In the preceding chapter, I tried to build up a picture of a certain change in mentality among merchants and artisans in eighteenth-century Stockholm. The picture that emerged demonstrated that a shift was taking place in the cultural frames of reference. But because the change was very slow, it must have been difficult for those involved to notice it, however much they themselves contributed to it. In time, however, its effects became evident to all, and it is conceivable that, in retrospect, the change can be registered with the help of statistics, for instance.

But can it? What do quantitative series say about the way in which human thought changes with the passage of time? Nothing, some would say – for example, the French historian Roger Chartier and several of the other advocates of a new cultural history. They would be doing so in the face of the tradition from which they themselves have come, the French Annales school, which has always lauded histoire sérielle as the easy road to discerning gradual changes which have an enduring, long-term effect on society.

Those who resist the a priori assumption that the old is already passé would be wise to listen to what these opponents have to say. Because if renewal really is necessary, the structure which was erected in the preceding chapter will topple; if not, it may topple anyway, but for other reasons.

What is new about new cultural history

In the spring of 1987, a group of historians from the old and new world gathered at a conference in California on the subject of a new cultural history. According to the programmatic contributions to the conference report which was subsequently published, this ‘new’ is not simply an alternative to old cultural history, but also research into the mentality, which is considered obsolete.

For Swedish historians it is, perhaps, surprising that research on mentalities is already considered passé, as it has only just reached here. But in other countries, the critical discussion has been under way for quite a while, and the conference on new cultural history may indeed be seen as a natural first culmination in this exchange of views.