International construction of area studies in France during the Cold War

The EPHE 6^th Section in the French academic context

The creation of the EPHE 6^th Section, and later its Area Studies Division, reflects the precarious, yet evolving, situation of French social sciences after the Second World War, a situation that it helped remedy. Disciplines in this field were poorly institutionalized, with only a handful of chairs, specialized research centres, journals and scholars (Chenu, 2002; Drouard, 1982). Degrees in sociology and economics were created only in 1958 and 1959, respectively. An institutional cleavage separated economics that was taught in the law schools from the social sciences taught in departments of liberal arts. In contrast, the EPHE 6^th Section included economics, social sciences and history, the latter generally considered a branch of the humanities. It was an interdisciplinary institutional experiment that would sustain the area studies programme.

The EPHE 6^th Section was also nourished by an earlier French intellectual project, the Annales School and its journal, created in 1929 (among others, Burguière, 2006; Review, 1978). It was their representatives who initiated and ran the EPHE 6^th Section. The Annales School already promoted interdisciplinarity during the interwar period, as it was turned toward international and extra-collegiate cooperation and showed an increased interest in investigations of foreign countries and comparative approaches. This outward turn was fostered by the interwar conceptualization of ‘areas of civilization’, by Febvre and members of the Durkheimian sociological school. These characteristics would be emphasized by RF officers as distinctive aspects of the EPHE 6^th Section’s style of scholarship and used as arguments in favour of financial support to the Area Studies Division. ⁵

Another advantage for this emerging division was the fact that the EPHE 6^th Section itself had come into existence due in part to a RF grant (Gemelli, 1990: 277–315; Mazon, 1988; Tournès, 2011: 323–31, 339–44). Grants totalling $44,500 were made between 1947 and 1952 for its establishment, general support and specific projects. ⁶ The development of the Area Studies Division was presented by the EPHE 6^th Section administrators as an extension of this investment, ⁷ allowing for the development of the social sciences and of postwar scientific priorities in a new political context described by them as ‘really a unique one for action’. ⁸

This new context was offered by the adoption by the French parliament of the ‘Second Modernization and Equipment Plan’ (elaborated in 1953), which mentioned the connection between research and economic growth, as well as by Pierre Mendès France’s government coming into power (from June 1954 to February 1955). His government made the development of national research policy a priority (Chatriot and Duclert, 2006). It created a State Secretariat for Research, attached to the prime minister and chaired by the scientist Henri Longchambon, and established other coordinating and advisory structures. They were the first such interventions in support of research and higher education, since the 1936 Popular Front government. Even though some would be abandoned or diluted by Mendès France’s immediate successors, these initiatives paved the way for a significant research policy that would eventually be implemented after Charles de Gaulle’s return to power in 1958.

Mendès France’s research policy drew partly upon the experience of scholars who had been involved in similar interwar initiatives, and then in the Resistance movement (such as Longchambon), but also drew upon those trained in the USA or who had direct knowledge of the US academic system. One of these, Gaston Berger, became Director of Higher Education in the French Ministry of National Education from 1953 to 1960, after being the Secretary-General of the French–American Fulbright Commission since 1949. He was committed to the development of human and social sciences and to the modernization of the French higher education system. Berger helped many of the EPHE 6^th Section team’s initiatives, decisions that made Braudel notice his ‘far-sighted support’. ⁹ This support was demonstrated at a national symposium on research and higher education policy held in Caen in 1956 (Duclert, 2006: 81–100) that brought together scholars, science administrators, policy-makers and industrialists. Here Berger held up area studies as a ‘discipline’ and connected it to US academic experiences (Berger, 1957).

Individual backgrounds and transatlantic influential connections

Despite this political goodwill the representatives of the area studies programme continued to insist that RF support was essential. As they explained to RF officers: ‘Your advice is much more needed than any financial support…Moral and financial backing from you could achieve here with little money quite a lot.’ ¹⁰ Since it would legitimize the area studies programme, the RF’s support would enable them to obtain funds from the French government as well as serving as an ‘external force’ to be used in the French academic power struggles. ^11,12 The EPHE 6^th Section’s rapid growth and Braudel’s multiple scientific and organizational projects did encounter reluctance, and even opposition, from other academic institutions and leaders. The RF was not unaware. Yet, its representatives placed their bets on the intellectual orientation of the EPHE 6^th Section group as well as on its leaders’ personal qualities. Braudel was 45 when the EPHE 6^th Section was created and he had already been a member of the EPHE’s 4^th Section, as well of the Annales (Braudel, 1972). In 1947 he defended his PhD dissertation on the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II, which would give impetus to studies on this area. Braudel became president of the jury of the concours d’agrégation ¹³ in history, a position that gave him great influence in matters of access to the teaching profession and the choice of examination subjects. He thus succeeded in putting modern Russian history on the 1956 agrégation programme. ¹⁴ RF officers were impressed by this ‘strategic’ position, as well as Braudel’s position as professor in the Collège de France, which he had held since 1949. Braudel also indicated his interest in the study of foreign areas by teaching courses on Latin America. As an expert, in 1956 he prepared a section of the Longchambon Report on scientific research addressed to the French government; this section was dedicated to the humanities and social sciences, and in it he emphasized the interest in developing area studies. After de Gaulle’s return to power in 1958, and given his academic position as well as his friendships in Gaullist circles, Braudel continued to be solicited as an advisor by the Ministry of National Education. ¹⁵

