Explaining the Social World: Historicism versus Positivism Author(s): Jonathan H. Turner Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol.

47, No. 3 (Summer, 2006), pp. 451-463 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120681 . Accessed: 09/09/2013 10:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ISSN 0038-0253 The SociologicalQuarterly

EXPLAININGTHE SOCIAL WORLD: Historicism versus Positivism

H.Turner* Jonathan
ofCalifornia, Riverside University

meto droptheterm friends haveencouraged Forquitesometime, mybestprofessional no doubt, ofhumansociety. a natural science for from Theyare, myadvocacy positivism iswidely misunderstood intheir advice becausethelabel"positivism" correct bysocioloto the those committed to condemn used is often and,today, epistemolpejoratively gists as well)for man"(andwoman, is nowa kindof"straw Indeed, positivism ogyofscience. Yorkand The fineessayby Richard to science. of alternative epistemologies advocacy like of and of the standard Brett Clarkmakes previous many critiques positivism, many thenature ofpositivofpositivism doesnotreflect characterization their commentators, ideasto somenewand important York and Clark in sociology. isttheorizing Still, bring linesof their addsmany anddebated. needtobe discussed thetablethat Moreover, essay I will while historical to Marxism and substantive that, quiteengaging, analysis thinking I willstay on therespective merits ofposifocused inmycomments; notdiscuss instead, with York and to and historical tivistic explanation, beginning sociological approaches of Clark's portrayal positivism.

ANDWHYITIS WRONG OF POSITIVISM THESTANDARD CRITIQUE

Is Positivism OnlyQuantitative? ofsociofor is itspresumed ofpositivism One standard quantification advocacy critique The here is that York and Clark. a positivimplication repeated charge by inquiry, logical andinso doing, andnumbers, intovariables allconcepts totranslate ists want positivism their while from andcomplexity thesubtlety placeinhistorconcepts key ignoring strips havephysics that a further There is often icalcontext. (muchlike envy positivists charge but delusional. is also that not an Freudian their onlypathological counterparts), envy in many to quantification doesnotlenditself thesocialworld Forantipositivists, simply buttons that the this but do not andClark instances. York push certainly go quite far, they this tired start critique rolling. becauseI havebeenoneof rather I havealways found this criticism especially strange, In theearly in decades I havecalled ofwhat critics thestrongest "quantamania" sociology. to but indeed want did ofthelastcentury, (1920) Franklin everything, quantify Giddings in The concepts in their theories. thevariables I knowdo notquantify mostpositivists this but to is and it to be theories their them, sure, variables, are, possible quantify perhaps therelationships whichstates to thetheory is secondary kindof exercise itself, among A few ofthesocialuniverse. andprocesses denote that positivists properties key concepts
of California, of Sociology, H. Turner, to Jonathan *Directall correspondence University Department CA 92521;e-mail Riverside, jonathan.turner@ucr.edu
47 (2006)451-463 The Sociological Quarterly ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 451

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the SocialWorld Explaining

Jonathan H.Turner

usemathematics intheir formulation oftheoretical butthis is notthesameas principles, variables. The more is at ispossithat, times, quantifying important point quantification and if it is but for its own violates the sake ble, desirable, quantification possible, probably basictenets ofpositivism. Themostimportant tenet for is to denote universal positivists and generic of thesocialworldand to formulate lawsabouttheir properties dynamic whether these lawsarestated in words or mathematics muchlessdifmakes properties; thanformulating ference abstract lawsabouttheoperative ofsomedomainof dynamics thesocialuniverse. ofthemost inscience havenever beenpreMany important concepts for there is reason to selection, quantified-natural cisely example-and suppose every thatsuchwillalso be thecase in sociology. theworst thatcan happenIndeed, thing from this to havepremature like much positivist's perspective-is quantification (again, Freudian of positivism's counterpart) key concepts. Is Positivism Statistical Simply Analysis? WhenAuguste Comte(1830-1842)madehisforceful for thescientific of advocacy study socialorganization, he wanted to callthenewdiscipline social we all have physics-as beentaught. Whatis often left out of thistaleis thereason that he adoptedtheLatinThe Belgian, Greek had already AdolpheQuetelet, hybrid: sociology. appliedthelabel to hisparticular brandofstatistical thus itunavailable "socialphysics" analysis, making to Comte([1830-1842] 1896) in his advocacy of positivism, a situation thattroubled hedetested Comtegreatly because thelabel"sociology." There is a certain that posirony itivism is now associated withdescriptive statistics-anassociation thatwouldmake Comteturn overin hisgrave at thetime that Comtewaswriting, theterm for, "physics" hadnotbeenusurped ofthis nameand,instead, meant "tostudy bythecurrent discipline thenature of" things. to be a science that studied the Thus,Comtewanted sociology Hisidealfor law nature ofthesocial. was Newton's of rather than Quetesociology gravity andsubsequent statisticians' allpositivists, let's works. ForComte, as for thegoalis notto withstatistics-although describe there is nothing withsuch empirical reality wrong work-butto formulate lawsabouttheunderlying and fundamental relaof, dynamics forces the universe. Statistics social is not to be useful tionships among, driving likely very informulating suchlaws. Yorkand Clarkvery review some of thehistory when of how positivism, briefly worked over within theViennaCircle, as something different thanComte emerged very envisioned. York and Clarkdo notadequately However, ([1830-1842]1896)originally how became associated with "raw explain positivisms empiricism,""compulsive quantifior "mindless statistical fortheir ownsake.Indeed, I haveargued that cation," analysis" in Vienna such the as Ernst "turned with a Comte on his head" charCircle, Mach, many acterization that haslittle In addition, resemblance to Comte's thenotion of positivism. that alsoemerged Circle from theVienna a Comtean was,from positivism" "logical persincepositivism meansto formulate abstract lawsand thenmake redundant, spective, deductions to empirical cases.Andso,nothing couldbe farther from theinterests ofa thanempirical of socialprocesses thatarenotguided positivist descriptions byhighly abstract theoretical principles.
452 The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H.Turner Jonathan

