Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Social Science History Association

Historical Sociology in the History of American Sociology


Author(s): Mildred A. Schwartz
Source: Social Science History, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 1-16
Published by: Social Science History Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171043
Accessed: 11-09-2015 00:42 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171043?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Social Science History Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Science History
.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin theHistory
ofAmericanSociology
MILDRED A. SCHWARTZ

IN A RECENT CRITICAL review of sociological perspectiveson


historicalproblems,Skocpolobserved, "Untilthe1970s, 'histori-
cal sociology'
was nota phraseoneoften,ifever,heardinconver-
sationsamongsociologists in theUnitedStates"(Skocpol,1984:
356). Of coursetherewas a good dealofpriorhistoricalworkby
someofwhichSkocpolherself
sociologists, goeson to cite.Yet,
byherphrasing, shehasinadvertentlyraiseda questionaboutthe
placeofhistory inthedisciplineofsociology.
Likealmostall soci-
ologistswhouse historical
materialsorperspectives,Skocpolsees
reasonto complainaboutthefailureofsociology to givea larger
placeto history.Butforme,a priorissue,inthespiritofa histori-
callymindedsociology, involvesdiscovering whathappenedto

MildredA. Schwartzis professor of Sociologyat the Universityof Illinoisat


Chicago.She servedas President oftheSocial ScienceHistoryAssociationin
1984-1985.Thispaperis a revisedversionofthe1985Presidential Addressof
theSSHA.
For assistancein obtaininginformation and referencesI am grateful to col-
leaguesR. StephenWarnerand SusanT. Tax,StephenWiberley, research assis-
tantCarlosCastillo,and,at theUniversity ofChicago,BillyCrawford. Warner,
alongwithS. D. Clark,S. M. Lipset,A. L. Stinchcombe, and R. K. Merton,
provided usefulcommentary on an earlierversionofthepaper.Mygratitude for
theirthoughtful stillleavesme to maketheusualclaim,thatI alone
criticisms
am responsiblefortheinterpretationsI havemade,whether oftheirworkorthat
ofothers.
Social Science HistoryII:I (Spring1987). Copyright ? 1987 by the Social
ScienceHistoryAssociation. CCCoi45-5532/87 /$I.50.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

thename"historical sociology." The namingofan activity, inthis


case historicalsociology,and itsperformance--historical research
and interpretations by sociologists--are quitedistinct. The first
taskis to clarify theirrelationship.
Amongthefirstgenerations of Americansociologists, social
evolution wasthepreeminent perspective. It included thefollowers
of Spencerand, withmorelastingimpact,thoseinfluenced by
LesterWard,whocombineda theory ofprogress witha placefor
humanagency.The lattergavea newroleto thesociologist as an
to
expertcontributing progress(Hofstadter, 1955: 68, 156). By
the 1930s,the growingdisciplinerecognizedby the American
SociologicalSocietytreatedgeneraland historical sociologyas
synonymous (House, 1936: 296). To the extent that historical
was as
sociology recognized subfield,a it was defined as encom-
passingthe "theoryof social evolutionand progress"(House,
1936:297). Present-day residuesremainin theLibraryof Con-
gresscataloguing system, whichputshistorical sociology together
withculture, socialevolution, and primitive society.In hindsight,
itwasevidentthattheconnection withsocialevolution madehis-
toricalsociologyhighly vulnerable. As Bock has noted,
The failureof evolutionism lies in thefactthatit wasjust
whatits earlierexponentscalled it--"conjectural history."
Historical research ofanykind,and particularly thehistori-
cal researchin whichsociologists or anthropologists are in-
terested, of be
must, course, accompanied bytheory. Butthe
theory mustbe ofa sortthatinvites testbyconcrete evidence
ofwhathappened.The theory ofsocialevolution resists such
testingbyspecifically denying the relevance of event to pro-
cessand bydirecting attention insteadto timelesselements
in structure and function as sourcesof insightinto what
"must"havehappened[Bock,1964:38].
WhileBarnesand Becker,twoprominent advocatesofhistorical
sociology,rejected anynecessary connection withsimpleunilinear
evolutionin a widelyreadtexton thehistory of socialthought
first
publishedin 1938,thedamagewas too severeto undo. His-
toricalsociology in itsnamehad beencursedbyevolutionism.
It mayhavebeenthathistorical sociology didnothaveitsmost
adept defenders in Barnes and Becker since the twodisagreedon
centralissues.For Barnes,thedata of historical sociologywere