A crucial partner for Braudel was Clemens Heller, who became coordinator of the nascent Area Studies Division, while being also active in the implementation of East–West exchanges. Heller complemented Braudel, thanks mainly to his intimate knowledge of the American academic system and the functioning of philanthropic foundations. Born in Vienna in 1917 and the son of a publisher, he left Austria in 1938 for the USA, where he became a naturalized American citizen (Aymard, 2003). After graduating from Harvard, he initiated, in 1947, the Salzburg Seminar in American Studies (Eliot and Eliot, 1987; Schmidt, 2003). Pioneering in many respects and illustrating the area studies approach, the project proved a formative experience for Heller. In time, he would be held up by colleagues as ‘the guiding spirit behind the Salzburg Seminar in its first years’. ¹⁶ Co-funded by the RF, the Salzburg seminar has been referred to as the ‘intellectual Marshall Plan’ (Eliot and Eliot, 1987: 1) because of its ambitions to rebuild European intellectual life after the war, and even to bring initially together Western and eastern participants.

Suspected of being a communist, Heller left the seminar and moved to France in 1949 to complete his PhD in modern history, while also establishing relations with Braudel. His background, networking and organizational skills made him invaluable for the implementation of the projects under way at the EPHE 6^th Section. However, he remained open to the possibility of reintegrating American academic life, should a suitable opportunity arise. An early approach from Brandeis University in 1955 fell through and, in the end, Heller obtained an appointment at the EPHE 6^th Section. For RF officials, he was someone who had thus achieved an outstanding position for a foreigner in French academia ¹⁷ and whose knowledge and contacts could benefit their work in France.

Conversely, Heller played a constant role in maintaining links with American foundations and the acquisition of influential foreign connections that would shape the development of the Area Studies Division. According to one of his acquaintances, Martin Malia – a rising figure in the domain of Soviet studies – Heller’s ‘main agent’ ¹⁸ in the USA at that time was Philip Mosely. Professor at Columbia University and director of its Institute of Russian Studies during the early 1950s, Mosely (Byrnes, 1994: 210–12; Engerman, 2009b) had acquired first-hand knowledge of eastern Europe while preparing his PhD during the interwar period. Having been head of the Political Studies Section of the US State Department during the Second World War, he was closely connected to government agencies. Mosely’s commitment to the development of area studies was evident while he served as an RF advisor and chairman of both the Social Science Research Council Committee on Foreign Area Research and the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies.

Mosely and Heller met during the organization of the Salzburg seminar. They renewed contact in 1955 in the context of the nascent area studies programme at the EPHE 6^th Section, with anthropologist Margaret Mead as intermediary. ¹⁹ She was among the contributors to the first Salzburg seminar and became a friend of Heller, having also worked with Mosely for a wartime project on the training of area studies specialists. In the early 1950s, Mead also published research, for the RAND Corporation, on Soviet attitudes toward authority. Hence, Mosely closely followed the EPHE 6^th Section’s area studies project and activities. His opinion was particularly influential in the RF’s decisions to fund this programme. He considered its Russian programme as ‘perhaps the most promising’ of all area studies programmes proposed by the EPHE 6^th Section. ²⁰ Mosely also advised Heller and recommended him to leading American and European specialists. These contacts helped the professional socialization of the members of the Center for Studies on the USSR and Slavic Countries that Heller and Braudel would go on to establish. In 1955, Heller, after consulting Mosely, convinced the RF to award individual grants to Braudel, the economist Henri Chambre and the linguist Jean Train, the last two having been involved in setting up the Russian programme. These visits were intended to acquaint the French scholars with the organization of the area studies in the USA before they created similar training and research programmes in Paris – and prior to possible RF co-sponsorship. They also provided an opportunity to discuss, at length, the specific challenges faced by the launch of the French programme.