the Social World Explaining

Is Positivism Inductive? A related is essentially critique-repeated byYorkand Clark-assertsthatpositivism to make from ofempirinductive, statistical) seeking generalizations descriptions (mostly ical regularities. couldbe farther from whatpositivists advocate and, Nothing actually For from more what do. take these words Comte's 1830-1842, ( [ example, important, they vol.2:242] 1986)Positive "No realobservation ofanykindofphenomena is Philosophy: in so far as itis first andfinally connected, possible, except interpreted, bysometheory:" On thenext Comtegoeson toassert: itis clear "Hence, that, page, scientifically speaking, allisolated, is and even that science observation canuse idle, uncertain; empirical radically which those observations are at least with some law." connected, only hypothetically, York and Clark introduce Mills'(1961) critique of"abstracted andthen empiricism" with this brush. There is a concern that when laws are derived positivists paint legitimate from at in time and do not address empirical regularities particular points place,they anduniverse make time-bound events soundmore univerbut, instead, processes generic with that sal and generic thantheyactually are.Again, would Mills positivists agree is abstracted not the to because the of is empiricism way develop theory, goal positivism In totest lawsthat toall societies inallplacesandatalltimes. toformulate andthen apply I wouldargue that York and Clark's fora historically informed fact, advocacy theoryin particular of thatis, generalizations about processes epochs-is farmore guilty which to to move abstracted than seeks do the empiricism positivism, just opposite: away andplaces, to develop from casesinparticular times lawsfor and,in so doing, particular alltimes andplaces. from a process combined Theories are often of"abduction" (induction developed inwhich moves between theabstract andgeneric, on theone with thetheorist deduction) andhistorical, on theother. from this ofdatawith And, side,andtheempirical interplay theories Sometheories, suchas Charles andprinciples, testable abstract concepts emerge. natural from an inductive of formulation ofthelawof Darwin's selection, emerge process similar formulation was mostly thedata (whereas Alfred Wallace's deductive, assessing as a a from fever attack other theories malaria); coming blinding insight during nighttime in of mathematics where the calculus often aremore deductive (as physics, points purely ofthephysical movebackand forth, to keyproperties and still others universe), using In most toassess andviceversa. theories abstract sciences, concepts, empirical knowledge ofrelevant aredeveloped whohavea considerable store ofknowledge empirbyscholars to develop abstract icalregularities butwho,at thesametime, arealso willing concepts never a lock-step theseregularities. and lawsthatcan explain is,therefore, Theorizing It always a creative casesto themore ofinduction. involves leap from empirical process and abstract. general, analytical, Is Positivism Reductionist? insociology isthecharge ofreductionism. assaults aimedatscientists One ofthefrequent ingreat tothose fear that somesociological lawscanbe reduced tolive Sociologists appear Thesefears underscore collective inseofpsychology or (gasp!)biology. only sociology's in thissense:theproperties of theuniverse becauseall scienceis reductionist curity,
47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society The Sociological Quarterly 453