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology 3

ethnographic and heconsidered


reports, methodtohave
scientific
"triumphed" withtheintroduction ofempiricalstudyofexisting
cultures(Barnes,1948:51-71). Beckerconsideredethnographic
datainferiorto"first-class
historical as "all kindsof
data,"defined
informationavailableconcerningthepeopleswithreasonably full
and connected a time-span
recordscovering ofmorethanthreeor
four generations"(Becker, 1934: 20o;also 1952: 759). While at
timestheyused identicallanguage,therewas stilla difference
in
tonewhenevaluatingtheworkof others.For example,Barnes
gaveSpencerequal statuswithDarwinincontributing toa "truly
historicalsociology"(Barnes, 1948: 13), but Beckerassigned
Spencerto"a closesecond"(Becker,1934:747). Barnesdismissed
Sorokin's Social and CulturalDynamics by groupingit withthe
workofSpenglerand Toynbee,
all ofwhichhad
beenmotivated chieflybysubjectiveand emotionalconvic-
tionsratherthanbythedesiretotracesocialevolution inany
literaland realisticfashion,thusstandingcloserto theold
philosophy of history thanto historical
sociology[Barnes,
1948: 1341].
Beckerwas moreambivalent,
havingpositive,thoughqualified,
assessmentsof Toynbee(Becker, 1952: 763-765) and of Sorokin,
whom he liked when Sorokindealt withdynamictheoriesof
limitedscope (Becker, 1934: 31). He was less comfortablewith
Sorokin'sgrandtheories yetgavehima forumforpresenting his
workin hisownlanguage(Becker,1952:784-787).
Largerdifferenceswerepresentwithrespecttotheobjectives of
historical outlined
sociology, byBarnes (1948:3-4) as thesearch
andlawsofsocialdevelopment.
forsocialorigins Beckerexplicitly
excluded"virtually of theproblemsof socialori-
all treatments
insteadon themost"scien-
gins"(Becker,1934: 27), concentrating
tific"of activities,the searchfor small-scalecyclicaltheories
(Becker,1952: 782). His own historicalworkwas builton an
elaboratetypology based on thedistinction betweensacredand
secular.At the heartof his difference withBarneswas a quite
differentorientation to evolutionitself.Barnescomplainedthat
Americansociologists, by abandoninghistoricalsociology,had
losta necessarycommitment whichcouldbe
to socialevolution,
basedon neweranthropological work.In otherwords,therewas
nothing wrongwithsocialevolution thatproperdataand methods

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

couldnotremedy (Barnes,1948:14-15). Evolutionism itselfwas


for
theenemy Becker, at least if it implied"geneticcontinuity"
(Becker,1952:779). It is instructive thatBeckerstandsvirtually
alone in his attributionthat "one of the reasonsforthescarcity of
historical sociology in the United States is the reaction against
social evolutionism of thenineteenth century variety"(Becker,
1952: 996). His conclusion, as faras it goes,was similarto my
ownbutwithout recognizing howtheweightofeffects fromevo-
lutionism was on historicalsociology as a name.
It is notsurprising thatBarnesalso differed in hisexplanation
of why historicalsociologyhad faded away. Barnes saw the
greatest influence intheriseofnewmethods, describedbyhimas
the"analytical, psychological, and statisticalmethods of investi-
gatingsociological problems" (Barnes,1948:134). Barnes was not
incorrect, but hisreasons apply more to historical
sociology as an
activity. Now methodological issues loom larger.In this regard
Barnesmightbe viewedas a precursor of Tilly,who feelssoci-
ologywas "dehistoricized" earlyin itshistory
through bothabstractionand concretization: so-
abstracting
cial processesfromtheconstraints of timeand space,con-
cretizingsocialresearchbyaimingitat reliableobservation
ofcurrently visiblebehavior[Tilly,1980:551].
Even moreexplicitin evaluatingthe timingand influences
leadingto thedeclineof historical thinkingin sociologyis the
historianBurke. His judgments that the break was sharpand
camelaterthan either Barnesor are
Tillysuggests dependent, as
muchas those ofothers, on whatis consideredhistorical
sociology.
For him,thebreakcame"quitesuddenly, abouttheyear1920"
(Burke,1980:21). In anthropology, heattributesthechangetothe
influence ofMalinowski, whodefined fieldworkas theonlyscien-
tificprocedure.In sociology, attention to contemporary society
becamethe norm,withpeoplesuch as Durkheimtakingtheir
datafromofficial and Chicagosociologists
statistics takingtheirs
fromfieldwork. The attraction of theseapproacheslay in the
abilityto claimthemas uniqueto thedisciplines ofsociology and
anthropology and thereby enhance disciplinaryinstitutionaliza-
tion.Moreover, theintellectual
underpinnings ofthesefieldswere
changing, so that