The French scholars undertook a two-month tour of the most important area studies centres in the USA; first and foremost, the Russian Research Center at Harvard and the Russian Institute at Columbia. They also followed their own scientific interests. Train paid attention to the American methods of intensive teaching of Slavic languages, as applied to the study of the social sciences, and visited specialized institutions, such as the Army Language School in Monterey, California. For his part, Chambre discussed his most recent research project, which was incorporated in the EPHE 6^th Section’s area studies grant proposal. Its aim was to analyse the Soviet economy on a regional basis, a topic neglected by American scholars at the time (Grossman, 1959: 42). He conferred with key figures in Soviet economic studies such as Alexander Gerschenkron (Harvard University), Gregory Grossman (Berkeley) and experts from the National Bureau of Economic Research, such as Warren Nutter. The difficulties in accessing first-hand data, the particularities of the Soviet economic system and the need of well-trained scholars generated mutual scientific interests between French and American scholars.

As for Braudel, area studies permitted him to discuss one issue repeatedly during his visit: the general position of history in relation to the social sciences in France as well as in the USA. ²¹ The training of area studies specialists and the competencies they should first acquire (command of social sciences, language skills) were also debated with Clyde Kluckhohn, the director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard, an institution that Braudel qualified as a ‘marvel’. ²² Some of Braudel’s new American contacts, such as Donald Treadgold, led to further collaboration. An architect of Washington University’s Russian programme, Treadgold would continue to liaise with the French group while becoming a key figure in the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies and editor of the Slavic Review.

Since it was his first time in the USA, Braudel did not want to limit himself to matters concerning area studies. He sought information, too, on broader issues, such as ‘general education’ programmes and the relationship of academic economics to private industry, which he considered non-existent in France. ²³ He also visited his old colleagues. Among them was Earl Hamilton, one of the founders of economic history, and Frederic Lane, another key figure in the field, who was also an assistant director of the RF Social Science Division from 1951 to 1954 (Gemelli, 2003), and continued advising on European policy and the sponsorship of the EPHE’s area studies programme. ²⁴

Although he remained rather critical about the place reserved for history in American area studies approaches, Braudel returned to France filled with enthusiasm for the experience he had had: ‘I do believe that Braudel’s trip to America was money well spent. As he told me, “I have learned more in these two months than in the last twenty years”’, ²⁵ related Heller – a way of reassuring the RF officers that their investment was truly a fruitful one.

Particular pathways for the area studies programme

Braudel faced criticism from French scholars for taking this trip and for patterning French education along American lines. ²⁶ Yet, according to the EPHE 6^th Section administrators, the new programme was meant to create its own original framework and to meet French needs for knowledge on foreign areas. It would not ‘imitate’ or ‘duplicate what is already being done in the U.S. and in England’. ^27,28 The programme would implement what appeared to be, at that time, some specific advantages of the French academic institution, such as the role of interdisciplinarity, the access to specific documentation and the capacity to implement academic exchanges with eastern Europe.

The EPHE 6^th Section administrators conceived of the area studies programme as an instrument for carrying out a long-term intellectual and organizational project, rooted in the Annales’s purposes, and which remained for them an all-important goal: the reform and integration of the French social sciences. ²⁹ In their opinion, the programme’s originality was also based in the place granted to history. It was supposed to complement US area studies programmes, which ‘focused on studying instantaneous’ phenomena. ³⁰ Yet, the reference to foreign, i.e. US, examples (Karady, 1979: 71), helped the EPHE 6^th Section’s scholars not only to legitimize this domain of study, but also to argue before their French counterparts for its inscription within the perimeter of social sciences. More specifically, the heads of the EPHE 6^th Section fostered a differentiation between the new EPHE 6^th Section’s Russian programme and the French literary and philological tradition associated with Slavic studies, which was manifested in institutions such as the Institute for Slavic Studies and the National School of Oriental Languages as well as university chairs. The EPHE 6^th Section underscored this disciplinary cleavage (Popa, 2015a) as another distinctive feature that could encourage the RF to invest in a pioneering French area studies programme. This orientation did not prevent the 6^th Section from recruiting, or collaborating with, scholars competent both in social sciences and in foreign languages and partially trained in the institutions mentioned above.

The RF officers endorsed criticism of the ‘very traditional and antiquarian, if not pedantic’ academic style of scholars that occupied positions in traditional French Slavic studies and of the overemphasis of philological issues as well. ³¹ They also highlighted the EPHE 6^th Section efforts that they considered as ‘by far the strongest…made by the French since before the war’. ³² However, as revealed during the negotiations for the grant award, RF officers considered that the importance granted to history was disproportionate and was to the detriment of recent and contemporary topics, although they considered this a long-standing feature of European humanistic traditions (see also Mazon, 1988: 123–4). The officers eventually decided to see this historical emphasis as an opportunity to find a new and original path.