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the SocialWorld Explaining

Jonathan H. Turner

studied moreelemental builtfrom studied by one scienceare typically properties by another science. Chemists do notbecome that some of the elements collectively paranoid oftheir universe canbe explained arenotworried aboutwhat biobyphysics; biologists does to their embrace and evenpsy(indeed, chemistry explanations they chemistry); do not fall when is introduced. For most there isa clear scientists, chologists apart biology the that as a result of more elemental relations recognition phenomena emerge among units(whether chemical or quarks)and that, forpractical elements, beings, biological itisnotalldevastating tohavea few lawsthat arededucible from lawsaboutthe purposes, elements that make Somephenomena lendthemselves to up these phenomena. emergent in arenotso easily reduction; other cases, phenomena explained bytheforces operating on their constituent elements. shouldnotbecomehysterical and preThus,sociologists the issue. the laws the the of and of Instead, judge governing operation parts society those in terms its should be assessed of what and compared explaining emergent properties addtoan explanation ofbothparts andthewholes built from these This more they parts. is all thata positivist wouldargue, and sociologists often stake outan extreme position aboutthesanctity ofemergent that in other sciences. phenomena goesagainst practices Evenif a certain amountof reduction was possible, thelawson emergent properties wouldbe theonesthat mostsociologists wouldusebecausereduction is often a simply of rather the than an effort to a disciprocess demonstrating unity phenomena destroy Ifsociologists often seemtoassume. were more would secure, pline-as sociologists they notpanicevery other areusedtosupplement time ideasfrom orexpand sociodisciplines And the that are reductionists would not be the positivists logicalexplanations. charge to "fire" in a movie theater. equivalent shouting In sum, I seethese four leveled and Clark as "straw men" that then, critiques byYork deflect ourenergies more issues from that need to be York and discussed. important away not us the real Clark's and do understand are critiques overstated, they help epistemologicaldifferences I willlabel, between andwhat lackofa better for historiterm, positivists cists. Thereis,I believe, a realdifference between thosewho seekto develop lawsthat in all times universal forces and places, and those whoattempt to explain social explain in their I events and contexts. am historical not that one is empirical approach claiming to the that are different And we should other, superior only they enterprises. recognize this difference andavoidmudslinging over contests thedifferences.

TOWARD A MORECONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE OVEREPISTEMOLOGY

The strong aroundseveral related pointsofYorkand Clark's essayrevolve arguments. One important is that of the forces that drive and many empirical historical argument for oftime, constants-like on earth-with are, processes essentially longperiods gravity theresult thatthey willbe ignored in statistical forwhom bythoseengaging analysis, ifthey must areever to geton theradar screen. The conclusion is that, since things vary is aboutstatistical it cannotexplain "socialgravity"-acontention positivism analysis, that is simply Another is that orhistorical events wrong. important argument empirical at anygiven of theuniqueconfluence timearetypically outcomes and intersection of
454 47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society The Sociological Quarterly

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H.Turner Jonathan

theSocial World Explaining

at a particular Thiscontention is obviously forces true, pointin time. many justas the eachdayis an intersection offorces. weather this doesnotmakepositivism or However, science irrelevant tounderstanding theflow ofempirical events. Another consignificant onethat others havemadeina somewhat different manner tention, 1984), (e.g.,Giddens intime isthat theconstitution ofreality atonepoint thevery transforms nature ofreality ata later intime, thus lawsthat were tobe abouttheuniverpoint invalidating presumed sal and timeless In of the social universe. this and then properties making observation ittomount York a critique ofpositivism, andClark confuse using empirical descriptions is time with theoretical whereas the is other not. the bound, explanations-one Finally, authors makethepointthatphenomena can suddenly shift to a new setof valuesor often newtypes ofphenomena. Thesesudden be valences, creating entirely changes may ofa uniqueconfluence ofevents or perhaps theresult a consequence ofslowly accumuto sometipping Likethebioticuniverse (and unrecognized) point. lating changes (e.g., or massextinctions) thephysical world(e.g.,volcaniceruppunctuated equilibrium, thesocialis filled with sudden andtransformative events industions), (e.g.,revolution, seemto do justfine in explaining Sinceother sciences other realms ofthe trialization). universe where are sudden and is this transformative, changes critique why supposedly for andaddress letmebacktrack eachofthese useful Now, positivists? devastating points inmoredetail. ofdebate Does "SocialGravity" ObviateScience? Itis true that someofthemost forces human and behavior, interaction, powerful driving are not in short time measured nor are amenable to staframes, organization easily they inthebackground tistical aretooembedded ordo notvary analyses. They simply signifover I think that this isprobably themost icantly longhistorical periods. important point in Yorkand Clark'sarticle, a realchallenge and it represents to short-term or crosssectional of socialprocesses. York and Clarktakean extra However, empirical analyses as overly and stafirst, inductive, stepby, positivists portraying descriptive, quantitative, this inaccurate of assert that-look here!tistical; then, using portrayal positivism, they is not of these social forces that do not positivism capable discovering really important for of time. This is conclusion with vary longperiods only possible misrepresentagross tionsofpositivism. There aresubsidiary tothis ofevents at points general critique. Any empirical analysis a particular time andplacewilloften offorces misstheeffects that constitute "social gravitis necessary to do theequivalent ofwhat Therefore, ity." astrophysics did-get outinto thegravitational from each spaceandexplore pullofbodiesthat vary bysizeanddistance other andthat, as a result, exert of concern with Indeed, varying degrees gravitational pull. ledtoNewton's famous lawand,later, tomoregeneral setsoflawsformulated gravity by Einstein. Whatstrikes meas strange is that York and Clark that sociappearto conclude cannot do thesamething: universe-that of is,societies ology getoutofourimmediate thepresent-andlookat diverse societies at different times and placeswhere thesocial likegravity offorces tobe fair, do suggest that must Well, equivalent vary. they sociology be more historical andmust examine events over oftime to ferret outthe periods longer
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006)451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 455

