History and the Social Sciences Presentation, Discourses, and Functions; History: Overview; Identity: Social; Media and

History: Cultural Concerns; Memory: Collaborative; Narrative, Sociology of; Oral History; Ritual; Ritual and Symbolism, Archaeology of
Nietzsche F 1988 Unzeitgema $ sse Betrachtungen. Zweites Stu $ ck: Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie fu $ r das Leben. In: Colli G, Montinari M (eds.) Friedrich Nietzsche: Sa W mtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Einzelba W nden. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich, Germany, Vol. 1, pp. 243334 Oexle O G (ed.) 1995 Memoria als Kultur. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen, Germany Plumb J A 1969 The Death of the Past. Macmillan, London Ricoeur P 1998 Passe! , me! moire et oubli. In: Verlhac M (ed.) Histoire et meT moire. Centre Re! gional de Documentation Pe! dagogique de lAcade! mie de Grenoble, Grenoble, France Schacter D 1999 The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist 54(3): 182203 Schudson M 1992 Watergate in American Memory. How We Remember, Forget and Reconstruct the Past. Basic Books, New York Vidal-Naquet P 1981 Les Juifs, la meT moire et le preT sent. Maspero, Paris

Bibliography
Arnaldi G 1974 La storiograa come mezzo di liberazione dal passato. In: Cavazza F L, Graubard S R (eds.) Il Caso Italiano. Garzanti, Milan, pp. 55362 Assmann J 1992 Das kulturelle Geda W chtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identita W t in fru W hen Hochkulturen. Beck, Munich, Germany Assmann J 1997 Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Blumenberg H 1986 Weltzeit und Lebenszeit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, Germany Broszat M, Friedla $ nder S 1988 Diskussion um die Historisierunges Nationalsozialismus. Ein Briefwechsel. [On the historicization of national socialisman exchange of letters.] Vierteljahrshefte fu W r Zeitgeschichte 36: 33972 Campbell L B 1964 Shakespeares HistoriesMirrors of Elizabethan Policy. Methuen, London Connerton P 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Fried J 1997 The Veil of Memory. Anthropological Problems When Considering the Past. The German Historical Institute London, 1997 Annual Lecture, London Friedla $ nder S 1998 Nazi Germany and the Jews (Das Dritte Reich und die Juden, Vol. I: Die Jahre der Verfolgung 19339). Beck, Munich, Germany Giesen B 2000 Triumph and Trauma. University of California Press, Berkeley\Los Angeles, CA Halbwachs M 1985a Das Geda W chtnis und seine sozialen Bedingungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, Germany (French original: Les Cadres Sociaux de la MeT moire. Paris 1925) Halbwachs M 1985b Das kollekti e Geda W chtnis. Fischer, Frankfurt, Germany Herodotus 1992 The Histories (Blanco W (ed.)). Norton, New York\London Hutton P H 1993 History as an Art of Memory. University Press of New England, Hanover, UT KirschJ H1998Mythos,GeschichteundGeschichtswissenschaft. In: Tepe P et al. (eds.) Mythologica 6. Du W sseldorfer Jahrbuch fu W r interdisziplina W re Mythosforschung. Verlag Die Blaue Eule, Essen, Germany, pp. 10827 Koselleck R 1997 Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte. In: Klaus E M, Ru $ sen J (eds.) Historische Sinnbildung. Problemstellungen, Zeitkonzepte, Wahrnehmungshorizonte, Darstellungsstrategien. Rowohlt, Reinbek, Germany, pp. 7997 Le Go J 1986 Histoire et MeT moire. Gallimard, Paris Lewis B 1975 HistoryRemembered, Reco ered, In ented. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Mu $ nkler H 1994 Politische Mythen und nationale Identita $ t. In: Frindte W, Pa $ tzolt H (eds.) Mythen der Deutschen. Deutsche Bendlichkeiten zwischen Geschichten und Geschichte. Leske & Budrich, Opladen, Germany Nora P 1984\1992 Entre me! moire et histoire. In: Agulhon M, Boutry P (eds.) Les Lieux de MeT moire. Gallimard, Paris, Vol. 1

