Failure by design? Contesting the use of failure in historical research

In this blog post, Paula González Fons of the European University Institute outlines her paper about the use of failure in historical research, based on a paper recently presented at the 2025 Annual Conference of the Economic History Society.

—

Success or failure: which one is more destructive? The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu posed this thought-provoking question in Tao Te Ching (4^th century BCE), a cornerstone of Chinese philosophical literature. Historical research has provided a myriad of examples on both success stories and failed processes yet neither of the concepts have been historicised. More so, failure has often been understood in relation to, and contrary to, success, rather than as an independent phenomenon.

Failure, as a word, carries weight and reflects meanings of a final verdict, an inevitable dead end. Words, like the societies that create and shape them, evolve. The term ‘failure’ originates from the Latin fallere ‘to trip’ or ‘to deceive’, which passed to Old French as failir, meaning ‘be lacking’ or ‘err’. Then, it transitioned into Anglo-French failer, before becoming the English failure, defined as an ‘act of failing’ or ‘deficiency’. Failure represented a lack of success in a particular task, meaning a temporary setback. By the mid-nineteenth century, its definition had shifted to link the concept to individual characteristic. The cultural historian Scott Sandage argued that the meaning of ‘failure’ changed from being a single event to a permanent mark on one’s character, becoming something you could be rather than something that happened to you. This shift highlights how the concept of failure has been dynamic and contextual.

In historical research, failure has often been used as a simple label, intertwined with revolutions that did not triumph, policies that did not work, or industries that faded into obscurity. These narratives are frequently accompanied by teleological analyses, which seek to explain and justify the attribution of a particular process or event as a failure. Nevertheless, failure should not be viewed as a definitive ending to a narrative. Understanding that failure is not merely a label, but a historical notion, allows us to find new ways of conceptualising the past.

The silk industry of New Spain offers a clear example that challenges the use of failure as a label in historical research. Once a thriving enterprise in the central decades of the sixteenth century, the Novo-Hispanic silk industry declined in the 1580s. This shift has been traditionally attributed to external factors such as the influx of Chinese silk into Novo-Hispanic markets and the imposition of Spanish authorities’ protectionist policies favouring Peninsular production. Previous studies have examined only specific aspects, such as global trade or sericulture, which risks undermining the industry’s trajectory into a straightforward rise-and-fall narrative.

Beneath the surface, the story is far more complicated than the partial picture so far has shown us. Demographic shifts, changing consumer tastes, cultural traditions, and economic priorities were crucial, yet understudied, elements of the picture. Even after large-scale production diminished, silk-raising continued, and guilds persisted to fulfil their role in manufacturing silk throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The nineteenth century witnessed a promotion of local production driven by politicians and experts who authored treatises on moriculture and sericulture. In the early twentieth century, schoolteachers advocated for the cultivation of silkworms among students to perpetuate the long-standing tradition of silkworm raising in New Spain. In the light of this, we question whether the silk industry was really a failure as predetermined in the literature, or simply a case of adaptation in the face of shifting circumstances.

Historians Patricia A. McAnany and Norman Yoffee have argued that applying the ‘failure’ label to past societies can impose a false sense of inevitability. In their book Questioning Collapse, they challenge the popular idea that ancient civilisations like the Maya or Easter Islanders collapsed due to their own mistakes. Instead, they argue that such narratives often obscure the resilience of communities that found ways to adapt, endure, or transform. This argument aligns with the critique of the concept of ‘failure’ in history taken up by the persistence studies. These commonly analyse a specific present-day outcome using permanent features or events that happened in the past trying to ascertain how deep the historical roots of the present are. Although this field has also sparked critique due to the proposed historical dependence over millennia, the idea of persistence can help historians see failure as a narrative construct rather than a mere outcome.

By historicising the concept of failure, historians can move beyond binary assessments and explore the scope of human experiences. The silk industry in New Spain illustrates how an initial perception of failure can be reinterpreted to highlight resilience when analysed over time and in a comprehensive way. This shift in perspective is crucial in a world increasingly fascinated with productivity and achievement. 

References:

McAnany, Patricia Ann and Yoffee, Norman (Eds), Questioning collapse: human resilience, ecological vulnerability, and the aftermath of empire (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Sandage, Scott A., Born Losers: A History of Failure in America (Harvard University Press, 2006)

To contact the author:

Paula González Fons

paula.gonzalezfons@eui.eu

European University Institute