Amin Maalouf’s book Le labyrinthe des égarés is a fascinating look into many civilizations and a commendable endeavor to understand the past in order to better understand the present inside the maze of historical tales. Amin Maalouf, a Franco-Lebanese writer and journalist has received numerous awards and was elected to the prestigious Académie française in 2011. He now holds the highest and most prestigious position within this institution: perpetual secretary of the Académie française since September 2023. He sets out on a mission to explore the depths of the current geopolitical situation. A background that comes forwards in his book in form of numerous anecdotes.  This brief critique attempts to analyze the complexities of Maalouf’s longue durée narrative, while recognizing its strengths in terms of language and accessibility of display of historical information, but also critically analyzing the difficulties that arise from insufficient historical epistemological understanding.

Indeed, Maalouf’s narrative is an example of an historical analysis trying to attain a political science goal, namely the explanation of why the rise against the West.  Political science and history share some common ground, for example the study of the past,  but differ greatly in methodology and raison d’être. This was brilliantly researched by Charles Schroeder, a historian and a political scientist. His distinctions provide a great theoretical framework for understanding the differences between the fields of political science and history when navigating the maze of historical interpretation. This is critic does not aim to discredit the ideas put forward in the book. The aim is to underline the importance of epistemological understanding of the field of history and political science when performing research. Thus, this capsule review examines particularly Maalouf’s portrayal of the Middle Ages, his handling of Soviet Russia as two examples to exhibit the methodological decisions he took when writing his book. In the end, it offers a perceptive examination of this big undertaking, examining the efficacy of Maalouf’s endeavor to interpret a world struggling with the intricacies of its historical fabric.

His book is clearly political in tone and aims to explain the present with the help of the past, a noble undertaking. Drawing a portrait of a world in crisis, pitting the West against Russia and China, Maalouf asserts that no one before him had “contemplated this crisis with the depth of field it deserves.”[i]. By examining the history of Meiji-era Japan, Soviet Russia, China and the United States, Maalouf attempts to discover the reason for this opposition. He bases his reasoning on in-depth historical research, as evidenced by numerous historical anecdotes.

Although his book contains great positive elements such as a beautiful use of language and an accessible presentation of historical information, it does reveal a notable gap in grasping the intricacies of the epistemological foundations of historical research.  This is not uncommon among political scientists, international relations theorists, journalists and writers. The work of a historian is different from that of a political scientist, even if they both have the same subject of research: the past. Schroeder explained this wonderfully. According to him, the difference between history and political science is threefold. The first is the phenomenon to be explained; the second is the way in which this phenomenon is conceived for purposes of explanation; the last is the art and method of explanation.

According to Schroeder, in his essay History and International Relations Theory, Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit for history, the phenomenon to be explained is the evolution of human life, society, institutions over time.[ii] Moreover, historians conceive of and explain historical change primarily or ultimately in terms of human conduct, i.e. intentional acts of agency, not behavior. Most importantly, the historian studies the past for what it is, with a historical problem, and abhors teleology. Historians begin by perceiving a historical problem, define a limited inquiry and develop a synoptic judgment based on the available evidence. Synoptic judgments are at the heart of historical analysis and result from examining various angles to understand the origins of the phenomenon, their significance and the integration of evidence. Historical controversies often revolve around conflicting synoptic judgments seeking to subsume, transcend and integrate competing interpretations.

Again according to Schroeder, social scientists can also study the past to find an explanation for a phenomenon. They formulate hypotheses derived from teleology, test them using verifiable methods and draw generalizations from them.[iii] Some of them use history as a supermarket of examples to support their theory, where historical explanations and examples are shelved. They choose a few that suit their narrative, sometimes omitting counterarguments and examples that run counter to their general theory. This situation results from a misunderstanding of the epistemology of historical research, which leads to the misuse of history.

Maalouf is not a trained historian, nor does he claim to be. Nor is he a social scientist, but a journalist and writer. Yet, based on historical research, he develops a general theory aimed at demonstrating the existence of a contemporary existential crisis, an irreparable fracture between the West, China and Russia.  While this fracture could be argued by recent history, from the end of the Cold War to the present day (many political analysts or historians do so convincingly), Maalouf’s account fails to do so due to his lack of methodological awareness and his misunderstanding of the epistemology of historical research. By trying to be a social scientist, while doing inadequate historical research, Maalouf has produced an explanation that only serves to further polarize current tensions in international relations.

Maalouf’s misunderstanding and misuse of the historian’s craft is clear from the very first pages of his book. He describes the Middle Ages as a long, dark tunnel, whose light at the end is the Renaissance. Any qualified historian knows that the Middle Ages were far from a dark tunnel, dominated only by dark concepts such as religious fanaticism, death, disease and war. Noblewomen were freer in the Middle Ages than in the Renaissance, for example, because in the absence of their husbands, they ruled over their fiefdoms. In addition, the Middle Ages witnessed the founding of the foundations of our European society and three different cultural revolutions, the Carolingian Renaissance being the first. On the other hand, the Renaissance paved the way for the scientific justification of slavery, colonialism and the redefinition of the role of women in society. History is not so black and white. The Middle Ages are not a dark tunnel, and the Renaissance is not a bright, spotless period. Maalouf’s interpretation of these periods dates back to the 19th century.

Another example of his misunderstanding of history is his description of Soviet Russia, lacking nuance in describing it as an anti-Western ruling coalition since the 1917 revolution. This overlooks the essence of the Russian revolution, where Marxist and Trotskyite intellectuals aimed to export the revolution to capitalist countries by empowering proletarians to rise against the bourgeoisie. Their opposition was to the system, not specific countries. This message resonated in Western Europe, where Communist parties in France and Italy wielded influence in the late Fifties and Sixties. The USA’s actions in Western Europe, aligning with Franco and opposing communism, fueled hostility. As the USA sought influence globally, so did the USSR.

Moreover, Maalouf’s account omits more recent, equally relevant episodes. Russia has continued, after the fall of the USSR, to engage in multilateral partnerships, from the signing of the bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU in 1997, its 2012 admission to the WTO, to the expansion of the BRICS in January 2024. These factors, along with the war in Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russian activities in Africa are key to understanding a possible Russian-led anti-Western coalition.  Maalouf’s account lacks nuance, important events and factors to explain his very ambitious research objective, and more importantly, it is vulgarly tainted with a teleological approach.

Maalouf’s ambitious project, exploring the historical trajectories of four civilizations in Le labyrinthe des égarés, faces a critical examination. With around six sentences per page and 431 pages, the challenge of analyzing complex histories is evident. Maalouf’s teleological approach, cherry-picking events to support his thesis on the current geopolitical crisis, lacks a solid foundation in historical research principles. The review highlights disparities with Schroeder’s distinctions, exposing historical misunderstandings, oversimplifications of the Middle Ages, and a lack of nuance in depicting Soviet Russia. Methodological flaws, including the limited sentences per page, are identified. Despite commendable aspects like eloquent language and accessible historical information, the review emphasizes the complexities of reconciling historical research with broader geopolitical narratives in Maalouf’s work.  

---

[i] Amin Maalouf, Le labyrinthe des égarés: l’Occident et ses adversaires (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2023). Cover.

[ii] Paul W. Schroeder, ‘History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit’, International Security 22, no. 1 (1997): 64–74, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539329, 67.

[iii] Schroeder, ‘History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit’, International: 64–74, 68.