Book Review: Osmo Jussila, Seppo Hentilä, and Jukka Nevakivi, From Grand Duchy to a Modern State: A Political History of Finland since 1809 (London: Hurst and Co., 1999, 397 pp., £14.95 pbk.)
| Author | Michael Keaney |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290030920 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Millennium
962
Osmo Jussila, Seppo Hentilä, and Jukka Nevakivi, From Grand Duchy to a
Modern State: A Political History of Finland since 1809 (London: Hurst and Co.,
1999, 397 pp., £14.95 pbk.).
As the autho rs of this volu me state in the foreword to the English-language edition,
in Finland political history is taugh t as a disti nct academic subject. They c laim that
the ‘primary re mit of pol itical history is to provide a research-based introduction to
contempora ry society and the world today’ (p. ix). Thi s sounds n o different from
the more generally recognised sphere of contemporary history. Indeed, the
acknowled gement (and apparent ap proval) of political h istory’s evolu tion from a
‘great man/statesman ap proach’ towards something ‘ more in line with the rest of
the social scie nces, particularly economic and socia l h istory’ would appear to
undermine the justi fication for such a specific div ision of intellectual lab our (pp.
ix-x).
It is, therefo re, a matter of no smal l irony that the aut hors proceed to conce ntrate
upon perso nalities and their resp ective roles, almost a s if to demonstra te the
distinctiv eness of an avowedly political history persp ective. The trouble with this is
that the b ook’s intended audie nce, among whom inclu de ‘teachers…those working
in t he media…anyone else intere sted in hist ory…foreign reade rs interested i n the
recent politica l history of Finland’, will have difficul ty in forming a
comprehensive, general understanding of Finnish political (and social and
economic) history (p. xi). T his is b ecause the authors have chosen t o focus upon
those whom t hey consid er to be k ey actors, at t he expe nse of providing a more
detailed accoun t of social and eco nomic changes that would have enabled the
reader to make more sense of the actions related. Moreo ver, the conscious effort to
provide ‘a b road historical perspective i n a way whic h would claim to be
pioneering in t he post-Second World Wa r period’ is at times ove rbearing, as
debates within the specia lism of political history co mmandeer the discussion (p.
xiv). Spe cific digressions o n academic disp utes are especial ly common in t he first
section covering the period 1809-1917, where there exist contro versies regarding
the politic al status of Finland in the Russian empire or the signific ance of particular
events and p ersonalities. Sometimes this is u seful, as with the re-evalu ation of Tsar
Alexander II’s ‘liberalism’, and it s conseq uences for Finnish autonomy (pp. 4 2,
61). At other times, ho wever, it indicate s a preoccupation with debate s that are, of
necessity, arcane to the non-specia list. The result is to g ive emphasis to scholarly
minutiae dispro portionate to its importance for the narrati ve as a whole.
The narrative itself is often a very dense succession of actors an d events that
provide l ess history and more chronicle, to u se the distinct ion of Benedetto Croce .
The siz e of the undertaking and necessary limit ations of space are challeng es that
would face any authors attempting to accomplish such a task. But too often the
reader is regaled with names who se sig nificance is assumed, in common with
much of th e knowledge required for a fuller appreciation of the story being related.
This further und ermines the rationale for focusing on personalitie s, since lit tle is
done (nor cou ld be done, given the constraints) to pro vide fuller portraits.
To continue reading
Request your trial