contains and
extensive discussion of Ireland since 1960 which, unlike the earlier chapters,
was not based on archival sources. Lee’s work (and that of Bew, Ferriter and
Foster) draws attention to the danger of ‘presentism’ when dealing with recent
or current issues. Lee was concerned to explain the relatively poor performance
of the Irish economy since independence. The positive response to Lee’s
analysis suggests widespread concern with the state of the economy at that
time. Foster’s Luck and the Irish by
contrast was in large part a celebration of the success of the Celtic tiger.[11]
These works and other historical studies sustain Foster’s view that ‘it should
be possible for a historian to look at the latest period in Irish history from
a historical standpoint, as opposed to that of a sociologist, or an economist,
or a political scientist – though the insights of all these disciplines must be
employed’.[12]
Notwithstanding this point, the most valuable
resource that the historian brings to the discussion of the contemporary era is
the sophisticated interrogation of archives and the historical methodology
based on this. [13]
Contemporary history came into general usage when historians began to study the
origins of the First World War in the decade immediately after 1919, studies made
possible by the release of considerable documents by the former belligerents. This
also occurred after the Second World War and following the end of the Cold War.[14]
One outcome of this process was that major historical studies were published on
a past that was still well within living memory. This interaction between
history and memory is a challenge and opportunity for historians and is perhaps
the most significant departure from traditional history writing.[15] The
issues addressed by Barraclough have not been resolved since the publication of
his pioneering study, but they do continue to provoke debate and reflection.
The writing of contemporary history has become more sophisticated, even if
individual historians do not adopt Barraclough’s periodization. What has
emerged is a rich and diverse field broadly focussed on the twentieth century,
and more recently on the post 1945 period. Despite this, there is little
agreement about what constitutes contemporary history in the specialist
journals. Inter-war Europe remains strongly represented, while the 1945-70
period is now a major focus for research and publication. The period since 1971
is less well served although it is a strong feature of Contemporary British History.[16]
II
In the Irish case, neither 1890 nor 1945 provide a
persuasive point of departure for contemporary history. While it is difficult to
fit individual cases into the macro-historical framework outlined by Barraclough,
it is possible to adopt his suggestion that ‘contemporary history should be
considered as a distinct period of time, with characteristics of its own which
mark it off from the preceding period’.[17] For example, it is arguable that the period
from 1959, when Eamon de Valera retires as Taoiseach, to the general election
of 2011 when Fianna Fáil ceased to be the dominant party in the political
system can be treated as a distinctive period for the purposes of historical
research.[18]
A change in leadership itself does not constitute a new era, nor does it
necessarily announce the beginning of a new distinctive phase in history.
However, the succession of Seán Lemass was in many ways a ‘turning point’ and a
decisive moment in the emergence of contemporary Ireland.[19] Care
should be taken not to associate an entire period with a single individual and
attention needs to be paid to the complex nature of continuity as well as
change in the process being assessed.[20]
Enda Delaney has applied the term ‘late modernity’ to this period when, as he
puts it, Ireland ‘became self-consciously “modern”’. He also warns against a
one dimensional or determinist framework for analysing the period, suggesting
that continuity overlaps and coexists with change.[21]
Notwithstanding this caution, it is possible to argue that the ‘Lemass era’ is
a distinctive one and its break with the previous period influenced the
direction of Ireland for the next fifty years. [22]
His leadership is associated with economic change, a dramatic shift in Irish
diplomatic priorities and institutional innovation in government and public
life. These changes were reinforced by educational reform, the introduction of
a national television service and the appearance of new ideas and attitudes.[23]
By the middle of the 1960s, change was already
discernible. The German novelist Heinrich Böll was dismayed by the pace and
nature of change when he revisited Ireland in the 1960s. He noted the absence
of references to nuns in newspapers and was appalled by discussion about
contraception. Böll recognised that many in Ireland would not share his
concerns and that there were those who believed that pace of change was far too
slow.[24] Lemass
was aware that his policies would have a significant impact on Ireland. Desmond
Fisher recalled that:
He predicted great
changes in Ireland before the end of the century-contraception and divorce
being legalised and materialism becoming widespread because of growing
prosperity. Back in 1962 these predictions seemed, at least to me, to be a bit
daring.[25]
Yet Lemass in turn was succeeded by Jack Lynch, a
more cautious politician who was much less inclined to promote change.