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology 5

ofcustomsorsocialinstitutions
Explanations bythepast,in
termsofsocialevolution
and socialdiffusion,
werereplaced
byexplanationsofthesocialfunctions
ofthesecustomsand
institutions
in the present[Burke, I980: 22].
Let us disregardhis characterization of Durkheim,whomhe
otherwisedescribesas sympathetic to theusesofhistory,to con-
siderthe importance of functionalism as a countervailingap-
proach.Byaddingfunctionalism to theargument,a distinction
is
raisedbetweensourcesofdata-historicalorcontemporary -and
methodsortheories ofexplanation. Burkeimpliesa strongcorre-
lationbetweenthetwowherefunctionalism requirescontempo-
raneousdata.The antagonism betweenfunctionalism and history
is a themethatonce had considerable currency but fortunately
has now been virtually put to restin sociology(Stinchcombe,
1968: 104-107).
The distractingrolethatwas playedbythepresumedantihis-
toricism of functionalismis illustrated bytheperceptions of my
ownfirst teacherin sociology, SamuelDelbertClark.Clark,ori-
ginallytrainedin history, is a pioneering Canadiansociologist.
He describeshow he feltconstrained whenhe beganteaching
Canadianstudents abouttheirsociety. Before1938,it was bythe
humanecologicalapproachof theChicagoschool,and after,by
the functionalismof TalcottParsons(Clark,1976: I). Bothof
theseapproachesneedto be evaluatedas culprits in makingsoci-
ologyunhistorical.
The roleoffunctionalism inturning awayfrom
anthropologists
history was undoubtedly largelydue to Malinowski's impacton
thefield,as Burkehas said,butanthropology was notall ofone
mind.Stinchcombe suggeststhatRadcliffe-Brown was responsi-
ble forpresentinghistorical and functional explanationsas anti-
thetical(Stinchcombe, 1968:1o4), butit is moreaccurateto say
thatRadcliffe-Browne acknowledged a difference withoutany
necessaryconflict(Radcliffe-Brown, 1952:185). Bottomore and
Nisbetread Radcliffe-Brown to be "amongthefirstto realize"
thatSpencer'sapproachto evolutionary development "led to a
for
disregard time,place, and circumstance."This enablesthem
to see Radcliffe-Brown'sworkas neither nor"anti-
"unhistorical"
historical"(Bottomore and Nisbet,1978:575). Yetwhatever dif-
fusionanthropologicalfunctionalism had madeintosociologyby

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

1938,itwas highly thatitwouldhavecomefromTalcott


unlikely
Parsons,a stilljuniorfacultymember.When RobertMerton,
anotherof myteachers, wrote"Manifestand LatentFunctions"
in 1948,he notedthegrowinguse of a functional approachin
fieldscrossingthenaturaland socialsciences,butthereferences
he citedforsociologywerelargelyconfinedto workspublished
in
the 1940s,not to thosewrittenearlier(Merton,1957: I9-84). The
realmomentum insociologyoccurredlater,assessedbyKingsley
Davis in his addressto the AmericanSociological
presidential
Associationin 1959 as a situationin whichfunctionalism had
becomesynonymous withsociologicalanalysisand subjectto so
muchcontroversy thatitsclaimsas a separatemethodor school
of thoughtneeded to be abandoned (Davis, 1959: 757-772). I
elaboratethispointnotas a belatedmeansfora studentto correct
her distinguishedprofessor about timingand influencesbutto
put aside therelevanceof functionalismto thehistory socio-
of
logicalusesof history.
On theotherhand,I considerClark'scomplaint aboutthein-
fluenceoftheChicagoschoolto be veryrelevant. It helpsmake
senseofthestrangebedfellows thatTillyassemblesin describing
thosewhowerehistorical sociologists,
primarily inthe
byactivity,
1940s.
Perhapsthemostimportant areasofhistorical
effortin soci-
ologyduringthe1940swere(I) thehistory ofcivilizations,
"a
la Sorokinor Kroeber;(2) thehistory of socialthought-
Barnesor Becker;(3) theappropriationofhistoricalsettings
or casesto contemporarysociological
analysis--Homans or
Firey;(4) theattempttosolvespecific
historical
problems via
sociologicalmethods--Mertonor Heberle[Tilly,1980:56].
Sorokinand HeberlewereEuropeanbornand trained;Kroeber
tookthefirst Ph.D. fromFranzBoas at Columbia;therestwere
Harvardtrained.HarvardwasthebaseforSorokinand Homans,
Kroeberwas at Berkeley, Fireyat Texas,Heberleat Louisiana
State,and Mertonfirstat Tulaneand thenat Columbia.Tilly
simplysays"theyrejectedthemaintrendsof sociology"(Tilly,
1980: 56). Thosetrends
wereembodiedinthesociology dominated
by the Universityof Chicago (Coser, 1978: 311-312; Bulmer,
1984). By thetimepeoplein Tilly'slistwerewriting,
Chicago's
preeminence was alreadyshaken(Lengerman,1979: 185-198).

