The so-called new political history ceased to be so new at least a decade ago. In fact, it is not at all clear that one of the key axioms of that school—the idea that in the twentieth century political history was overshadowed by Marxism and structuralism—is really correct, since many of those Marxists and structuralists wrote from a political perspective. What is indeed correct is that from the 1980s onward studies on political history have multiplied, embracing themes, chronologies, and actors that had largely been marginalized by the historiography. Nowadays, as important as analyzing state formation and the organization of political parties is knowing the interests at stake for individuals and groups of power, which have a concrete and dynamic history. This type of history focuses primarily on practices, thanks to which the results are less predictable and, therefore, more enriching.
The book A través de otros cristales: Viejos y...