Nevertheless, it is possible to underestimate how much changed in the decades
after 1959. Not a single aspect of Irish society was untouched by these changes
and though some lead to conflict and confrontation others were quickly
assimilated by the society. The debates on contraception and divorce reflect
the former, while the attraction of foreign investment and membership of the
European Economic Community remained broadly consensual. There is room for
debate on the extent and meaning of change but there is a strong case to be
made that by 2011 Ireland is a qualitatively different place to that of 1959.
The key point for this discussion is that this process is dynamic non-determinist.
III
How then should the period be evaluated? This
remains an open question and the contributions included here adopt a variety of
methods to answer specific questions. However, writing history when the
individuals who experienced it are still alive poses specific problems as well
as opportunities. The dilemma for the
contemporary historian was starkly highlighted when veteran Fianna Fáil TD Dan
Breen complained at a party meeting that a history book was ‘misleading and
untrue’ because of its treatment of the War of Independence among other
matters. In response, the Minister for Education revealed that discussions had
taken place with the authors and that a section on the civil war had been
removed.[26]
By the 1970s many of these issues remained controversial, but careful studies
of Ireland since independence could and were written. While archival sources
remained limited for much of the period, studies such as Lyons’s Ireland since the Famine and Murphy’s Ireland in the Twentieth Century
provided careful and balanced assessments of contemporary issues and
controversies.[27]
Subsequent studies expanded the range of analysis and incorporated archival
sources as they appeared. By the 1990s the material was available to write
comprehensive histories of Ireland since 1945 and subsequently to transform the
study of contemporary Ireland. Government archives were not the only source
available and they were complemented by private papers of politicians and
organisations as well as memoirs, diaries and oral histories.[28]
While recognising the important contribution that research based on these archives
has made Thomas Hachey has noted the ‘overwhelming dominance of political
history’ in recent Irish historiography. He suggests that this has created an
‘imbalance’ in the discipline and notes the absence of ‘new history’ with its
emphasis on culture rather than politics and the lack of engagement by
historians with the insights of postmodernism and poststructuralism.[29]
Privileging official sources is a constant concern for all history writing and
not just contemporary history. It is important however to draw a distinction
between the need to take account of the ‘new’ history and the nihilistic
philosophical positions taken by advocates of postmodernism and
poststructuralism in respect of history.[30]
Thus, Carlo Ginsberg, a major influence on the ‘new’ historiography strongly
rejects any association between his work and that of postmodernism or
poststructuralism. The new historiography has encouraged the adoption of a
multi-dimensional approach to historical themes.[31]
Of particular importance is the focus on non-elite history and the
establishment of critical distance between the historian and the state or elite
view of the world. There is an awareness that it is necessary for historians to
offer a more inclusive narrative that explores the experiences and behaviour of
the majority who are often unseen by history. Hachey’s criticism is a valid one
in this respect, though the situation is not as pessimistic as he suggests.
Historians do need to be especially alert to privileging elite or political
history, but some caution is necessary. Official sources can also hold
important clues to the attitudes and behaviour of everyday life or the concerns
of the ordinary person. Court records have been used by Diarmaid Ferriter to
uncover a hidden aspect of Irish sexuality. The significant body of
correspondence received by the Taoiseach and other government departments
during the contraception controversy in the 1970s can be mined for popular attitudes
towards this issue. An oral history of the elite Women’s Liberation Movement can
be contrasted with the views of the Irish Countrywomen’s Association, the
largest women’s organisation in Ireland.[32]
Contemporary historians need to be as
methodologically sophisticated in using these sources as medieval or early
modern historians are in their respective fields.[33] They
also need to grapple with the challenge of newer media such as television and
film. These data require careful and critical engagement in the same way that
traditional documents are treated.[34] It
is not enough to use them to illustrate, as is often the case with photographs,
they need to be integrated into the fabric of the historical endeavour itself.