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology 7

Additionalevidenceis availablefromthe1940sof"Renewedin-
terestamongsociologistsinwell-documented historical
materials
as a basisforcomparative study of social systems"(Moore and
Williams,1942: 343). Examples include names such as Moore
and Williams,writing on theantebellum South, Cottrell(1940)
on therailroader,
Stern(1941)on medicine, andevenearlierwork
by the Lynds (1929, 1939) on Middletown.Like those named on
Tilly'slist,theytoo lackedanyconnection withtheUniversityof
Chicago.
Historywasa conceptusedbyChicagosociologists ofthetime
in tworelatedways:in lifehistoriesand in naturalhistory.
Life
histories,usedmostprofitablyby W. I. Thomasand F. Znaniecki
in The Polish Peasant in Europe and America,were documents
aboutindividuals
usedto developa socialpsychology thatrelated
motives,
feelings, and to
attitudes socialrelations
(Bulmer,1984:
was a way of referring
Io5-Io8; Short,1982: 135-152). History
toan individual'slifecourseandofcharacterizing theuseofdocu-
ments.As a meansofresearch, itwas probablytheleastpopular
ofthetechniques associatedwiththeChicagoSchooland theone
withtheleastenduring impact.WhenI discovered thatWerner
Cahnmanhad attempted to create"A Committee fortheSocio-
logicalStudyof HistoricalDocuments"at the1954annualmeet-
ingoftheAmerican SociologicalSociety(Cahnmanand Boskoff,
1964,vii),I naturally wonderedifitsrecordsmightprovea con-
nectionwithChicago-trained But of the27 names
sociologists.
mentioned as presentat thefirstmeeting,expressing a strong
in-
terestin it,orjoiningthecommittee later,only5 weregraduates
oftheUniversity ofChicago.
In theChicagoSchool,naturalhistory was lessa methodthan
a generalapproachfordistinguishing historyfromsociologyac-
cordingto Park and Burgess(1925: 16). They (1925: I) considered
thatpartof history"natural"from"whichit is possibleto make
generalstatementsand formulatelaws."Sociologycouldthenbe
definedas thesearchfor"naturallawsand generalizations in re-
gardto humannatureand society, oftimeand space"
irrespective
(Park and Burgess, 1925: II). Concern with the typicalled to
buildingideal typesand typologies,which,when allied with
naturalhistory ofchange,produceddevelopmen-
as a conception
tal stages (Faris, 1967: 102; Fuller and Myers, 1941: 320-329).
Even whena singletypewas notassumedto holdtheseedsof

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

othertypes(e.g., Redfield,1941:360), thepremisesunderlying


theconstructionofa typology oftenseemedto implycausalcon-
anddirection
nections tochange.So, whileCahnmanandBoskoff
(1964: 561) could commendMiner (1939) and Hughes (1943) for
thehistorical oftheirstudiesofFrenchCanadiancom-
orientation
munities,Clarkcouldsimultaneously see themas "unhistorical"
theMinerand Hughes
(Clark,1976: 137) becausehe interprets
studiesas examplesof Redfield's
folk-urban and hence
typology
as partofan evolutionary
sequenceunsupportedbyhistorical
data
(Clark, 1976: 137-138).
Afterrereading Hughesand Minerforthefirst timesincemy
undergraduatedays,I am inclinedtoagreewithClark.Evenquite
apartfromthisdispute,we muststillconcludethatChicagowas
unhistorical
essentially Anotherworld
in itsoverallorientation.
viewhadto emergeinorderthatwemightappreciate theneedfor
thesociologicalstudyofhistory. It is herethatwe are especially
indebtedto Clarkfora profound insightintowhyhistory had
beenneglectedin U.S. sociologyandwhathadconsequently been
missed.
The American socialscientist,
whether an economist,politi-
cal scientist, at leastup untiltheI960s could
or sociologist,
take theexistenceof his societyforgranted.The taskof
explaininghowit had comeintobeingcouldbe leftto the
historian[Clark,1976:4].
Clarkmakesa tellingcontrast withthesociologist whowantsto
understand Canada.
The Canadiansocial scientist
cannottaketheexistenceof
his societyforgranted .... In a word,Canadian societycan
onlyifviewedwithin
be understood an historical
perspective
[Clark, 1976: 51.
If outsiders
are moreinclinedto perceiveconditions
oflifein the
UnitedStatesas leadingto a sociologywith"history ignored"
(Hawthorn, 1976: 191-216), Lipset has also supportedClark's
assessment. It has led Lipset,in hiscapacityas one of themost
consistentexponents ofhistoricaland comparative studyin soci-
ology,to call fortheinclusionof Canada in anysociohistorical
studyoftheUnitedStates(Lipset,1968:35-37). He hasfollowed
hisownadvice,mostnotablyinaccounting fortheheritage ofthe

