Attempting to research an approach that some historians such as Daniel Todman have, in arguing that modern public perception can in some cases misinterpret the reality of historical events. Trying to emphasis the division that can occur between the historian and the public in today's society.
I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but I do have a couple of suggestions for you.
The first is a book titled Terror and Consensus: The Vicissitudes of French Thought, edited by Jean-Joseph Goux and Philip R. Wood (Stanford University Press, 1998). This book examines the phenomenon of 'the French exception', which is the unusually conflictual political process that was inherited from the French revolution and that seems to have distinguished French democracy from that of other European countries. It also examines how this tradition has been exhausted in recent years, through a process of 'normalization' of French society resulting from the various historical changes that occurred in the late 19th and 20th centuries. This is a truly fascinating book.
The other book is titled The Headless Republic: Sacrificial Violence in Modern French Thought by Jesse Goldhammer (Cornell University Press, 2005). This one examines the manner in which French revolutionaries appropriated classical Roman and early Christian ideas about sacrifice and how these ideas were later incorporated into post-revolutionary debates well into the 20th century, as in the work of Bataille, de Maistre, and Sorel. This is also a fascinating read.
You can read school books. I think it's the best way to understand what the public think. You can find some at the store "Boulinier" near Saint Michel in Paris.
You have historical films too, for example there is a film on Napoleon with Christian Clavier and Depardieu, two very well known actors in France.
If you understand french, you can listen to the videos of Henry Guillemin, who shows the mistakes of the common knowledge. For example, he shows that Napoleon was very far from being the awesome leader most people think he was.
Then, if you're brave, you can read a book from popular writer on the theme, such as Zemmour (if you want to buy something from him, be aware that it's the main extreme right autho. So buy used).
Look especially for Les lieux de mémoires (dir. P. Nora, 1984-1992), which were developed during the preparatory period for the commemorations of the French Revolution. Although this is not the only topic of this very big work, far from it,we can say that the French Revolution through the whole subject of the work. See particularly in the first volume (Quarto, 1997 edition) the section titled Symboles (pp. 49-152); and P. Ory, "Le centenaire de la Révolution française", pp. 465-492; in the second volume : F. Furet, "L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution", pp. 2301-2325; in the third, M. Ozouf, "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité", p. 4353-4388.
In other book, J. El Gammal (2008), "La Révolution française, mémoire et controverses", in Les guerres de mémoires. La France et son histoire, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 63-70.
How could he capture "modern public perception" in scholars books that only scholars read ?
Tens of thausands copies of Les lieux de mémoire was sold - almost bestsellers - so a readership well beyond scholars, despite their 5,000 pages.
- Badges
- Science topic