Television broadcasts everything from interviews with politicians to life style
shows and it can be through this visual encounter that the general public forms
its first impression of an event.[35] Another
major resource available to the contemporary historian is oral history, which records
elite and popular memories, often long after the event. There have been major
advances in terms of technique, scope and methodology in this important field
of research. Historians often use one to one interviews when writing the recent
past, especially on biographical studies, and this is a tried and tested technique
for journalists.[36]
Moreover, oral history alongside television and radio provides access to mass
opinion in a way unknown in the past. It is now possible to collect memories
from non-elite groups and from those whose voices have not been heard in the past.
This creates the real possibility of a history of everyday life that gives
meaning to mass experiences. However, there are methodological problems
associated with these data, notably with the reliability of memory itself. Notwithstanding
this, oral history provides an important resource for writing contemporary
history and one that can provide significant insights if used with care and
empathy.[37]
One might add memoirs, autobiography and diaries such as those published by
Noël Browne, Garret FitzGerald or Gemma Hussey.[38]
The difficulty associated with
such material is that they are often the only direct account we have and they
can be partial and subjective. Diaries may be contemporary but memoirs rarely
are, even when based on contemporary notes or diaries. Furthermore, once these
sources are published, researchers go to these individuals for interviews which
in turn reinforce the significance of their interpretation. There is also the
issue of absence. Garret FitzGerald was accessible to researchers after he
retired as Taoiseach, whereas Charles J. Haughey rarely agreed to be
interviewed. While it is possible to use these sources positively, the impact
of absence and the partial nature of the source require careful attention by
historians.
Computing, the internet and electronic data
collections provide additional resources for contemporary historians. Documents
can be digitised and downloaded off-site and reports, research papers and
statistical material can be more easily accessed through the internet. Large
data sets can be more easily interrogated and content analysis is facilitated
by powerful computing tools. Opinion polls provide a glimpse of mass opinion at
a single point in time and can also be re-analysed by historians to ask new
questions.[39]
Opinion polling has been a regular feature of Irish life since the 1970s and
the data sets are available from a number of data archives. A particularly
important data set for the study of contemporary Ireland is the European Values
Study which has collected data since 1981. It is possible by using these data
to trace the evolution of popular attitudes to a wide range of topics in
Ireland and compare them with other European states.[40]
The compelling case for using these data is that it provides access to
non-elite views on a variety of topics and permits the historian to ask
additional question about these views. This is reinforced if, as is increasingly
the case, these surveys are accompanied by focus groups to collect the views of
individuals.
While historians can now draw on a rich store of
data collected by the social sciences and can apply historical methodologies to
their interpretation, tensions remain. Peter Burke has drawn attention to the
possibility of a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ between historians and social
scientists. Burke believes in the possibility of a creative dialogue between
the disciplines and this has considerable appeal.[41]
Notwithstanding this prospect, historians and social scientists are engaged in
a rather different endeavour and employ distinctive methodologies. At the heart
of historical methodology is documentation, whether a letter, a report or a
video recording and narrative remains at the heart of the exercise.[42] An
important case in point is the debate on the origins and evolution of European
integration since 1945. Alan Milward challenged existing explanations for post
war integration in Europe and in a series of sophisticated studies he and his
colleagues drew on the archives of the states involved in the integration
process to demonstrate the inadequacy of the social science paradigm.[43] Milward
questioned these views by testing them against what specific actors
(government, business and trade unions) were actually saying to one another and
tracing the policy development within newly opened archives. Milward placed the
state at the heart of the post war integration process and challenged
explanations which implied that interdependence and integration were the motors
for change. The work of Milward and his colleagues suggested that scholars had
seriously misread the integration process and that its origins and success was
not based on an inevitable drive for integration but as a consequence of
domestic and self-interested considerations on the part of individual states.