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology 9

Americanrevolution(Lipset, 1963: 17-II 1; 970: 37-75) and the


absenceofa viablesocialistpartyintheUnitedStates(Lipsetand
Laslett,1974: 25-82).
A morethorough history of sociologyis necessarybeforewe
canfullyunderstand howthestrong impactofevolutionary think-
ing in the United States led to a historical sociologythat was
in namealone.Sucha history
historical is evenmoreessentialto
accountfortherelative absenceofalternate influences.
Forexam-
ple,Tilly(1980: 57) refersto the flowering of Marxisthistorical
workfromthe196os.We shouldnotforget, however,thatinpre-
WorldWarII UnitedStates,itwastheraresociologist whofound
inspirationin Marx-BernhardStern(1959)wasonesuchfigure.
Similarly,Skocpol(1984:4) notestheimpactof Max Weberon
today'syoungsociologistsinterested in history,buthetoowasnot
an important figurein U.S. sociologyuntilafterthe1930s(Roth,
1971:47-54). The firstof Weber'sworksto be translated into
Englishwas The ProtestantEthic and theSpiritof Capitalismin
on RobertMerton's
1930,and whileit was one oftheinfluences
(1938: 181) doctoraldissertation,completedin 1935, some years
wouldpassbeforeotherstookinspiration fromWeber'shistorical
work.The crucialpointis thatafterabout 1930 therewas no
longera singleperspective or schoolthatwas dominantin the
UnitedStates.The awakening interest thatbeganinthe
in history
1930swas spurredbymovesawayfromnationaland intellectual
parochialism to an acknowledgement of thebroaderheritage of
sociology.
Now,at a timewhensomeofthemostexcitingworkin soci-
ologyis beingdone bythoseusinghistorical materialsand per-
itisnotsurprising
spectives, thatthereshouldbe renewed searches
forlegitimation through progenitors in Americansociology.As
Szackihas observed,
[a] studentof thepastof sociologyusuallyplaysa double
role,thatofa theorist and thatofa historian, and ifhe [or
she] is a who
sociologist defends his own theoreticalorideo-
logicalstandpoint, his roleas a historianis pushedinto the
background[Szacki, 1982: 364].
Mypleasurein readingwhatothershadwritten aboutthehistory
sociologyin it
of Americansociologyand theplaceof historical
camepartlyfromrecognizing thewaystheyjustifiedtheirassess-

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IO SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

ments inlightoftheir ownresearch agendas andtheir experiences


as students. Becauseofmyrootsin theUniversities ofToronto
andColumbia andmyresearch interests inthesociology ofpoli-
tics,I havedifferent lensesforinterpreting sociologicalpractice.I
wouldliketo think thatmyjudgment ofthepastis thecorrect
one-that thenameofhistorical sociology fellfrom favorbecause
ofitsassociation withevolutionism andthatthesociological study
ofhistory wasoverwhelmed bythedominance oftheUniversity
ofChicago's fieldwork traditionandgeneral concern withpresent
problems. ButI alsorecognize thatthewriting ofhistory ispartly
myth-making inwhich justification forcontemporary beliefsand
practices is founded on selected linkswiththepast.Myths are
consensual to theextentthatthegroupthattheysymbolically
represent is cohesive, sharing a common agenda.Instead, forus
today, at thesametimeas a positive viewofhistorical study has
enriched us all,it hasopenedup disagreements and dilemmas
thatsomemighthavebelievedto be partof thedarkpastof
sociology. WhenChirot (1976)assembled a specialissueofSocial
Forcesontheusesofhistory insociology, heisolatedthree major
controversies or "antithetical themata"-the roleofideascom-
paredto material andtechnological factors,quantitative versus
qualitativeapproaches, andtheoldissueofevolutionary perspec-
tivesonchange. Ifanything, inthepassageoftimesince1976,the
controversies haveincreased andtheoriginal themata havebe-
comeevenmorecomplex.
Chirotbelievedthatcomputer and mathematical advances
wouldincrease thebitterness ofconflict amongsociologists using
history(Chirot,1976:235). Now thisappearsto be notjust a
matterthatsomeare morecomfortable withquantification
while
othersprefera qualitativeapproach(e.g., Abrams,1982: 326-
327),foreventhemostdedicatedquantifiers thefollyof
recognize
mindless"statisticism"(Duncan,1984:226-227). Morecriticalis
theimplication in somecurrentwriting is un-
thatquantification
desirablein itselfbecausesociologyshouldnot be treatedas a
social science (Jones, 1976: 300-301; Berger, 1963: 169; Sica,
1985: 126). Thereis no need to defendunproductive formsof
thatdeludeus intothinking
positivism we havediscovered
the
essence of science, what Churchman(1948: 91-97) calls "naive
But thatdoes notmakeanyhealthier
empiricism." theotherex-
tremein whichdifferencesbetweensociologyand historyare

