Should Europe disturb historians? On the importance of methodology and interdisciplinarity

Does the emergence of the European Union (EU) disrupt the frames of reference of the contemporary history of Europe to such an extent that historians distrust it? It would seem that methodological Euroscepticism exists. European integration arouses scepticism among some in the community of historians of contemporary Europe, since the conceptual underpinnings of that history cannot in themselves account for European integration. This billet expresses, more than a word of caution, a call for enhanced dialogue on the EU as an object of study among the different strands of historical studies and different disciplines. On the one hand, some of the analyses provided by historical studies on contemporary Europe constitute a fertile source for the study and understanding of European integration, notably in the field of history. Using them can stimulate the development in the European studies field of new concepts, new representations and new hypotheses for grasping the EU as a reality and a comparatively new object of academic interest. On the other hand, the critical study of the EU conducted in the specific field of the history of the EU questions and sheds a new light on the analytical categories of contemporary European history. In this regard, the fruitful interaction between history, political geography, law and political science can enrich contemporary European history. Interdisciplinary studies on European integration notably enable us to decentre notions of sovereignty, territory and democracy, which have classically taken the nation state as their reference in broad explanatory narratives of contemporary European history. Research mutualisation would offer all the potential interpretative and analytical benefits of the conceptual and methodological rethink of our various disciplines and of European integration as an object of study.