A. Assmann

History and the Social Sciences

History and the social sciences have developed and maintained complex relationships made up of commonalities and dierences as well as divergences and convergences. In principle, both disciplinary areas are concerned with the scientic study of the human lifeworld and the whole range of human behavior, individual and collective, in time and space as well as in the past and the present. Both disciplinary areas originated with the rise of the modern world as a common enterprise to develop systematic, secular, and empirically validated knowledge about the historical-social reality. In this fundamental sense, history can be and should be seen as part of the social sciences or vice versa the social sciences as part of the historical sciencesboth constituted by substantially interrelated modes of sociohistorical research (Gulbenkian Commission 1996, Hall 1999). Despite their fundamental commonality, however, history and the social sciences have followed quite dierent and diverging epistemological and methodological tracks during their academic institutionalization in Western Europe and North America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. On the one hand, the social sciences (economics, sociology, and political science as well as anthropology) came to be oriented towards the successful epistemological model of the natural sciences and dened themselves primarily as nomothetic and generalizing disciplines. On the other, history predominantly inuenced by the humanities and critical against speculative social laws developed traits of an idiographic and particularistic discipline. Against these traditional disciplinary denitions, a converging interdisciplinary cooperation 6829

History and the Social Sciences between history and the social sciences has developed only in the second half of the twentieth century. The social-scientic orientation of history was programmatically formulated in approaches such as the new social history, la nouvelle histoire, Social Science History, or Historische Sozialwissenschaft, developing in leading journals such as Annales Economies, SocieT teT s, Ci ilisations (1946), Past and Present (1952), Journal of Social History (1967), Journal of Interdisciplinary History (1970), Social Science History (1976), and Geschichte und Gesellschaft (1975). In a parallel movement, the historical orientation of the social sciences crystallized in new areas like historical sociology, historical economics, historical political science, and historical anthropology. Sometimes even the epistemological identity of history and the social sciences has been stated in a fundamental sense. More recently, however, this rapprochement between history and the social sciences was halted and partly reversed. Within the study and presentation of history a revival of the narrative, a new cultural history, and concepts of the historical cultural sciences have emerged, emphasizing what distinguishes them from the social sciences proper. But it should be stressed that, in a parallel movement, the social sciences have been similarly challenged from within by alternative cultural, interpretative-hermeneutic, and deconstructive-postmodernist epistemologies. Often the so-called cultural turn in history and the social sciences is seen as a replay of the traditional juxtaposition of idiographic and nomothetic positions and conservatively used to reconrm the traditionally separate institutionalization of both disciplinary areas. But properly understood, this cultural turn can and should be rather viewed as a challenge to the still prevailing principled opposition of generalizing or particularizing disciplinary epistemologies and methodologies. The future task, then, would be to open the historical and social sciences towards a common and multivocal, intra- and interdisciplinary discourse of sociohistorical inquiry. generation, and explanation of social facts in the present emphasizing nomothetic methods, systematic analysis, and theoretical explanation by reference to general laws or social regularities (Monkkonen 1994, Skocpol 1984). This problematically polarizing division between history and the social sciences developed with the institutionalization of the university systems during the nineteenth century under the impact of the natural sciences. Science, since then, came to be equated primarily with the natural sciences and particularly with its conspicuous inorganic and organic branches of physics and biology. Taking the natural sciences as epistemological models, the social sciences emerged as an attempt to discover the general laws and evolutionary mechanisms of modern society (Lepenies 1988, Gulbenkian Commission 1996). Thus, political or classical economy as developed by Adam Smith or David Ricardo tried to nd the general laws of modern capitalist market society or in a critical direction as formulated by Karl Marx to uncover the anatomy of emerging modern capitalism. In the same steps, the early founding fathers of sociology such as ClaudeHenri Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, or Herbert Spencer intended to nd the structural and evolutionary laws of modern society. At the same time, with the advent of modern mass politics in the American and French revolutions, the emerging political science as in Alexis de Tocqueville or John Stuart Mill attempted to formulate the general features and bases of modern democratic polities. Finally, with the growing awareness of non-Western societies under the impact of European colonialism and imperialism, anthropology tried to analyze the archaic or primitive societies as structural counterparts and evolutionary pre-stages of modern society. By contrast, history in view of the contingent ow of historical events and human actions as well as the role of cultural and spiritual forces came to be skeptical of the search for quasi-natural laws of the historicalsocial world. Instead, history followed the humanities, art, and literature as culturally oriented disciplines that seemed to be closer to the spiritual, creative, and poetic aspects of historical development. Particularly under the impact of German historicism, the epistemological and methodological principles of historical knowledge developed into a radical opposition to the positivist search for historical-social facts. The principle of Leopold von Ranke to narrate history wie sie eigentlich gewesen ist formulated the conviction that the historical method has to grasp the historical reality in its manifold particularities. In epistemological terms as developed by Johann Gustav Droysen and Wilhelm Dilthey, history cannot be subsumed under deterministic-mechanistic laws, but has to be understood in its concrete, experience-near, and lifefull quality. On this basis, not only were the historical subdisciplines such as political, legal, cultural, social, and economic history principally viewed as hermen-