This perspective dovetails with the prominence of history as a discipline in the EPHE 6^th Section and, in particular, with the historiographical orientation promoted by the Annales School. It consisted of a long-term historical approach that downplayed the significance of individual events while emphasizing long-term social and economic trends rather than political and diplomatic themes. This orientation also influenced the curricula of the area studies programme (Popa, 2015a). Thus, the Russian programme was institutionalized mainly around history and economics. But even in economics, Soviet and Russian experiences were not disconnected, despite the political rupture symbolized by the October Revolution. The programme did not exclusively focus on contemporary planned and state-controlled economies, although substantial space was given to them in the curricula.

This orientation also lessened the propensity of programme members to do work for governmental agencies, although Braudel was eager to foster such linkages. ³³ The EPHE 6^th Section’s Russian programme was thus neither completely dissociated from, nor embedded in, the mission of state administration. Although the RF encouraged training that would make scholars available not only for university but also for government and administrative posts, the responsibility for the latter fell mainly on other French academic institutions which had much closer governmental connections than the EPHE, such as the Institute of Political Science and the National School of Administration. Thus, the EPHE 6^th Section’s overall output would not be a programme of ‘Soviet studies’ anchored exclusively in the present and from which immediate policy implications were expected, but one of historical understanding with an interdisciplinary approach to an area which extended – temporally and, as we shall see, spatially – beyond the USSR.

The greatest obstacle to RF support was ‘political’. ³⁴ Considering the constraints bearing upon charities, a fortiori in the (post-) McCarthyist context, the RF was reluctant to fund a programme in which communist scholars might be involved and recruited. Discussion arose mainly around the case of an expert in contemporary China (Jean Chesneaux), who had been invited to join the EPHE 6^th Section as early as 1953, as one of the few specialists qualified for the post. His recruitment was considered by the EPHE 6^th Section team as a signal that scholars were hired on scientific grounds. ³⁵ Braudel had, nevertheless, to promise that RF funds would not be used to finance the research of the Communist Party’s sympathizers. ³⁶

These conditions did not facilitate the construction of the programme. Given the specificities of the French academic and political landscapes, ‘the greatest difficulty’ was, as Heller wrote, ‘to find the right people…It has been quite depressing and surprising to find how few people…occupy themselves seriously with Modern Russia and how many who have the linguistic background are afraid to enter the field because of political fears.’ ³⁷ Moreover, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the French Communist Party became very influential among intellectuals (Caute, 1964; Judt, 1992). These circumstances persisted when the area studies programme was launched and even after the 1956 Hungarian crisis, which triggered academic resignations from the French Communist Party. In spite of the increase in American intellectual influence on French social sciences (Chenu, 2002; Drouard, 1982), certain subjects or scientific subfields attracted scholars who were party sympathizers or members and supportive of the communist regimes. This situation made it difficult to avoid recruiting such scholars, according to the heads of the EPHE 6^th Section (none of whom was a communist), and exacerbated the problem of recruiting a non-leftist faculty. ³⁸ On the other hand, American funding of the EPHE 6^th Section, and especially of its Russian programme, was also a political marker which could be interpreted as a sign of allegiance to the American academic model and, more generally, to ‘American imperialism’. Moreover, in French academia similar US programmes were commonly considered anti-communist in orientation, making it problematic to accept collaborators from the USA. ³⁹ Some former French RF fellows were also sounded out for scholarly positions, but only one, David Djaparidzé, was finally recruited. The recruitment of faculty members had to avoid all these political pitfalls.

In response to the RF’s misgivings, Braudel and his team argued that the programme had to be established without concern for its members’ political views. ⁴⁰ This attitude did not prevent the EPHE 6^th Section representatives from clearly identifying individuals who held those views. ⁴¹ Yet, the recruitment of specialists of all political orientations, on condition of indisputable professional competence, was seen as a way to guarantee the programme’s ‘neutrality’. This principle applied for leftist scholars as for East European political refugees (such as the Romanian historian George Haupt) but not in the case of intellectuals well-known for their anti-communist commitment (such as Jean Laloy, Angelo Tasca, Boris Souvarine). Moreover, collaborative work to determine teaching, research and publishing projects proceeded from general organizational choices but was also seen as a guarantee against political biases. ⁴² These tactical choices suggest that the political interference affecting the programme – whether of a political party, a government apparatus, or a philanthropic foundation – was tempered by academic practices as well as long-term intellectual trends. This was also the opinion of RF officers at the time of the grant’s renewal: ‘With the exception of Chesneaux, I have no impression of political bias, although this is something which all of us will need to watch.’ ⁴³ This observation meant, however, for them that these efforts should result in a non-communist enterprise, considered even more valuable since it was still new in France. ⁴⁴