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

World theSocial Explaining

H.Turner Jonathan

Their effects ofsocialgravity. ofpositivism, as notbeing abletodo this however, portrayal is clearly is since this what seeks to do. positivist theory wrong, exactly inother In fact, thestructure ofsocieties times andplaces, positivbyexamining early istsreasoned to observe theforces ofthesocialuniverse andto that itwouldbe possible inthese ofsocialorganization. Thisis variations forces andtheir effects on patterns track likeComte([1830-1842]1896),Spencer ([1874-1896]2002),and positivists whyearly wanted toseethefull ofvariation Durkheim evolutionists; ([ 1893]1947)were they range in humansocieties York so that that andClark think coulddo justthething importhey in socialforces like of tant: variations drive the formation discover that, gravity, patterns in socialorganizations. as number-crunching, inducIf, however, positivists youportray tive isnotup tothetask itis easy toargue that ofanalyzing socialgravpositivism grunts, to do can be found in thework The bestexample ofwhatearly of ity. positivists sought often and of Herbert ridiculed Spencer-an generally ignored figure sociology. founding hima is regularly considered an "armchair" makes theorist, which, Spencer apparently, The of the work, however, suspicious corpus Spencer's opposite. figure. suggests just assembled thelargest collection of dataon humansocieties of anysociologist Spencer The 16 volumes thelate who ever lived. ofhisDescriptive assembled between Sociology, after were commissioned his and 1860sand mid-1930s his death), (from (long royalties to in the for one record wide variations structures of diverse societinheritance) purpose: ies.Descriptive thesimplest and mostcomplex societies ofSpencer's compares Sociology historical and many volumes trace thelong-term transformations ofsocieties that time, to draw served as the had a written upon.Spencer's Descriptive inspirahistory Sociology Files (via his mentors William tion forGeorgeP. Murdock's HumanAreaRelations andAlbert Keller atYale [1927]).Spencer's ThePrinciples Graham Sumner Galloway of is with data so because it is filled 2,000 2002) (over ([1874-1896] pages) long Sociology to from the reasonthatSpencercommissioned societies; professionals verydiverse is variatheknown dataon societies and because he wanted to see assemble present past In fact, insocialforces. thetitle ofthis work tells us Spencer's like tions goal:toarticulate, in all theprinciples ofthesocialforces theformation ofsocieties anyphysicist, driving times andplaces. thelargedataset EmileDurkheim ([1893] 1947) did muchthesame,butwithout With Sanderson Lenski somenotable 1999; 2005), exceptions (e.g., developed bySpencer. itiscontemporary most whohave lostsight ofthesocioMarxists, sociologists, including inalltimes of"gravitational that drive theformation ofsocieties forces" equivalent logical in interested those forces that are and places.In contrast, are positivists mostly isolating in myview, and organize. It is Marxists, whenhumans interact, behave, present always In I with their of historical think that Marxwhoaremore fact, epochs. parochial analysis inassuming istsandothers makea fundamental mistake that thelawsofsocialorganizathe operation are tion are timebound,such thatthe laws governing of feudalism feudalism and somehow different thanthosedirecting of Descriptions capicapitalism. willcometo be talism willcertainly abstracted and,perhaps vary empiricism, through ifweassume theforseenas "laws" ofa historical that theforces However, epoch. driving and capitalism and interactions mationof feudalism are thesame (onlythevalences
456 47 (2006)451-463 The Sociological Quarterly ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H.Turner Jonathan

