Historical research was largely characterised in the sixties and seventies of the 20th century by the study of conflict based on the analysis of both structural and cyclical elements (coalescing in topics such as the relationship between work and capital, processes of pauperisation and exclusion, resistance and conflicts); during the eighties the influence of historical anthropology provoked a shift towards the study of collective identities, group dynamics, cultural repertoires. In the nineties and in present-day social historical research influences of both traditions have merged to put emphasis on the study of the collective behaviour of social groups, through elements such as collective rituals, shared values and norms. Central are notions such as networks, fields, habitus, symbolic violence. Again a clear link to present-day debates in society at large is obvious, the role and importance of middling groups and group behaviour for one. The inspiration of today’s leading and influential social theories (Bourdieu, Coleman, Giddens, Habermas) may be clear and needs to be verified by confrontation with historical processes, still the biggest available databank for human behaviour. The succeeding IAP programmes in which several of the currently participating teams have been involved (Ghent and Antwerp being the most visible in this respect) reflect of course this paradigmatic shift in historical practice of the past decades.

The urbanised and economically highly (and early) developed urban societies in the Low Countries offer a specific and principal theatre for the research set out in the preceding IAP programmes; they continue to fuel the present proposal. During the late Middle Ages and in the early modern period (roughly speaking between 1200 and 1800) an original and leading bourgeois society took shape in this part of old Europe, generating some developments which had great influences on the genesis of other urbanised civilisations (in the ‘new world’ for instance) in most social, political and cultural aspects. The development and evolution of civil society in a long and crucial period of transformation (in different responsive fields, economy, religion, culture, political power) covering the 13th till the 18th century will offer the basis for a better comparison of developments in the Netherlands with those in other parts of urbanised Europe. In this respect, one may think in the first place of south-eastern England, south-western Germany, and above all northern and central Italy; all of these regions are better known among urban historians as ‘the blue banana’ referring to the satellite photograph on which the urban belt across the European continent is visible. This comparison will question why similar causes have resulted in different outcomes and how the latter may be explained. In embracing this comparative perspective the programme responds to the major recommendation which came out of the evaluation of phase V of the IAP programme. After intense internal discussion, the new proposal was elaborated along three major lines of research, reflected in the three general work packages: urban space, knowledge and cultural capital, social capital.

The network has in the past paid attention to enlarge its impact on the scientific community in Belgium by creating a group of collaborators that has grown out of it and continues, even when not formally or directly engaged or financed by the network, to work with it.

Enlargement of the composition of the network was sought along the lines of research that were singled out and resulted in a potential strengthening and added to the complementary nature of the teams. The choices were both for a resolute interdisciplinary approach involving the art historian’s approach (MRBA/KMSK) and for one of the strongest and best elaborated history departments (see the recent national evaluation and visitation) of the Netherlands (Utrecht) as new ‘European partner’.

In the composition of the teams already present in phase V (Ghent, Brussels, Antwerp, the Royal Library) a mix of continuity and renovation has been deliberately sought. This has resulted in the first place in a more important emphasis than before on the ‘early modern period’, due to an important shift in the chronological scope of the programme, involving the whole of the so-called Ancien Régime (whereas phase V took the Revolt of the Netherlands against king Philip II of Spain as a terminus).

Through the presence of two national scientific institutions, the Royal Library and the Museum of Fine Arts, the network wants to strengthen its research capacity, since aspects of scientific knowledge (book production and ownership) and of the representation and practical use of knowledge (art) are central in the new project. Both institutions are home to some of the richest collections of manuscripts, rare books and art collections in the country and collaboration with their leading scientists will enrich the academic approach to these questions. At the same time this collaboration opens several windows of opportunity to reach a much broader culturally interesting public, for instance, by collaborating on exhibitions, thus making it possible for a broader interested public to come into direct contact with results of scientific research.