Thus, East–West confrontation permeated recruitment and shaped the involvement of an American philanthropic foundation in building a French–East European programme inspired by US academic patterns. Yet, there was nothing automatic or assured in this international extension of area studies programmes. These programmes challenged but also drew on local intellectual traditions. In the case of the EPHE 6^th Section, the tradition was a specific historiographical approach that also infused the field of area studies. An external impetus was thus appropriated and transformed through association with local scientific and political rationales, creating programmes that followed particular paths. In turn, transatlantic exchanges helped shape the professional practices of French scholars. Whereas the propensity for interdisciplinary, cooperative research and internationalization was partially framed by long-term local intellectual trends, the relationship with the RF also stimulated (new) practices such as research management, accountability, time limits for obtaining research results and fund-raising for specific projects. In this respect, rather than simply supporting the institutionalization of a particular field of study, these interactions yielded results on a deeper professional level.

Financially assisted by an American foundation and informed by its recommendations, the EPHE area studies programme fuelled transatlantic scientific exchanges and, as we shall see, East–West ones. These exchanges fostered the circulation of scholars and information on the East European area, thus compensating in part for the restricted direct access to information in those countries. Yet, the establishment of East–West scientific collaborations was not accessible to all academic players. It had political significance and implications and was also part of intellectual Cold War strategies.

Overlapping intergovernmental and transnational frameworks

One of the advantages of EPHE 6^th Section scholars, as mentioned by Heller in 1955, was the better access to Soviet universities granted to French scholars in comparison with ‘American and perhaps [with] English’ ones. ⁴⁷ According to Heller, this potential was accompanied by political guarantees, since it would be ‘by no means necessary that those who go to Russia have communist convictions’. ⁴⁸ This argument helped Heller convince the RF of the distinctive features and potential of the emerging Russian programme.

Heller’s argument was not mere rhetoric: whereas American–Soviet intergovernmental academic exchanges were proposed after the creation in 1956 of the Inter-University Committee and would be established mainly after the signing in 1958 of a cultural agreement (Byrnes, 1976), they had resumed, albeit sparingly, between France and the USSR since 1953–4 and already benefited a few young scholars. Most of them were preparing the agrégation in Russian language; yet, they could also be leftists. Michel Aucouturier and Claude Frioux, for example, spent long periods in the USSR as fellows of the French National Education Ministry. Heller approached them, proposing that they lead a seminar at the EPHE 6^th Section. Thus, one of the distinctive characteristics that Heller sought out when approaching scholars for the programme was their direct knowledge of the area. He also believed it was important to provide them with such travel opportunities, and from the mid-1950s on, programme members made research trips to the USSR. Braudel himself was invited to Moscow by the Academy of Sciences in 1958. Due to its interest in social and economic issues, the Annales School was considered compatible with Marxism (Pomian, 1978). Braudel’s scientific reputation, networks and even the friendships he established with Russian historians facilitated his younger colleagues’ travel in the USSR and the invitation of Soviet scholars to France.

However, these exchanges were made on an ad-hoc basis. They remained much more uncertain than the academic cooperation built up with another socialist country, Poland (Pasztor, 2003; Pleskot, 2007). A statement of cooperation was – in this latter case – drafted in 1956 and institutionalized two years later, when the French and Polish governments signed a cultural exchange agreement. It placed the EPHE 6^th Section in a particular, carefully formulated position. This achievement relied on the direct, long-standing, personal knowledge of the Polish intellectual milieux of some of the EPHE 6^th Section collaborators. It also developed thanks to (inter-) governmental actors, mainly the French and Polish Foreign Affairs ministries and UNESCO, as well as influential non-state actors – the Ford Foundation and the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The two last were in fact covertly embedded in the American ‘state–private network’ (Krabbendam and Scott-Smith, 2004; Lucas, 2002; Ninkovitch, 1981; Scott-Smith, 2002) that carried out programmes in support of US foreign policy and its anti-communist struggle. Analysing the micro-dynamics of the interactions between these multiple American, eastern and Western European players reveals an overlapping of intergovernmental and transnational frameworks. This overlapping allowed one of the earliest East/West academic exchanges to be institutionalized in France during the Cold War. ⁴⁹ It also demonstrates the extended influence of the US ‘state–private network’ through the establishment of a French–East European studies programme.