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology II

submerged in commonhumanistic grounds.To do so is to deny


thewholehistory of sociology, a history thatputslimitson how
we can use history.Thatalternative wouldlead to abandonment
ofourdiscipline.I am notpersuadedbya recentpresident ofthe
American SociologicalAssociation who saidthat entailed
conflicts
bytheextreme anti-scientific
perspective havebeensolvedin,of
wherehisidealizedhistorian
all places,history,
managesto resisttheattractive notionthateverymanis his
ownhistorian, responsible onlyto hisownconvictions and
impulses,and he manages to resisttheequally no-
attractive
tionthathistory is a disciplinegovernedbynaturallawsof
inquiry[Erikson,1970: 338].
I agreewithChirotthatthesociologist's engagement withhis-
toryraisesimportant issuesofconcernto all ofsociology, unusu-
allywellillustrated bythecase ofsocialevolution.Eventhough
evolutionism contributed tothedownfall ofhistoricalsociology,it
survivedin morecomplexand modified forms.The earlyfunc-
tionalists in anthropology and sociologyturnedagainstevolution
andthesearchfororiginsbydirecting us tolookforconsequences.
Chirotdoes notseemto thinkthisis important, however, once
history is introduced intosociology.
It is onlywhenquestionsof long-term social changeare
broachedthatsociologists areobligedto treattheevolution-
aryimplications offunctionalist theory. Amongthevarious
types of Marxist sociologycurrently practiced,the same
issuearises.Musttheworldbe viewedinan evolutionary, in
a one world,or in a cyclicalway[Chirot,1976:2371]?
When Chirotgoes on to say thatsociologistsare "forced"to
examinetherelevanceofevolutionwhentheylookbeyondcon-
temporary situations,he givesus fewalternatives, especiallyifwe
areto agreewithTilly(1984:41-42) that stage theoriesare dead.
The issue is not so muchthatevolutionremainsa dominant
framework--although itis surprisingly robust-butthathistori-
cal study is attractive
just because it allows askingtheveryques-
tionsthatfunctionalists said we shouldignore--questions about
origins, causes, reasons why.Taking these together with the ques-
tionsraisedbyChirot,we shouldbe mindful ofthegreattempta-
tiontofindinhistory a single,overarching framework fordefining

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

of change.Evolutionprovided,
principles one
and stillprovides,
of these. Anotheris Wallerstein's(1974) influentialworldsystem
describesas keeping"to the
approach,whichTillyapprovingly
enormousscale of thedevelopmental
schemesit is meantto re-
place" (Tilly,1981: 43).
Tillycommendsto us thestudyof "big structures, largepro-
cesses,hugecomparisons," buthisownpreference for"historically
specificexperiences ofchange"(1984:86) makeshimreluctant to
favoranygrandscheme.Whilewe can admirebothhisindustry
and his modesty, he mightalso listento Skocpol'squiteunself-
consciousassertion that"Morethanmostsocialresearchers, major
historicalsociologistsend up witha hankering to developgrand
mapsofhistory" (Skocpol,1984:385). In thathankering liedan-
gerous intellectualcurrents,ones thatearlierled astray socio-
our
logicalforefathers. What worries me is notthe content ofexpla-
nations,whether evolutionary or not,but ratherthe inclination of
sociologistswho studyhistory to build grandsystems that end
in distortinghistory.For thisreasonI particularly valueStinch-
combe'sadmonition that"One does notapplyhistory to theory;
rather oneuseshistory todeveloptheory" (Stinchcombe, 1978:I).
Or, as he goes on to say,"Boththegenerating ideas and those
factsfirstexaminedare usefulbecausetheygeneratehistorically
specificgeneralideas"(Stinchcombe, 1978:4).
I beganwithhistorical sociologyas thenameofa field,and I
end withmyowndisengagement fromit.I wouldnotcall myself
a historicalsociologisttoday,and I see nothing to be gainedby
revitalizingthename.In thecontextof modernsociology's sub-
divisionintofields,historical
sociology wouldsuggest a fieldwhose
specializedstatusrestson method,approach,and primary data
sources.Giventhereluctance ofmostsociologists toengageinthe
kindofarchivalresearchthatis fundamental to history, thisuse
of a namewouldbe, to saytheleast,misleading. It is truethat
Tillyand hisstudents do primary historicalresearch, to theevi-
dentbenefit of historyas wellas sociology(Bonnell,I980: 172-
173),butforthemostpart,we can expectsociologists to relyon
thematerials thathistorianshavealreadyassembled"becauselife
is tooshorttodo anything else"(Marshall,1964:38). A sociologi-
cal subfieldthatbasesitsnameon techniquedeservesto be sus-
pectbecausethechoiceoftechnique shouldbe determined bythe
problem under else of
study-anything speaks dogmatism. There