theSocial World Explaining

then wewilldiscover thesociological ofgravity-as amongtheforces vary), equivalent aremore todo than historicists andMarxists. willfind Indeed, positivists likely positivists in socialgravity variations becausethey seek to discover universal forces that are always nottimebound.Thus,we do nothavelawsoffeudal, or socialist capitalist, production, butlawsofproduction ingeneral that drive theformation ofpatterns ofsocialorganizationinalltimes andplaces. Thelawsthemselves do notchange, butthe values the varifor ablesin theselawschange and this is how the same law can a wide historically, explain inthelaw.Similarly, ofempirical manifestations oftheforces wedo not specified variety havelawsaboutparticular modesofpower but totalitarianism, (e.g., democracy), rather, wehavelawsaboutthedynamics ofpower, be used that can toexplain allpolitical perse, in alltimes formations andplaces. Andthesamecouldbe saidfor element anyempirical ofa particular historical formation: there areforces this andthe formation, driving job of science istodiscover theoperative of and these forces to these express dynamics dynamics in abstract laws. I am sure, Itis true, that those inhistory willfind whoareinterested theexplanations ofsocial For will historicists, physicists positivistic wanting. explanations notteaseoutthe detailsthatare of mostinterest to historians, nor willtheexplanation offer a robust ofhistorical events orcausesofparticular outcomes. Thisdissatisdescription empirical faction is whatleadshistoricists to reject For a the positivistic explanations. positivist, is in to nomothetic which laws are used to goal generate explanations general explain particular and historical whereas for a historicist, theintent is to describe events, empirical thesets andsequences ofevents a particular Astowhich outcome. is causing explanation moresatisfying, thisis really a matter ofpreferences and purposes. As a positivist, I find more toseea particular for as oneempirical manifestation revolution, example, satisfying ofconflict ingeneral that canbe explained lawson thedynamprocesses bya few general In contrast, ics ofconflict as a socialforce. historicists wouldbe moresatisfied with the scenario ofhistorical events andwouldseethenomothetic as the lifeexplanation taking bloodoutofthese events. One typeof explanation is notsuperior to theother; aresimply twodifferent they to the social in understand universe. There which the twomodes are, however, ways ways In almost ofthinking can supplement eachother. all ofmymacrolevel I use theorizing, historical and other sources of datato deteraccounts, anthropological ethnographies, in concepts minetherange of potential variation of mylaws(see,forexample, Turner theories are to with a few 1995,2002). Moreover, laws, my designed explain, covering events described historians. I take a deal from and I when move Thus, historians, by great I do thesamething to themesoand micro with accounts ofsmallerlevel, ethnographic scalesocialforms andinteractions, aswellas more sets ofdata. These statistically analyzed mea sensefor intheforces, therange ofvariation thewholepoint of datagive andagain, nomothetic is to explain thedatainthese with a small studies number ofabstract theory historians cangainsomething from atpositivistic principles. Conversely, looking theory: a sensefor thegeneric forces-that the "social is or was in a is, gravity"-that operating orhistorical case.Positivistic thus cluesaboutwhat particular empirical provides theory classes ofempirical events arethebestcandidates foran explanatory ofthe description
TheSociological 47 (2006)451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Quarterly Society Sociological 457

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

theSocial World Explaining

H.Turner Jonathan

A historian orethnographer causesofsomehistorical outcome. ofcourse, addallthe will, details that a nomothetic takes or out empirical explanation interesting ignores. here isthat weneedtorecognize thedifference historical between Thus, mybigpoint andnomothetic aredifferent anditdoesno goodto critexplanations. They enterprises, icizeonefrom theperspective I couldcomplicate oftheother. this distinction byemphathere that are also that sizing practices modeling amongpositivists emphasize causality andhistorical butonly forces (notactual cases).I call sequences, among empirical generic these arehighly models because butthey trace ofcausal abstract, analytical they sequences effects and reverse causal forces that are direct, indirect, effects) (including operamong ative in all times andplaces. WhatI havepreviously lawsalso applies saidaboutabstract tothese models arenothistorical butabstract these of models; representations analytical causal connections and universal social in visual Still, amonggeneric processes space. forces andtheir ofvariation, andthey they rely upondatatogeta senseofthekey range canperhaps be useful tohistorians tosort outpotential causalconnections trying among events. empirical Do Intersections Events ofHistorical and Empirical Obviate Science? a time a scientist enters thebuzz and flow of Any naturally occurring empirical system, and events for a reason: events intersect (historical) empirical appearscomplex, good eachother, outcomes. itisoften difficult tomeasure Moreover, potential generating many in play, thevaluesofthevariables andparticularly so whenthese valuesareconflated by them. For the is a interaction effects weather each intersection example, among complex thatoften cannotbe measured and indeed,theinterday of manyforces accurately, thatitis difficult sections areso complex sometimes to modelthem. cannot Geologists the know forces arenot because, involved, easily predict earthquakes they although they inspecific Ecoloabletoaccurately ormodeltheir intersections cases. measure empirical in have the same it is often difficult to an because problem; gists biology map ecosystem in playthat in complex there areso many forces interact with eachother none Yet, ways. ofthese throws its hands and it a that cannot be science. It is disciplines up proclaims only whoseemtodo so. sociologists Sincesociologists cannot controls moral andpractical on many (for reasons) perform ofinterest, wewill havetolive with thefact weseek that tounderstand phenomena empirintheir events most robust andembedded form: social ical/historical naturally occurring The and of are historical/causal nomothetic goals systems. respective analysis theorizing to explain thiscomplexity, butin different The historicist will trace certain causal ways. toexplain a particular thepositivists willtry toexplain this outcome outcome; sequences andClark with a moregeneral law. What York seemto conflate lawsarenotabout isthat toseehowtheinteraction twoormore case,itbecomes inga particular necessary among in thelawsbeing forces loadsthevaluesofthevariables usedto explain someevent. For if I wantto explain economies are moredynamic thanstateexample, whycapitalist I willneedto payattention to theintersection ofvariables usedto economies, managed as twoofthemostgeneric involved. I might, for forces explain powerand production,
458 47 (2006)451-463 The Sociological Quarterly O 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

rather, interaction effects; theyare about genericforces, per se. Of course,when examin-