Thus the commitment to integration was always conditional on maintaining the
sovereignty and integrity of the state, even paradoxically when the state was
sharing some of its sovereignty.[44] In
this case, Burke’s comment on the dialogue of the deaf has some strength and
Milward’s work has not been assimilated into the mainstream of integrationist
studies, even though no alternative explanation has been provided. The richness
of Milward’s contribution is that he has worked assiduously in the archives of
a number of states in Europe, but also provided an alternative theoretical
approach to the question that is plausible.[45]
IV
The writing of contemporary history is in an early
phase in Ireland. The articles published in this issue seek to extend and
deepen the understanding of major themes that have their origin in the period
since 1959. The aim is to contribute to an historical understanding of the
recent past and to establish where possible what is distinctive about the
period. In broad terms the articles adopt Milward’s strategy of engaging with
the existing literature and testing it against the archival record in its
broadest sense. In doing so, the intention is to provide a more robust and
persuasive narrative for a period that is now the object of historical
research.
[1] ‘Theses on
Irish history completed in Irish universities, 2009’ Irish Historical Studies XXXVII: 146 (2010), pp. 293-5 illustrates
some recent work in the field.
[2] ‘Ireland since
1966: New Perspectives’ UCD, 11 November 2010. The conference was organised
with the support of the UCD School of History and Archives and the Department
of Politics, University of Glasgow.
[3] The editor
would have wished to include articles on the Irish media and Irish membership
of the EEC, but space restricted the number of articles that could be included
and some potential authors were unable to contribute due to other commitments.
[4] Roy Foster, Luck and the Irish (London, 2007), p. 3
[5] Arthur Marwick,
The Nature of History (London, 1970),
p. 242; nor did the passage of time lead to a re-evaluation of these views,
idem; The New Nature of History
(London, 2001)
[6] Geoffrey
Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary History (Harmondsworth,
Penguin 1967; original ed., 1964), pp. 1-20
[7] Peter
Catterall, ‘What (if anything) is distinctive about contemporary history?’ Journal
of Contemporary History 32: 4 (1997), pp. 441-52; Brian Brivati, Julia
Buxton and Anthony Seldon (Eds.) The
Contemporary History Handbook (Manchester, 1996)
[8] Kristina Spohr
Readman, ‘Contemporary History in Europe: From mastering national Pasts to the
Future of Writing the World’ in Journal
of Contemporary History 46: 3 (2011), pp. 506-30
[9] First class
examples of this genre include Fintan O’Toole, Meanwhile Back at the Ranch: The Politics of Irish Beef, (London,
1995); Stephen Collins, The Power Game: Fianna Fáil since Lemass
(Dublin, 2000); Justin O’Brien, The Arms Trial
(Dublin, 2000); Fintan O’Toole, Enough is
Enough: How to Build a New Republic (London, 2010)
[10] Brian Nolan,
Philip J. O’Connell and Christopher T. Whelan (eds.), Bust to Boom? The
Irish Experience of Growth and Inequality (Dublin, 2000); Tony Fahey, Helen
Russell and C. T. Whelan (Eds.) Best of
times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger (Dublin, 2007); Michael
Gallagher and Michael Marsh, Days of blue
Loyalty: The politics of membership of the Fine Gael party (Dublin, 2002);
Brian Girvin and Gary Murphy (eds.) Continuity,
change and Crisis in Ireland: New Perspectives, Research and Interpretation
special issue: Irish Political Studies 23: 4 (2008)
[11] R. G.