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociologyin AmericanSociology 13

shouldbe enoughsubstantive reasonforstudying history without


resorting to dubiousarguments abouttheintrinsicvirtuesofhis-
toricalmaterialsor methods.
The definitionof subfields
is moreappropriately madeon the
basisofproblems studied.On suchgrounds, thereis no reasonfor
a specialfieldofhistorical
sociologyeventodescribe ouractivities.
A fieldofknowledge ... is distinguished byitsproblems, not
the
by object of its or
study by the methods which are implied
in studyingit;bythewayquestions areasked,notbytheway
solutionsarefound[Cahnmanand Boskoff, 1964:2].
Even as impressive a practitioner as Skocpol recognizesthat
"Withinsociologyitself,historical sociologyis not-and in my
view,shouldnotbecome-a subfield orself-contained speciality"
(Skocpol,1984:359).
Dogmatismis myconcern,notthevarietyof workthatuses
history, oreventhevariety ofmyths we construct aboutourpast.
All I am rejecting is historicalsociology a
as name.Mypreference
givesa verylargeplaceto history withinsociology, one in which
all sociologists into
takehistory account in their dailypractice,
incorporating thedimension of timeintoresearchand explana-
tion.History shouldinform oursociological sensibilities
generally,
notjustwhenweencounter of
problems changebutalsowhenwe
wantto accountforthestableand relatively unchanging (Nisbet,
1968:99). It can helpus notonlyto understand large-scalestruc-
turesbutalsoindividual actions(Stinchcombe, 1978:I2I; Abrams,
1982:7-8). In theend,whatcountsarenotthesubstantive issues
we tacklebutthewelcomewe giveto history.

REFERENCES

Abrams,P. (1982) HistoricalSociology.Ithaca:CornellUniversity.


Barnes,H. E. (1948) HistoricalSociology:Its Originand Development. New
York:Philosophical Library.
Becker,H. P. (1934) "HistoricalSociology,"in L. L. Bernard(ed.) The Fields
and Problemsof Sociology.New York:Farrarand Rinehart:18-34.
(1952)"Deflation ofSocialEvolutionism: ProspectsforSoundHistorical
Sociology,"in H. P. Beckerand H. E. Barnes,SocialThoughtfromLoreto
Science.2nded. Vol.I Washington: Harren:743-790.
Berger,P. (1963)Invitationto Sociology:A Humanistic Perspective.NewYork:
Anchor.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Bock, K. E. (1964) "Theoriesof Progressand Evolution," in W. J. Cahnman


and A. Boskoff (eds.) Sociologyand History.NewYork:FreePress:21-41.
Bonnell,V. E. (I980) "The UsesofTheory,Conceptsand Comparisonin His-
toricalSociology." Comparative Studiesin Societyand History22 (April):
156-173.
Bottomore, in Bottomore
T. and R. Nisbet(1978)"Structuralism," and Nisbet
(eds.) A History of SociologicalAnalysis.NewYork:Basic:557-598.
Bulmer,M. (1984) The ChicagoSchoolof Sociology.Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Burke,P. (I980) Sociologyand History. London:GeorgeAllenand Unwin.
Cahnman,W.J.and A. Boskoff NewYork:Free
(1964)Sociologyand History.
Press.
Chirot,D. (1976) "Introduction: ThematicControversiesand New Develop-
mentsintheUsesofHistoricalMaterialsin Sociology." Social ForcesSpe-
cial Issue 55 (December): 232-241.
Churchman, C. W. (1948)Theoryof Experimental NewYork:Mac-
Inference.
millan.
Clark, S. D. (1976) Canadian Societyin HistoricalPerspective.Toronto:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Coser,L. A. (1978)"American Trends,"in Bottomoreand Nisbet(eds.) A His-
toryof SociologicalAnalysis.NewYork:Basic: 287-320.
W. F. (194o)The Railroader.
Cottrell, Stanford:StanfordUniversity.
Davis, K. (I959) "The Mythof FunctionalAnalysis."AmericanSociological
Review 24 (December): 757-772.
Duncan,O. D. (1984) Noteson Social Measurement. Historicaland Critical.
NewYork:RussellSage.
Erikson,K. T. (1970) "Sociologyand the HistoricalPerspective." American
Sociologist 5 (November):331-338.
Faris,R. E. (1967) ChicagoSociology1920-1932.Chicago:University of Chi-
cago.
Fuller,R. C. and R. R. Myers(1941)"The NaturalHistoryofa Social Prob-
lem."American SociologicalReview6 (June):320-329.
Hawthorn, G. (1976) Enlightment and Despair.A Historyof Sociology.Cam-
bridge:CambridgeUniversity.
Hofstadter,R. (1955)SocialDarwinism inAmerican Thought.Rev.ed. Boston:
Beacon.
House,F. N. (1936)The Development ofSociology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Hughes,E. C. (1943) FrenchCanada in Transition. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago.
Jones,G. S. (1976)"FromHistorical Sociologyto Theoretical British
History."
Journalof Sociology 27 (September): 295-305.
P. M. (I979) "The FoundingoftheAmerican
Lengerman, SociologicalReview:
The Anatomyof a Rebellion."AmericanSociologicalReview44 (April):
185-198.
S. M. (1963)TheFirstNewNation.
Lipset, NewYork:Basic.
(1967)AgrarianSocialism. Garden
Updated. City,NY:Anchor.
(1968)"HistoryandSociology:
SomeMethodological
Considerations,"