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H.Turner Jonathan

theSocial World Explaining

of power(one variable in a law of power)in statenotethatcentralization instance, formation and technological has effects on capital (two development managed systems inthelawofproduction). I do nottry todevelop a lawfor variables eachandevery potenintheempirical suchefforts tialintersection offorces wouldgenerate so many laws world; convert as to render nomothetic useless lawsintoempirical or,in reality, theory descripIn contrast, a historicist wouldattempt to describe theconfluence tionsof events. of a eventsand whythis confluence scenario of causal occurred, producing complex sequences. in their and historihowever, approaches, positivists Despitedifferences respective A for their cists use eachother's wouldfind explanations respective purposes. positivist oftheintersections events mostinteresting theempirical descriptions amongempirical to load thevaluesforthe variables in becausethesedata would allowthepositivist a lawsoranalytical models. historicist use the laws anaabstract and Reciprocally, might ofpositivists for theimportant models as guidelines from lessimportant lytical isolating a historical events outcome. empirical causing in naturally setofempirical orhistorical events outside the Every occurring systems If in some one wants to what then is is way. explain unique, empirical laboratory unique to explain what is uniquebywhat arethewaytogo.Ifone desires is generic descriptions thennomothetic and and universal, are more theory analytical appropriate. modeling lessviaButthefact ofhistorical positivistic uniqueness, perse,doesnotmake theorizing orecologists with natble,anymorethanitdoesfor meteorologists, geologists, working allempirical To proclaim that events arehistorical istostate the occurring systems. urally not make a science but statements do the laws such obvious, suddenly seeking governing irrelevant. theoperation ofthesocialuniverse Transformation Obviate Science? Does Indigenous ofhowforces atonepoint in someinteresting York andClark present examples operating thevery nature oftheuniverse. timesetevents intomotion thantransform Thereis,as a of in the kind dialectic biotic world a distribuout, point they correctly whereby given tionofelements and life forms is,overthelongterm, Indeed, inherently transforming. in theearth's in thiswayand,in of oxygen evolved concentrations atmosphere higher life forms. in setintomotion theproliferation oflarger Marxists arenaturally versed turn, butYork and Clark in implyand sensitive to dialectical go somewhat arguments, astray oftheforces atwork isaltered thefundamental nature transingthat bythese indigenous with a Letmeillustrate this formations. example simplified): fallacy sociological (grossly of coercive and administrative leadsto increased The centralization powerin a society and wealth), use of powerto usurpresources but as inequality inequality (through become to ifsucthose who have lost resources mobilized initiate conflicts increases, that, ofcentralized theexisting elites sowtheseeds cessful, power (thus,"power destroy system invery anditis stated Thisis a dialectical abstract oftheir owndestruction"). argument, Marxdid). Obviously, terms Vilfredo Pareto, and,to a lesser extent, (muchas Spencer, butitissufficient for this lawlike Whenstated isa very statement, simplified purposes. my in thisvery theforces arenoteliminated abstract that manner, bythetransformations
47 (2006) 451-463 The Sociological Society Sociological Quarterly ? 2006Midwest 459