Impetus for the exchange programme originated in a conference for Polish social scientists organized by UNESCO in 1956. Braudel chaired the history sessions. ⁵⁰ Heller was impressed by the calibre of the Polish scholars and by their professional interest in spending some time ‘in the free world’. ⁵¹ Consequently, he arranged three small stipends at the EPHE 6^th Section, while at the same time UNESCO failed to find similar funds for other scholars to go to England. Soon after, Heller asked the RF for permission to provide supplementary fellowships, using funds from the grant he had obtained for the development of area studies. Although the terms of the grant did not mention such an action, he hoped it would be considered part of its activities. Clearly, Heller wished to avoid any interpretation wherein the distribution of these fellowships was deemed a politically inspired response to the crisis in Poland in October 1956, since, after all, the first stipends had been awarded before these events. Hence, he suggested that if his proposal was accepted by the RF, stipends would be transmitted via UNESCO. This was most likely a means of neutralizing polemics concerning the origin of the funds, given that Heller’s initiative had been well received by the Polish authorities. ⁵² Heller’s request was refused. In June 1957, the EPHE 6^th Section organized, nevertheless, an international conference presenting recent Polish historical research. Western specialists were invited, partially sponsored by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Polish scholars were supported by the Polish government. The event was planned on the occasion of an EPHE 6^th Section meeting to discuss the renewal of French–Polish scientific relations.

A key actor in these two events was Aleksander Gieysztor, the deputy director of education of Warsaw University. A specialist in medieval history, he had studied at the EPHE 4^th Section before the Second World War. Gieysztor was accompanied by the director of the Historical Institute of the Polish Academy, Tadeusz Manteuffel, also a recognized medievalist who had studied in France during the interwar period. During their stay in Paris, they met with representatives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and argued for the organization of long stays in France for young scholars from the Academy of Science. The EPHE 6^th Section would bear the scientific responsibility for these fellowships. In fact, this was a project that had been drafted in 1948 by Manteuffel with Morazé, one of the initiators of the EPHE 6^th Section, who had visited Poland as secretary-general of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (Morazé, 2007: 227).

The initiative was well received by the French ministry, but it would have to be framed in a general cultural agreement between the French and Polish governments, which was eventually signed in 1958. ⁵³ The EPHE 6^th Section representatives informally helped to lay the groundwork. Heller was invited to Warsaw by the academic authorities, ⁵⁴ where he held discussions with Gieysztor and the Marxist philosopher Adam Schaff (a representative of the Polish Academy and a member of the Communist Party’s Central Committee). The latter had played an important role in defining cultural politics during the Stalinist period, but he joined the reformists and supported the academic exchanges with the EPHE 6^th Section. Heller recognized the extent of the Polish ‘revisionist’ or reform movement. At the same time he relied upon the experience of Pierre Francastel, historian of art in the EPHE 6^th Section. Francastel had taught in Poland and been a deputy director of the French Institute in Warsaw in the 1930s, then a cultural advisor at the French Embassy. These common efforts resulted in the creation of a Centre for Polish History and Civilization Studies. A professorship was awarded each year at the EPHE 6^th Section to a Polish scholar, enriching the overall build-up of the Area Studies Division. The exchange programme between the EPHE and the Polish Academy of Science provided for the organization of colloquia in the two countries, resulting in published works and fellowships for Polish and French scholars.

Along with the EPHE 6^th Section’s gradual involvement in these intergovernmental exchanges, Heller turned to the FF early in 1958, which, at the time, was setting up its own fellowship programme for eastern Europe (Byrnes, 1976: 207–8; Stensrud, 2014), and contacted Shepard Stone (Berghahn, 2001), head of its International Division. ⁵⁵ What led to Heller’s decision was the need for co-sponsorship, previously refused by the RF, in order to launch the EPHE’s Polish programme. Heller obtained from the FF a grant of $10,000 (less than expected) for two years, beginning in 1959. A helpful intermediary was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) (Grémion, 1995; Saunders, 1999; Scott-Smith, 2002), an ‘anti-totalitarian’ covertly CIA-related organization created in 1950 and funded partly via the FF. ⁵⁶ Constantin Jelenski’s advice was particularly influential in the favourable reply to the EPHE 6^th Section’s request. ⁵⁷ Furthermore, Stone encouraged Heller to accept Jelenski’s assistance in pursuing his projects. A Polish intellectual in exile, Jelenski had belonged to the CCF secretariat and served as director of its seminar programme. In 1957, he co-founded the Writers and Publishers Committee for Intellectual Cooperation (Grémion, 1995: 475–87; Guilhot, 2006: 382–3). The committee’s aim, favoured by the East–West détente, was the diffusion of ideas across the Iron Curtain (Popa, 2010: 227–44; 2015b) by sending books to socialist countries and trying to award fellowships. It was created thanks to a FF grant while operating under the CCF; however, the committee’s founders wanted it to appear more neutral than the CCF, which was well known for its anti-communism. ⁵⁸

