He reigns about French capitalism a good number of received ideas: thus, his “ delay “Would be attributable to interventions” Colbertists “Of the State in the economy, which would thus obstruct” dynamism »Markets. As many questionable interpretations as the Dictionary of economic economy XVIII–XIXe century intends to denounce, by restoring economic history its letters of nobility.
This collective work, the result of the work of an interdisciplinary team (economists, lawyers, historians, sociologists), with somewhat abstructs, would risk going unnoticed. It is in fact an important book on the progress of a current of dynamic and fruitful research, which is able to restore and in dignity and in interest the place formerly occupied by “ Economic and social history In French historiography.
The ambition displayed by this dictionary is wide: “ Understanding the origins, dynamics and contemporary problems in terms of competition and market discipline “, Through 25 entries, assumed as short” testing »Who go from Learning (Claire Lemercier) at Work-time (Patrick Fridenson).
The general framework for the history of capitalism in France has long been inseparable from a comparative history of France and England, at the worst of an anhistoric confrontation between the history of the French case and an abstract model of capitalism. Hence the ritual and throbbing denunciation of “ colbertism “, of “ corporatism “, of “ jacobinism »… So many terms which, from a concrete historical situation, ended up designating general ills responsible for the famous» French delay “, Respectively the excessive intrusion of the State into the economy, the refusal of the rules of” labor market “, And abusive centralization. The different authors of this dictionary are false against this intellectual approach. They are gathered by the desire to examine the real practices of economic actors, to refute these far too summary distinctions although generally accepted between market and state, and more subtly between market and regulation, which refer more or less to the opposition between “ private ” And “ audience ». Thus, for example legal level, the opposition between the supposed flexibility of the Common Law Anglo-Saxon (conceived as a set of norms spontaneously emanating from economic actors) and the alleged rigidity of the Civil Law French (a code of law defining a prioriat the cost of regular revisions, the framework of exchanges) is it strongly nuanced. So that in the analysis of economic conflicts of a legal order, this opposition ends up appearing to be inoperative.
A historian reading
The historian reader will not be disoriented when reading this dictionary, in particular because he will find some of the great feathers of economic history today, or that he will taste the malicious astonishment to (re) arise in the debates of “ Three -centuries old arguments »(Jean-Pierre Hirsch, article Competition). It is indeed a history of history, defining an object, a method, building a duration and offering a story.
Its object is to build concepts thanks to a constant work of contextualization confronting general discourses with the real practices and functioning of the markets ; Work of historicization also, relating to the evolution of the ways of building the categories of analysis and understanding of reality.
The originality of the project is to want to constitute a “ school By building a specific category, the “ lawyer-right “, What could be taken for a report if the consonance was so little attractive. The approach in fact is explicitly registered (by bibliographic references) or implicitly in efforts initiated in the 1980s by modernist historians such as Steven Kaplan, Jean-Claude Perrot or Jean-Pierre Hirsch, fortunately prosecuted by Philippe Minard, by socio-history dear to Gérard Noiriel and by the review Genesor even by the “ School of regulation »Hosted in particular by Robert Boyer. The fact remains that the method is rigorously exposed to the reader-at the risk of tiring the non-specialist-in the introduction, and that precise references to the sources and archive boxes abound in many articles.
The dictionary also builds a duration. Chronological terminals (XVIIIe–XXe) are not intended to set an artificial framework allowing to bring together contributions under very diverse eras. In this regard, we appreciate that the very contemporary issues of the modification of accounting rules are not forgotten in the context of European construction and therefore a strong break in the history of French capitalism. The major challenge is to refute too simple periodization distinguishing the succession of the Old Regime, from the Liberal State, then from the Social State. To discuss this chronology, the authors are based on two postulates: the interweaving of forms of freedom and regulation characterizes each of these different periods ; The analysis of these forms of regulation should not stop at macroeconomic or administrative regulation, but also be interested in market regulations via private contracts. This is the originality of this chronological proposal: the effort already made to examine this question at the time of the revolutionary turning point is prosecuted for the XIXe century, by works devoted to the chambers of commerce, to the industrial tribunal, to the Council of State … The dominant reading “ Tocquevillian », Work of political philosophy, sees its legitimacy crumbling: how now to build a French specificity in the XIXe century in the refusal to consider intermediary bodies between the individual and the State, while the examination of the real functioning of the markets shows vitality, and which is more an institutionalized vitality ?
Heurs and misfortunes of a genre: the historical dictionary
In the service of this ambitious reading, another dictionary ! Admittedly, the convenience of an alphabetical order, the usefulness for welding a team not only interdisciplinary, but also inter-generational ; We savor the game of subtle references to the ancestors of this dictionary, the Advice from the perfect merchant by Jacques Savary (1675) or the Trade Dictionary de Guillaumin (1837) ; We praise the existence of two entries on the same theme (Family and business In law by J.- L. Halpérin, Family and business in history by J.- P. Hirsch) ; We admire the virtuosity of the index comprising more than a hundred terms which allows a cross reading of the 25 entries ; We salute the introduction which distinguishes four themes (the actors of the economy-right, the regulation of capitalist dynamics, the discipline of competition, the role of the State) which make it possible to bring together articles.
However, beyond all these arguments, the reader left free to carry out the “ crosses “That he wishes, can legitimately remain hungry ; legitimately, because the interest of the various contributions suggests that the moment is close to a new synthesis on the history of French capitalism. Historians of today, so quick to pin the inadequacies or approximations of their predecessors, might make their morgue forgive by risking in turn to build stories, rather than deliver their thought “ in kit ».
We know that since the 1990s, the epistemology of history in France has been crossed by a wave of questions. Two examples among others: historians had to react to “ Linguistic Turn “Affected in the United States which analyzes the historical account like any other story and therefore calls into question its specificity, the search for truth and the administration of proof, or even assume the” Critique »Proclaimed in 1988 by the review Annals…
It is clear that the foundations of the historian operation, broken down from Langlois and seignobos into analytical operations (construction of an object from a vigilant criticism of sources) and in synthetic operations (production of a true story), were debated. This context of epistemological doubt undoubtedly explains this inflation of dictionaries. It might seem more urgent to redefine the concepts, to explore their construction and its history. However, the “ Back to storytelling Proclaimed as a deceased necessity … At least in economic history.
A historic turning point in human sciences ?
However, the publication of this dictionary has great use. By illustrating the contemporary ways of making history, it may augur a “ Historical turning point in human sciences ».
We can see in the entrances of this dictionary that these epistemological questions have not been in vain, and that the triumph of interdisciplinarity may be promised. The work testifies that the attention of historians has effectively paid towards the construction of the categories they use, towards the possibility of a set of scales between microphone and macro-history (although this last term has not entered the use), towards the study of the behavior of the actors, towards the regimes of historicity, that is to say the different forms of the relationship to the past …
The beautiful energy at work in the young generation of researchers (Claire Lemercier or Hélène Lemesle, for example) comes out of fashion, while recalling them, the hesitations of historians of the sixties in the face of a “ economics »Finally very young, especially since she also appropriates the tools of law, sociology, anthropology …
We can clearly see how this historical approach, more ready than in the past to start a dialogue with the other social sciences, can take out the economy of its Robinsonnades when it must explain the origin of the market, respond to the concern formulated from the beginnings of sociology which feared seeing anomie settle in an atomized society of individuals, animate in the history of law the dialectic between law and jurisprudence.
This hope may seem out of words or simply premature, but it is not surprising to see the dialogue between disciplines in the apparently forgotten field – and unjustly mocked – widen “ Economic and social history », With fertility that can only envy him« cultural history Who struggles to legitimize his thunderous hegemony. Beyond this historiographical issue, this dictionary is a working instrument necessary for research, sometimes taking the form of a guide to sources and methodology. It also has an undeniable civic interest in an public bored to hear all time to essentialize concepts such as “ markets ” (Who “ express their dissatisfaction or their approval “…), or” corporatism “(“ enemy of freedom »). We understood it, we will find little “ preconception “, But we are now waiting for authors something other than a dictionary. Because the political uses of a ready to think “ liberal Have already hampered our understanding of the economy and society too much too much.