Urban history is part of the rich historiographical tradition of Belgium, not only because ever since the Middle Ages the Low Countries have counted among the strongest urbanised parts of Europe and hence possess rich urban archives and landscapes, the sources which make urban history possible, but also because the country has, since the development of scientific and academic historical research in the course of the 19th century, been home to some of the world’s leading urban historians. The latter have drawn on the rich urban past and have made possible a fusion of great historiographical traditions, epitomised by the German and French tradition of that moment, since they were active in the words of Henri Pirenne (1862-1935) ‘au point sensible de l’Europe’. It was this great historian, active at the universities of Ghent and Brussels (ULB), who set in motion a tradition of research in the field of urban history that still echoes strongly among present-day historians, both in Belgium and abroad. Several generations later, this tradition has been passed onto present-day historians through the works of famous predecessors like François-Louis Ganshof, Hans van Werveke, Adriaan Verhulst, Raymond van Uytven, Jean-Pierre Sosson, Walter Prevenier before finally coming to rest in the hands of the present generation. Looking back on this tradition one realises the fragility of its construction as it was subjected to the perilous and risky continuity (and often absence of any continuity at all) between generations in charge of academic positions. Indeed during the decades stretching from the 1950s till recent years, a general framework for maintaining the visibility of urban history and for organising research in this area was provided by private funding through the role played by the local banking authority, the ‘crédit communal’ or ‘Gemeentekrediet’ (which was thus responsive to the theme of urban history). Since this bank disappeared after a fusion into a larger European banking consortium, this pivotal role (resulting in the organisation of 18 international colloquia and the publication of 100 monographs, mainly PhD’s in history) has been abandoned. The ‘history committee’ of Dexia (of which two senior researchers of the IAP, C. Billen and M. Boone are part) will continue to award a yearly prize for two more years and then will cease its activities. This makes the current IAP the last nationally organised meeting-point for urban historians in Belgium, and its series of publications the successor of the committee.

Apart from this argument derived from national traditions, there are even more fundamental scientific reasons to motivate a financial investment in the field of urban history. During the last two decades, history as a science has been subjected to the generally observable trend of specialisation and atomisation of research. On top of that the influence of post-modern criticism generally at work in the human sciences has also affected the way history was perceived and practised as a science. The need for a reunifying effort aimed at synthesis is therefore great. Urban history offers an excellent opportunity to achieve such a goal. Towns and cities as a focus are an excellent choice, since, through the unity of place, the need to study the way in which several items isolated in traditional historical research (political history, economic history, cultural history etc.) react reciprocally towards each other is crucial. To put the focus of urban history on itself is, for that very reason, not new; prominent historians of the past decades have of course highlighted the functions of the town as ‘agent de civilisation’ (Jacques Le Goff), but as it allows us to overcome the stalemate created by atomisation and post-modern relativism, it may be looked upon as a very promising angle to tackle general history again. Not the study of ‘everything that happened in cities’ as such, but the societal dynamics engendered by city life and by urban experiences are crucial. It is not by accident that a similar inspiration lies at the heart of the large programme of research ‘Urbanisation and city culture’ launched recently by the Dutch scientific organisation NOW. This way of looking at the urban past as a constantly changing basic tool, creating meaning and allowing several readings, brings to the foreground a need to question the past of cities as cultural expressions. The prominent position occupied by ‘cultural’ expressions and the need for a interdisciplinary approach involving the study of images, texts and text-bearers finds its justification in this.

The teams involved in this programme are very conscious of the need, as is true for any scientific output, to share the results of historical research with society at large. Concretely this may mean inside the IAP itself the organisation of an exhibition, for which the two national scientific institutions (the Museum of Fine Arts and the Royal Library) are the obvious partners. Collaboration with the other university partners is both a challenge and a possible outlet for achieving the interdisciplinary approach to urbanity central to the programme’s objectives. Outside the IAP collaboration with a series of official city museums may be mentioned. Be it in Bruges (‘Bruggemuseum’) or Antwerp (‘Museum aan de stroom’), in Ghent (STAM, the new historical museum in the Bijloke), in Hasselt or in Brussels, several members of the IAP programme are directly involved in the genesis of these city museums of a new generation which will focus on urban history. Most if not all of these initiatives have to be finished in the course of the new programme, 2007-2011, giving rise to fruitful collaboration.