Collingwood, ‘Can Historians be Impartial’ in R. G. Collingwood, The Principles of History and other writing
in philosophy of history (Oxford, 1999), pp. 209-18; J. J. Lee, Ireland: 1912-1985 (Cambridge, 1989),
pp. 511-62; Foster, Luck and the Irish;
Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of
Ireland: 1900-2000 (London: 2004); Paul Bew, Ireland: The Politics of Enmity 1789-2006 (Oxford, 2007), pp.
486-555
[12] Foster, Luck
and the Irish, p. 1
[13] Jan Palmowski
and Kristina Spohr Readman, ‘Speaking Truth to Power: Contemporary History in
the Twenty-First Century’, in Journal of
Contemporary History 46: 3 (2011), pp. 485-505
[14] Kristina Spohr
Readman, ‘Contemporary History in Europe’, pp. 506-30
[15] History and Memory, first published in
1989, remains the main journal for the examination of this interaction.
[16] A survey of Irish Historical Studies for this
article found that out of 134 articles published since 2000 not a single one
directly focussed on the period since 1959, though three did continue
discussion of their theme into the 1960s. This is not significantly different
from other history journals; Spohr Readman, ‘Contemporary History in Europe’,
pp. 510-11
[17] Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary History,
p. 12
[18] It is not my
intention to defend this classification in detail and it is quite possible that
alternatives can be provided.
[19] T. E. Hachey,
‘Introduction’ in T. E. Hachey (ed.) Turning
Points in Twentieth-Century Irish History (Dublin: 2011), pp. 1-3
[20] Fergal Tobin, The Best of Decades: Ireland in the 1960s
(Dublin: 1984); Brian Girvin and Gary Murphy, ‘Whose Ireland? The Lemass Era’
in Brian Girvin and Gary Murphy (Eds.) The
Lemass Era: Politics and Society in the Ireland of Seán Lemass (Dublin:
2005), pp.1-11; for a recent critical reinterpretation of Lemass and his
influence Bryce Evans, Seán Lemass:
Democratic Dictator (Cork: 2011), pp. 207-59
[21] Enda Delaney,
‘Modernity, the past and Politics in Post-War Ireland’, in Hachey, Turning Points in Twentieth Century Irish
History, pp. 103-18; Brian Girvin, ‘Continuity, Change and Crisis in
Ireland: An Introduction and Discussion’ in Irish
Political Studies 23: 4 (2008), pp. 457-74
[22] Lemass
International Forum, Royal Irish Academy 23 June 2009; the programme included
academic papers and round tables that discussed Lemass’s influence and how this
could be mobilised to meet the economic crisis that Ireland faced. The
programme was extensively reported, Irish
Times, 24 June 2009; Irish
Independent, 24 June 2009
[23] Robert Savage, A Loss of Innocence? Television and Irish
society 1960-72 (Manchester, 2010); Michael J. Geary, An Inconvenient Wait: Ireland’s Quest for Membership of the EEC 1957-73
(Dublin, 2009); Martin Wall, ‘Ireland and the European Economic community,
1973-1977: A Small State and European Integration’ (Ph.D., thesis, National
University of Ireland, Cork, 2011)
[24] Heinrich Böll, Irish Journal (Evanston, Illinois:
1994), pp. 121-27
[25] John Horgan, Seán Lemass: The Enigmatic Patriot
(Dublin, 1997), p. 225
[26] Fianna Fáil
Parliamentary Party Minutes 11 June 1941 (U.C.D.A., P176/440)
[27] John A. Murphy,
Ireland in the Twentieth Century
(Dublin: 1975); F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland
Since the Famine(London, rev. ed., 1973), pp. 559-694
[28]
The papers
of Conor Cruise O’Brien, Patrick Hillery and Garret FitzGerald, for instance,
are held by UCDA.
[29] Hachey,
‘Introduction’, p. 3; Peter Catterall, ‘What (if anything) is distinctive about
contemporary history?’ Journal of Contemporary History 32: 4 (1997), pp.