Links were established between Heller, the CCF and the committee at least by early 1957. The EPHE’s emerging Polish programme helped the CCF implement some of its plans for the East–West circulation of books and persons, thus making them appear less political. Conversely, the CCF financially supported certain scientific endeavours in the context of the EPHE programme. Furthermore, Heller liaised with another CCF representative, sociologist Daniel Bell, to whom Heller had introduced Gieysztor. The EPHE 6^th Section proceeded to send Western books in response to requests expressed via Gieysztor by the University of Warsaw, then via Manteuffel by the Polish Academy of Sciences. An arrangement was made: the CCF partly sponsored these despatches, selecting, from the list submitted by Polish scholars, works of general and contemporary history but omitting books on medieval history, considered to be far removed from the CCF’s interests. ⁵⁹

Moreover, the EPHE’s fellowship programme seemed to be a useful vehicle for the CCF if other channels for inviting East European intellectuals to Western countries defaulted. ⁶⁰ Jelenski found this programme complementary to those of both the CCF and the FF. In his opinion, the advantages of the EPHE 6^th Section’s fellowship programme were its flexibility, the non-political reputation of the French academic establishment in Polish communist milieux, Heller’s valuable contacts and his efficiency. Heller agreed to invite scholars proposed by the CCF through the EPHE 6^th section. The CCF sponsored their stipends, while the EPHE 6^th Section paid the French insurances. Yet, the process was not always smooth. For instance, in 1957, two CCF proposals concerned scholars seeking to do research in sociology and social psychology. Both were associated with the foremost ‘revisionist’ magazine Po Prostu. Following the protocol, Braudel asked the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs for approval of these candidates. Information sent by the French Embassy in Poland revealed that one of them had the necessary qualifications but had engaged in more journalistic than academic activities, while the other spoke no French. The French ministry therefore considered the former’s invitation as inopportune. ⁶¹ However, this situation was exceptional. The CCF sponsored, indirectly and without the knowledge of those concerned, certain activities of key members of the French–Polish exchange programme, such as the participation of Gieysztor and Witold Kula in a colloquium held in 1958. ⁶² It also funded a scholarship for Leszek Kolakowski, ⁶³ one of Poland’s foremost ‘revisionist’ philosophers. Kolakowski gave lectures on the interpretation of mysticism in the framework of dialectical materialism. Thanks to a CCF subsidy, the EPHE 6^th Section also planned to undertake a French translation of his book on Spinoza. ⁶⁴

The CCF also intervened in the subjects of the French–Polish exchange programme colloquia. Jelenski claimed he was in a position to give Heller suggestions as to subjects, ⁶⁵ even if they would need reformulation so as to appear more general and ‘neutral’ (one of the CCF’s usual methods for depoliticizing issues). Thus his proposal of a seminar on Marxist theory and sociological methods was rephrased ‘Economy and Society’ at the suggestion of Raymond Aron, who co-organized it in 1959 and was a CCF member. In the end, Jelenski considered that under its new title, the colloquium would spread to eastern Europe a CCF series of seminars on ‘Tradition and Change’. ⁶⁶

More generally, cross-information and cross-invitations indicated a discreet proximity between the CCF and the EPHE 6^th Section, aside from the Polish programme. CCF representatives, such as Michael Josselson, its executive director, were invited to attend lectures at the EPHE 6^th Section, such as those given in 1960 by Max Hayward (St Antony’s College, Oxford) on Soviet literature after the thaw. Conversely, in 1958, Heller was invited to a CCF restricted session of debates on George Kennan’s conferences on Soviet issues. These affinities went beyond East European affairs: they concerned area studies issues in general, since the CCF’s representatives would ask Heller to recommend English-speaking French Africanists and experts on Islam, whom the CCF would then invite for the debates it organized. ⁶⁷

