A rigorous approach to K. Karamanlis

An example of the rigorous application of scientific methodology By Evanthis Hatzivassiliou* It is an open secret that, as a form of historical study, the biography causes waves of panic in Greek academia, if not in society: it is usually treated as a politically motivated form of discourse, and therefore biased or at least suspect. Other objections are raised, however: it is argued that individuals do not play a pivotal role in history, in the face of the great, impersonal economic forces; an argument that is also political, reflecting a left-leaning dogmatism.This panic takes on even more peculiar forms when the figure of Constantine Karamanlis is discussed. Bizarre, because in Karamanlis’s case it is not the scholars sympathetic to him who display anxiety: they appear far more certain of the correctness of their interpretations. On the contrary, the panic is evident among those who seek to cast doubt on this particular historical figure: it is they who are discontented, because they cannot do what they want, namely to diminish his contribution. This is one of those cases where the anxiety of pre-judgement becomes so obvious that it becomes amusing.Konstantinos Svolopoulos’s project is intended to mark a turning point in the development of Greek scholarship, primarily because it offers a model of the rigorous application of scientific methodology to a field as difficult and as slippery as biography. It is based on the findings of one of the most significant methodological works in world historiography: the work by Renouvin and Duroselle, which is divided into two volumes, one on the ‘deeper forces’ (which Svolopoulos has translated into Greek) and one on the political figure (homme d’état). This solid theoretical grounding enables the author to assess the figure and the era dynamically, whilst avoiding the unscientific excesses to which either the simplistic tendency towards deification (on the one hand) or, on the other, a shallow emphasis on trivialities.Reality: The examination of Karamanlis’s life and work involves not only the verification of the objective facts dictated by reality and the international context, but also of subjective elements that characterised the Macedonian politician throughout his life: the austerity of his personal style, the creativity stemming from a deep sense of mission, the capacity for clear thinking even at the height of a crisis. Finally, his insistence on prudence: Karamanlis was not a ‘player’ – says Svolopoulos – but in the Greece of his time, did he need to be? On the contrary, he was called upon to project a sense of Greek stability, which was a prerequisite for the fulfilment of his goals. And his steadfast commitment to these goals (development, democracy, Europe) demonstrates the coherence of his historical trajectory. I have a feeling that the reader will consider the most ‘bold’ section of the book to be the one dealing with the period after 1980. There, Svolopoulos offers a first historical – that is, source-based – interpretation of the 1980s (and the ‘cohabitation’ with A. Papandreou), as well as of the personal dimension (lifestyle, habits, psychological tendencies of Karamanlis). These are topics that have not yet been dealt with in detail. However, the value of the work lies not only in the facts it presents, the assessments it puts forward, or even in the effervescent and charming style of the writing. It lies, first and foremost, in the fact that it shows us how a historian thinks and writes, one who knows his subject so deeply that he is free from the anxiety of ‘justification’ or ‘condemnation’. The success of the project is based on sobriety and calm, which are themselves the fruits of two fundamental prerequisites of the historical science: knowledge and integrity.* Mr Evanthis Hatzivassiliou is an associate professor in the Department of History and Archaeology at the University of Athens. Published in Kathimerini, 11/03/2012