441-52, appeals for a more flexible understanding of sources and a serious
questioning of official ones, p. 447;
[30] Peter Burke,
‘Overture. The New History: Its Past and its Future’ in Peter Burke (Ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Writing
(2nd ed., Oxford, 2001), pp. 1-24; Geoffrey Roberts (ed.) The History and Narrative Reader
(London, 2001) explores most aspects of this debate within the philosophy of
history.
[31] Peter Burke,
‘History of Events and the Revival of narrative’ in Roberts, The History and Narrative Reader, pp.
305-19
[32] Diarmaid Ferriter,
Occasions of Sin (London, 2009);
Brian Hanley and Scott Millar, The Lost
Revolution: The Story of the Official IRA and the Workers’ Party (Dublin,
2009)Anne Stopper, Monday at Gaj’s: The Story of the Irish Women’s
Liberation Movement (Dublin, 2006); ICA papers are available in the NLI.
[33] Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Alters: Traditional
religion in England c1400-c1580 (London, 2005); Wayne P. Te Brake, Shaping History: Ordinary People in European
Politics 1500-1700 (London, 1998)
[34] Brivati, Buxton
and Seldon, The Contemporary History
Handbook, pp. 383-436
[35] There is very
limited access for research purposes to RTE’s film archive; however its written
archives are currently being transferred to UCDA.
[36] John Horgan for
instance collected a considerable archive of interviews for his biography of
Seán Lemass and has made it available to researchers.
[37] Robert Perks
and Alistair Thomson, The Oral History
Reader (London, 1998)provides multiple insights into this complex area; see
also Gwyn Prins ‘Oral History’ in Burke, New
Perspectives on Historical Writing, pp. 120-56; Alison Winter, Memory: Fragments of a Modern History
(Chicago, 2012) for a sceptical view.
[38] Noël Browne, Against the Tide (Dublin, 1986); John
Horgan, Noël Browne: Passionate Outsider
(Dublin, 2000); Correspondence between Conor Cruise O’Brien, Brendan Corish and
Browne adds a further corrective to the original memoir (U. C. D. A. Conor
Cruise O’Brien Papers P82/209-15); Garret FitzGerald, All in a Life: An Autobiography (Dublin, 1991); Gemma Hussey, at the Cutting Edge: Cabinet Diaries,
1982-1987 (Dublin, 1990)
[39] Developments in
the field of computing and history can be followed in the International Journal of the Humanities and Arts Computing
(formerly History and Computing)
[40] Opinion poll data
sets can be accessed at www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/IOPA/index.php; www.ucd.ie/issda; www.data-archive.ac.uk
[41] Peter Burke, History
and Social Theory (Cambridge, 2005 2nd ed.), pp. 1-20.
[42] This discussion
can be traced in Roberts, The History and
Narrative Reader, pp. 69-140
[43] Desmond Dinan,
‘The Historiography of European Integration’ in Desmond Dinan (Ed.) Origins and Evolution of the European Union
(Oxford, 2006), pp. 297-324
[44] A. S. Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation-State
(London, 1992); A. S. Milward, F. M. B. Lynch, Federico
Romero, Ruggerio Ranieri and Vibeke Sørensen, The Frontiers of National
Sovereignty: History and Theory 1945-1992 (London, 1993)
[45] Historians
favourable to European integration as a political project find it difficult to
accommodate Milward’s research as it undermines a normative belief in the
inevitability of European integration; see Wolfram Kaiser and Antonio Varsori
(Eds.), European Union History: Themes
and Debates (Houndmills, Basingstoke, 2010); for a sympathetic assessment
of Milward’s historiography see F. M. B. Lynch and Fernando Guirao, ‘The
Implicit Theory of Historical Change in the Work of Alan S. Milward’ EUI
Working Papers HEC 2012/01 (Florence, 2012)
Wonderful that the special edition is finally published. Thanks for everything, Brian.
ReplyDelete