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the SocialWorld Explaining

H.Turner Jonathan

as they affect eachother lead to empirical thevaluesoftheforces rather, they generate; in howpower and inequality manifest themselves after their dialectical transformations The of and haveestablished a newempirical laws effects (not power inequality system. but specifiable; see Turner 1985,1995,2003) arenot changed, specified onlythe fully in York ofthevariables in thelaws.The sameis trueoftheforces and Clark's valences of the the laws and are not on physics, biology examples biosphere; chemistry, changed. inlawsthat itisbytheforces onecanexplain thetransformatheopposite, Just specified in The sameis trueforsocialsystems; theforces involved tiveeffects ofthebiosphere. their and intersections to remain thesame, values transformations although may change, does kinds of social self-transformation not obviate nomonew Thus, systems. produce toexplain. thetic suchtransformations rather, positivists phenomena explanation; give Does Nonlinearity Obviate Science? Forces canhavecurvilinear andlogarithmic Thesocialworld is nonlinear. relations; they can work as and can evidence threshold can reveal S-functions, effects; step they they in socialgravity functions. The pointmadebyYorkand Clarkon suddenchanges is, of the a of nonlinear social one of number therefore, relationships properties among only in thesocial it is rather rareforanyreallinearrelationships to exist universe. Indeed, to statistical the bias of or techniques overemphasize linearity. world-despite to remain, The pointthat socialgravity or seems constant for remains, longperiods to a newlevelis welltaken, butI do notsee howthis shifts oftimeand thensuddenly As long as positivism is equatedwithempirical obviates scientific sociology. insight data the hassomemerit. with cross-sectional descriptions analyzed statistically, criticism more than itis a fatal blowtoposis a criticism ofresearch this However, methodologies if science is as "raw social characterized itivistic True, empiricism," theorizing. positivistic andClark's incorthen thecriticism butinlight ofYork fatal, (andmany others') appears I not see that their is to of do rect argument damaging positivistic portrayal positivism, sociological theory. I havedeveloped that over the Invirtually allthetheoretical principles years-andthe is nonthis universe others whohavetraveled samecanbe saidfor positivistic path-the nonlinear relations more but most canhelpstate linear. Mathematics precisely, positivists intheir inwords that thevariables theories reveal nonlinear andrecognize state theories in nonlinearity, inherent Thereis nothing efforts to perse,thatthwarts relationships. have the hard sciences wonderful tools-from laws; indeed, developed develop general canborrow andadoptto ourdomain socialscientists tosimulations-that mathematics as a rhetorical ofnonlinearity toolto bashone ofinquiry. thanusethefact Thus,rather it to of is better take as a and the another, proclaim superiority nonlinearity approach better theories. and challenge develop Does Ideology Obviate Science? Thisis an thatI am overmypagelimit. thefact I cannotletgo a smallmatter, despite and Clarkslipintotheir text: theimplication thatMarxists arenot assertion that York I do notthink that I haveever meta Marxist whowasnotcommitted driven byideology.
460 47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society The Sociological Quarterly

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H.Turner Jonathan

theSocial World Explaining

totheviewthat that needtobe eliminated, andpreferainequalities capitalism generates of capitalism itself. Some are morerabidthanothers, but this blyby thedestruction commitment often blinds Marxists to other social forces and to alternative ideological I amnotimmune datasets that callintoquestion their beliefs. toideolmight ideological Forindeed, areas bad as Marxists, this wouldbe absurd. committed positivists many ogy; to eliminating certain features of contemporary societies or systems of societies and a new form of social realistic or (whether not).However, imposing organization positivistsarelesslikely to be ideologues, andthey aremorelikely to try to puttheir ideologies Morefundamentally, mostpositivists arecommitted on thebackburner. to testing their if it theories with even means that elements of their will theories be Such is data, rejected. Thereis a reflexive, not always thecase withmostMarxists. to self-sustaining quality Marxist becauseit conflates and selective science, ideology, theory, history, empirical inthenameofa political end. description I argue thatComte([1830-1842]1896),forall hisoddities, had thisissue probably The lawsof sociology shouldbe developed, and thenusedin thepositive tested, right. ofsociety. The tricky issueis whose reconstruction visionofthe"goodsociety" is to be used in thisreconstruction. ForMarxists, theanswer is clear;formostpositivists, the inthegive onetobe decided andtake issueisessentially ofpolitics. the However, political, in the is like all natural the of that, sciences, key knowledge principles sociology argument intherealworld canbe usedin engineering was 1998, (Turner 2001).Ifthis applications inseeking notthecase,there wouldnotbe much these lawsbeyond satintellectual point orbiology, isfaction. Of course, likethelawsofphysics can for laws be used sociological both"good"and"bad"ends. CONCLUSION tothechallenge is to respond and Clark's posedinYork Myroleinthis essay provocative Their ofMarxism, andscientific forces us alltocome positivism, essay. analysis sociology to terms with howwe go abouttrying to understand thesocialuniverse. Although many can I think be that twowillgenerate potential bysociologists, epistemologies employed themostintellectual in sociological thepositivism andhistoricism. explanations: payoff Positivistic seektoisolate thefundamental ofthesocialuniverse explanations properties and develop abstract lawsandmodels that theoperative ofthese explain dynamics propThe logicof explanation revolves aroundmaking erties. deductions from abstract laws to explain aboutgeneric and universal socialforces sets of events that specific empirical aredriven forces. Historicist examines setsand sequences ofempirical bythese analysis toexplain events historical outcomes. Whether a pathmodelusing correlation particular coefficients ora detailed of events from in out past culled data archives, teasing accessing thelogicofhistoricist is thesame:to explicate ofcausaleffects explanations complexes variables certain outcomes. amongempirical producing If we keepthisfundamental in mind,other difference versus issues-quantitative versus use ofstatistics induction versus research, words, deduction, qualitative linearity andmirrors versus smoke that obfuscate therealissue:How do wego nonlinearity--are
47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest Sociological Society The Sociological Quarterly 461