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HistoricalSociology in American Sociology 15

in Lipsetand Hofstadter (eds.) Sociologyand History:Methods.New


York:Basic:20-58.
(1970) Revolutionand Counterrevolution. Rev.and updated.Garden
City,NY:Basic.
and J. Laslett(1974) Failureof a Dream? Essaysin the Historyof
AmericanSocialism.GardenCity,NY:Anchor.
Lynd,R. S. and H. M. Lynd(1929) Middletown. New York:Harcourt, Brace.
(1939) Middletown in Transition.NewYork:Harcourt, Brace.
Marshall,T. H. (1964) Citizenship and Social Development. GardenCity,NY:
Doubleday.
Merton,R. K. (1938) Science,Technology and Societyin Seventeenth-Century
England.Osiris.Bruges:St. Catherine. Reprinted in 1970by Harperand
Row,NewYork.
(1957)SocialTheoryand Social Structure (Revisedandenlarged).New
York:FreePress.
(1973)The Sociologyof Science.Chicago:University of Chicago.
Miner,H. (1939)St. Denis.A French-Canadian Parish.Chicago:University of
Chicago.
Moore,W. E. and R. M. Williams(1942) "Stratification in theAnte-Bellum
South."AmericanSociologicalReview7 (July):343-351.
Nisbet,R. A. (1968) Tradition and Revolt.Historicaland SociologicalEssays.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Park,R. E. and E. W. Burgess(1925)Introduction to theScienceofSociology.
Chicago:University of Chicago.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952) Structure and Functionin PrimitiveSociety.
Glencoe,IL: FreePress.
Redfield,R. (1941)The Folk Cultureof Yucatan.Chicago:University ofChi-
cago.
Roth,Gunther(1971)"'Value-Neutrality' in Germanyand the UnitedStates,"
in ReinhardBendixand GuentherRoth,Scholarshipand Partisanship.
Essayson Max Weber.Berkeley:University of California:34-54.
Short,J.F. Jr.(1982)"LifeHistory, Autobiography, and theLifeCycle,"in The
Jack-Roller and JonSnodgrass(eds.) The Jack-Roller at Seventy.Lexing-
ton,MA:Lexington:135-152.
Sica, A. (1985) "Sociologyand theHumanities:A New Partnership," in The
AmericanCouncilof LearnedSocieties,Reportto the Congressof the
UnitedStateson TheStateof theHumanities and theReauthorization of
theNationalEndowment fortheHumanities: 121-126.
Skocpol,T. (1984) Visionand Methodin HistoricalSociology.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity.
Stern,B. (1941)Societyand MedicalProgress. Princeton: Princeton University.
(1959) HistoricalSociology.The SelectedPapersof Bernhard J.Stern.
NewYork:Citadel.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968)Constructing Social Theories.New York:Harcourt,
Braceand World.
(1978) Theoretical Methodsin Social History. NewYork:Academic.
Szacki,J.(1982)"The History ofSociologyand Substantive SociologicalTheo-

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

ries,"in T. Bottomore, S. Nowak,M. Sololowska(eds.) Sociology.The


StateoftheArt.Londonand Beverley Hills:Sage: 359-374.
Tilly,C. (I980) "HistoricalSociology,"
in S. G. McNalland G. N. Howe(eds.)
CurrentPerspectives in Social Theory.I Greenwich, CT:JAI:55-59.
(I98I) As SociologyMeetsHistory. NewYork:Academic.
(1984) Big Structures,
LargeProcesses,HugeComparisons. NewYork:
RussellSage.
Wallerstein,I. (1974)The ModernWorldSystem.NewYork:Academic.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:42:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Вам также может понравиться