"I was the first to apply political science to contemporary history"

What first attracted you to contemporary history?
“I was fascinated by politics from a very young age. By the age of ten, I was already following political debates. That passion came from my father. He was Dutch and had a strong interest in politics in the Netherlands. From the beginning, he encouraged me to adopt a critical mindset. Over time, I also became curious about the historical perspective on current politics. I wanted to study contemporary history at university, but because I hadn’t taken Latin and Greek at secondary school, I didn’t meet the entry requirements. So, I ended up at a teacher training college. My history lecturer there noticed my talent and interest, and said firmly: ‘It would be unthinkable for you not to become a historian.’ He drew up an entire plan: one year of Latin and Greek, then sitting my entrance exam through the state examination board. Thanks to that, I was able to pursue a degree in history at Ghent University. When you consider the effort I had to put in just to study what I wanted, you can see how deep my love for history really was.”

What do you see as your greatest contribution?
“It’s difficult to rank them, but if we look at the three core missions of a university – teaching, research, and social impact – I believe I made contributions on all fronts. In teaching, I tried to pass on knowledge that at the time was still quite new. At one point, I was teaching 1,300 students. I always took care to maintain quality. That meant my courses were not always seen as easy, but I believe my students benefited from them. In terms of research, I was the first – back in the 1970s – to apply approaches from political science to the study of contemporary history. In English-speaking countries, there was already some literature in this area, but in Belgium the field was still embryonic. Finally, I also made a societal contribution by founding BRUT, a research centre where we studied Brussels’ language issues in a multidisciplinary way. At one point, I had 15 researchers working there – exceptional for the humanities.”

"I have always tried to pass on my knowledge, which was quite new at the time, to my students. As a result, my course was not always considered easy"

You haven’t mentioned your rectorship, yet from 1994 you served six years as the first female rector of VUB.
“That’s true. Perhaps I should have mentioned it, but it was a very difficult time. My partner and my mother both died, and I was diagnosed with cancer. I gave my first academic address just after my first chemotherapy session.It was also one of the hardest periods in VUB’s history. The then Education Minister, Luc Van den Bossche, argued that several programmes had to be cut due to austerity measures. Physiotherapy was one of the courses under threat. I had to fight, fight, and fight again. My speeches were all about struggle. With the help of many at VUB, we prevailed – but looking back, it feels like an overwhelmingly heavy period.”

“Being a woman in a male-dominated environment was not always easy either. That was true not only at VUB, but also when I chaired the board of the VRT. At that time, there were hardly any women in top positions. I was often ‘the one woman’ invited to the table because a few forward-thinking men thought it should be different. Being the only woman at that level was not an easy position. First, you needed a man to nominate you, otherwise you stood no chance. Second, you had little choice but to behave like a man – it was the only way to achieve your goals.”

Where do your work and passions meet?
“They’ve always been deeply intertwined. My partner was also a historian. At home, history was ever-present. Only the rectorship disrupted my research. That made that period even harder – my heart was always in history. In fact, when I accepted the post, I made it a condition that there would still be a life in history afterwards. And thankfully, there was. Even today, my life revolves around history. Since the end of my rectorship, I’ve been working on my seventh book.”

How do you see your field evolving?
“I’ve always followed it closely. I even taught the course Theory of History, and I continue to write books on historiography, the evolution of history as a discipline. To put it briefly, I began my career at a time when the nouvelle histoire was in vogue. This approach, which emerged in the late 1930s and became especially popular after the Second World War, places people and their behaviour at the centre of history. It’s not so much about facts, but about studying problems from multiple perspectives – political, economic, social, cultural. According to the nouvelle histoire, all these dimensions are interconnected. Since the late 1990s, however – and continuing today – narrativism has gained ground in the humanities, including history. Narrativists argue that everything written is a story: not facts, but representations. I have remained loyal to the nouvelle histoire, but in my latest book, Nation-Building in Belgium, I’ve also integrated insights from narrativism. One has to learn from the way the discipline evolves, without discarding what remains important.”