Eric Hobsbawm Owed His Success to Mass Culture

Eric Hobsbawm was a master of what he self-deprecatingly called haute vulgarisation, Oxbridge-inflected confident generalization based on selectively chosen data. He combined this elite education with popular appeal in a way few had done before.

January 1976: British historian Eric Hobsbawm, author of 'The Age of Empire', 'The Age of Capital' and 'The Age of Revolution'.

Eric Hobsbawm observed and accepted the cultural values of the educated bourgeoisie and produced popular history that cast the working class as their rightful inheritors. (Wesley / Keystone / Getty Images)


More than the “revolutionary historian” promised by the subtitle, the Eric Hobsbawm chronicled in Emile Chabal’s biography is above all a canny academic entrepreneur. Early in his career, Hobsbawm found a literary agent and converted his lectures for undergraduates into a series of best-selling books. He made valuable contacts with rising-star scholars and publishing houses in continental Europe. He traveled widely: not so much for archival research, which he practiced sparingly, but for conferences, lectures, and intellectual tourism in appealing destinations. The Soviet Union, which occupied a central place in his thought for obvious reasons, did not qualify for more than a brief, unpleasant visit.

He displayed a knack for keeping himself in the public eye, with a steady stream of journalism and polemics, and for a degree of tactical adaptation. In the 1980s, he pivoted from writing the histories of the working class that defined his early work to studies of nationalism and invented traditions. By the late 1990s, he had achieved such eminence that he could turn down a knighthood while requesting — and receiving — a considerably more prestigious and exclusive appointment to the Order of the Companions of Honour, an award also tied to the monarchy but with less symbolic baggage.

Eric Hobsbawm, Careerist?

If all this sounds less than flattering, it isn’t because Chabal has written a hatchet job. On the contrary: The Age of Hobsbawm is admiring of the historian’s accomplishments while mercifully free of the emotional overinvestments he inspired in earlier generations. The absence of tedious Cold War moralism — alternately prosecutorial or tortured on such questions as Hobsbawm’s failure to leave the party after 1956 or his enjoyment of establishment privileges — is refreshing. Chabal offers a decidedly twenty-first century perspective, concerned more with explaining the global phenomenon that was Hobsbawm than judging the man or seeking to revive his ideas. But the line between demythologization and deflation is thin. Turning a high-resolution lens on the sausage-making of academic advancement and intellectual reputation-building is bound to leave any subject diminished.

This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.