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

World theSocial Explaining

H.Turner Jonathan

about explaining the operativedynamics of the social universe: or scientifically historically? and many haveoften Marxists others foundthemselves between thesetwo caught been thatMarx'sanalysis of therelationship Indeed, approaches. myviewhas always and conflict ofunidescribes elements production, ideology, inequality, amongpower, versal that are when humans thus processes always present potentially organize, making Marxa closet TheMarxist whoseeks toexplain thedynamics ofcapitalism positivist. repa hybrid: resents Thelawsofcapitalism outlined byMarxaretime-bound empirical gena moregeneral eralizations of production, and powerto distribution, theory seeking them. are an an The historical explain They explicandum seeking explanas. descriptions ofsocieties thecapitalist before that arenotparticularly useful, epochareso flawed they becausethey arejustwindow for the assumed march of dressing history through capitalismto communism. whenhistorical and nomothetic are Mypointhereis that analyses neither is doneparticularly well. Marxwanted tobe historical and atleast conflated, parI think nomothetic lawsofhistorical his mostenduring tially byformulating periods. contribution is theonethat he didnotexplicitly buttheone that formulate, many posiuse (Turner tivists theimplicit lawsabouttherelationships certain fun1975a,b): among damental of thesocialuniverse-namely, distribution, properties power, production, andconflict. There is a general here that transcends inequality, ideology, theory anyhisbutit getslostin historicism torical theideological and,of course, epoch, agendathat Marxpursued. On theother is MaxWeber sideofhistoricism ( [1922]1968),a historicist whosought to sort outthecausesofimportant events within therationalization ofsocihe but also wanted to be "value to free" and address more universal and ety, generic questions.This desireled to his ideal typesthatare,in essence, classification schemes of such as of his of action. The was result that Weber's phenomena, generic portrayal types work within a liminal realm between science andhistory, and despite themonustayed mental contribution that Weber madeto sociology, he couldhavemadean evenlarger ifhehaddecided which contribution waytogo. there is no easymiddle between andhistoricism. There can Thus, positivism ground be crossfertilization, but in theend,we each mustchoosehowwe wantto go about I amnotsure thesocialworld. that York andClark havefully are decided. explaining They likeMarxorWeber: thedesire between to saysomething and universal, caught generic butbowedbythecontingency of history. It is better to simply choosewhich wayone to go,andto actaccordingly. Marx's wants andWeber's would the be better explanations for as those of will. scholars As this bears it, just contemporary fence-sitting commentary fartoo muchtimeis spentdebating issuesthatwill never be witness, philosophical resolved. Itis better to commit to an epistemology andletthepower oftheexplanations do ourtalking for eachofus,whether orhistoricist. as positivist generated REFERENCES
Comte. Translated Comte, [1830-1842]1896.ThePositive Auguste. Philosophy ofAuguste by H.

Martineau. London: Bell. George

462

47 (2006) 451-463 ? 2006 Midwest TheSociological Quarterly Sociological Society

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H. Turner Jonathan

the Social World Explaining

1984.TheConstitution UK: Polity Press. Giddens, Anthony. OfSociety. Cambridge, H. The New York: Franklin 1920. Macmillan. Principles ofSociology. Giddings, LaborinSociety. NewYork: FreePress. Emile.[1893]1947.TheDivision Durkheim, of Gerhard. 2005. and CO: Lenski, Boulder, Principles Applications. Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Press. Paradigm C. Wright. New York: 1961.TheSociological Grove Press. Mills, Imagination. A General Sanderson, StephenK. 1999. Social Formations: Theory of Historical Development. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, 2002.ThePrinciples NewBrunswick, Herbert. Transaction. NJ: [1874-1896] ofSociology. Spencer, Keller. William Graham andAlbert 1927.TheScience NewHaven, CT: Sumner, Galloway ofSociety. YaleUniversity Press. "A Strategy H. 1975a. for theDialectical and Functional Theories Turner, Jonathan Reformulating ofConflict." SocialForces 53:433-44. . 1975b. "MarxandSimmel Revisited: theFoundations ofConflict Social Reassessing Theory." Forces 53:619-27. A Theoretical NewYork: Press. Columbia . 1985.Societal Stratification: Analysis. University a Theory on theOrganization Human Toward New . 1995.Macrodynamics: of Population. Press. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University and Practice Be So FarApart?" . 1998."MustSociological Theory Perspectives Sociological 41:144-58. Is ThisReally as Bad as ItSounds?" Practice 4:1-13. . 2001."SocialEngineering: Sociological a 2002. Face-to-Face: Toward Behavior. CA: Stanford, . Theory Sociological ofInterpersonal Press. Stanford University A Theory . 2003.HumanInstitution: Evolution. CO: Paradigm Press. Boulder, ofSocietal and Society. Translated Rothad ClausWittlich. Max. [1922] 1968.Economy Weber, byGuenther NewYork: Bedminister.

47 (2006)451-463 ? 2006 Midwest TheSociological Quarterly Sociological Society

463

This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:18:25 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions