Bloch, Social Sciences, and Ultranationalism

In response to this prompt, I am going to utilize the “Also feel free to just talk about the book as you normally would” card and weave in and out of posed questions.

While reading Bloch, the first thing that I noticed was his depth of knowledge and the extent of this work. He hits on SO many different aspects of what he describes as feudalism and a “feudal society”. From a certain standpoint, it’s interesting how Bloch describes the society itself as being feudal, rather than a society which incorporates feudalistic aspects. One being at the core of the society itself, the latter is an aspect of it. Through his comparative history he hits on just about every aspect of this society from its foundation, two eras, historiography, law, kinship, vassalage, literature, etc. I was at first worried that Bloch may have bit off a bit more than he could chew. I began thinking this might be a failed attempt at a sort of Universalist (though yes, still tied to the feudal era) work attempting to wrap an entire society up into a nice neat package. However, this isn’t Bloch’s intentions and in the end, from what I read, he does an outstanding job of defining and outlaying what he believes to be the feudal society. I still found myself getting lost in the immense details he provides to which I have very little context, though I don’t believe this work should be taken as an introduction to feudalism, but rather as an in-depth (though slightly antiquated) exploration into a society his contemporaries may have misunderstood.

Something very important about his work that I wanted to touch on, however, is the context in which Bloch composed his work. He is seen as one of the founders of the Annals school. This school of thought prides itself on the study of societies and utilizing, as we have seen in Townsend, this mid 20^th century incorporation of history into the social sciences. I personally believe that Bloch utilized his knowledge of medieval Europe to launch a revolution in thought. His work differs from many of the historians before him in focusing less on politics, “kings”, nations, war, etc. and more on the society itself. Bloch work and the Annals school is sort of an amalgamation history, anthropology, and sociology. Perhaps he is best seen in what Townsend mentions as a “social historian”. Coming from the early to mid 20^th century with the rise in totalitarian governments and ultranationalist beliefs, Bloch’s work stands in direct opposition. He is discrediting the agenda historians hired by the state to glorify the state and its history. He stands in opposition to a history of great men and great events, but rather talks about the larger picture (XI). Bloch focuses on the movement of peoples, their relationships/kinship, values, perceptions, and other societal frameworks. He speaks of the society itself, in this case his magnum opus on “Feudal Society”.  In this regard, he is almost the anti-Prescott. Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but their historical philosophies would differ greatly!