A platform for broader international exchanges

The involvement in the EPHE Polish programme of the CCF and the Writers and Publishers Committee was nonetheless more symbolic than financial, although both continued to sponsor stipends in the early 1960s. The programme’s main funding came from the French ministries of Foreign Affairs and National Education, as well as from the FF, while the Polish government covered travel expenses for its fellows and colloquia organized in Poland. Fellows were chosen by the Polish authorities (the Academy of Science interacting with the Science Department of the Communist Party’s Central Committee) and then confirmed by the EPHE 6^th Section. This selection was potentially a source of political bias. In practice, no major incidents seem to have occurred during the first years of the programme. ⁶⁸ Braudel was satisfied with the scientific level of the selection made by the Polish counterparts and defended this way of working before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Fellowships mainly benefited historians, but also economists, sociologists and philosophers, all of whom were not necessarily specialized in Polish or other area studies. While the French–Polish programme was implemented in the Area Studies Division, this diversification enlarged the spectrum of intellectual exchanges. Trips to Poland by French scholars were less numerous than those of their Polish counterparts and were generally for the purpose of conferences and lectures, rather than fieldwork. However, thanks to common research programmes, French scholars benefited from the scientific achievements of their Polish colleagues mainly in social and economic history, medieval history and archaeology.

In 1958, EPHE 6^th Section representatives felt it was essential to hold colloquia as a way for Polish scholars to come into contact with their Western counterparts. Moreover, the co-organization of these conferences with the Polish Academy of Sciences was indirectly used as an argument to persuade the Soviet Academy to authorize the participation of some of its own members, too, with the goal of diversifying the presence of East European scholars. Thus, in 1959, the historian Mikhail Alpatov and the economist Vassilli Nemtchinov attended, respectively, colloquia on the Enlightenment and comparative economic issues. By the beginning of the 1960s, Heller felt that the effort of organizing colloquia was no longer essential: French–Polish contacts had become much more frequent and informal, a remark that implicitly pointed to the specificities of the Polish case. ⁶⁹ The fact that the attempt to extend exchanges to other socialist countries, through intergovernmental agreements, had failed highlights the contrasts beginning to emerge in the supposedly monolithic camp. ⁷⁰

American scholars collaborating with the EPHE 6^th Section also benefited from the scientific opportunities offered by the exchange programme. They met with Polish colleagues in Paris, as Mosely did, and were even invited to Poland in the framework of the cooperation agreement, ⁷¹ as in the case of the Marxian philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who was eager to meet Polish philosophers. ⁷² Marcuse made this trip as an American expert, but mainly thanks to his invitation to the EPHE 6^th Section in 1959 and Heller’s intermediation. Mosely, who recommended his invitation in France, intended for Marcuse’s visit to enrich the heterodox lines of French debate on Marxism. Research on this topic was associated with the Area Studies Division as a result of its interest in Soviet issues. The EPHE 6^th Section representatives felt it important to include Marcuse’s lectures within the Russian and East European programme, although their subject dealt mainly with trends in advanced industrial (i.e. Western) civilization and ‘only by implication with Russia’. ⁷³ The presence in Paris of the author of Soviet Marxism was thus intended to provide an alternative to French thinkers committed to the Communist Party as well as an occasion to bridge Western and eastern, in particular Polish, critical thought on Marxism. Moreover, since the mid-1950s, Marcuse was associated with a RF-support project (Müller, 2010) that aimed to promote international cooperation and ‘unbiased scientific research’ on Marxism. ⁷⁴ Also involved in this project, Mosely recommended the inclusion of the EPHE 6^th Section as well, and provided impetus to EPHE’s inter-European collaborations with Osteuropa-Institut (Berlin), the Institute of Social History (Amsterdam), St Antony’s College (Oxford) and the Institute for eastern Europe (Fribourg). The French contacts in Poland could only enrich these international collaborations and threw new light on this issue. In the same way, the EPHE 6^th Section’s cooperation with the Istituto Giangiacomo Feltrinelli di Studi Economici, Politici e Sociali per Storia del Socialismo (Milan) extended to Polish scholars; conversely, Heller recommended this institution, directed by an ex-communist, to his American counterparts. All these contacts conferred some porosity on the geographical as well as ideological borders of the programme. They indicate that (heterodox) Marxism studies were considered a possible platform for establishing East–West cooperation and even for allowing American partners to make connections with eastern European scholars.

On a more informal basis, Heller also helped FF officers with information on contacts in Poland, in particular former deputy director of the RF Humanities Division, Edward d’Arms, ⁷⁵ who had supported the awarding of the EPHE 6^th Section area studies grant and then moved to the FF. Unsurprisingly, Gieyztor, Kolakowski and Schaff ⁷⁶ were among the Polish scholars Heller suggested as persons to contact. Conversely, during the decades that followed, Braudel would support former Polish fellows for fellowships in the USA, while connecting them to his European networks as well.