1. Disciplinary Di ergence
In its originally institutionalizedbut nowadays increasingly challengedmeaning, history is primarily concerned with the study, description, interpretation, and presentation of historical facts or relics from the past, focusing on: idiographic methods, the analysis of historical contexts and temporal change, and the conceptualization of historical phenomena as particular individualities, their inductive interpretation, and narrative presentation (Burke 1992, Zunz 1985). In the oppositebut also increasingly questioned direction, the social sciences such as sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology have been traditionally understood as concerned with the study, 6830

History and the Social Sciences eutic-interpretative disciplines, but also economics, sociology, and political science as promoted among others by Gustav Schmoller, Werner Sombart, or Max Weber were primarily conceptualized as cultural sciences rather than as social sciences in order to grasp the individual and collective meanings structuring socioeconomic and political actions and processes. These epistemological and methodological dierences and divergences were characteristic for the relationships of history and the social sciences not only in Germany, but in all Western societies. However, through the particular inuence of German historicism refuting on ontological grounds the applicability of explanatory social-scientic methods to historical events and cultural individualities, these divergences often developed into a principled opposition (Iggers 1993, Lepenies 1988). The interdisciplinary bridging of this epistemological, analytical, and methodological opposition only became possible with the increasingly historical orientation of the social sciences as well as the growing social-scientic and sociological orientation of history (Abrams 1982, Lipset and Hofstadter 1970, Skocpol 1984). In the rst half of the twentieth century, this converging movement was seldom although of crucial signicance in preparing the ground for the later developing convergences between the historical and social sciences. Of lasting inuence was, rst, Emile Durkheim and the continuation of his approach by Marcel Mauss and Henri Berr, attempting to combine the sociology of social change with anthropological comparisons and historical developments (Raphael 1994, Stoianovich 1976). Of fundamental importance was also, second, the German historical-comparative sociology, particularly in the hands of Max Weber, Otto Hintze, Werner Sombart, and in their continuity also of Norbert Elias, who tried to explain the specicities of the Western civilization, its unique economic, political, and cultural order by historical and universal comparisons (Lepenies 1988). Third, strongly inuenced by European sociological traditions, modernization theory developed in the USA as a universal social-scientic approach closely connected with historical-comparative modernization research on the historical prerequisites and developments of modern societies on a world scale. social-scientic history or historical social sciencedespite many national particularities. They materialized in the 1960s and 1970s in a parallel movement in the Western societies (Iggers 1993). In critical opposition to the received tradition of narrative and exclusively interpretive history, the major common methodological aims of social-scientic history or historical social science can be summarized in the following principles. First, social-scientic historical approaches should be oriented to a structural and processual perspective on the various (economic, sociopolitical, and cultural) dimensions of macrohistorical change. Second, they should shift historical analysis from a top-down elite perspective to a bottom-up popular or peoples history. Third, socialscientic historical approaches should give up the traditional emphasis on political and intellectual history and turn towards economic and social history. Fourth, they should make systematic use of the available social-scientic, theoretical, comparative, and quantitative methods in history and favor systematic explanation instead of hermeneutic interpretation. Finally, this movement to social-scientic history or historical social science was often motivated by a critique of traditional elitist-conservative historiography and a commitment to emancipatory, democratic, or enlightened values. The common methodological aims of socialscientic history or historical social science, at the same time, were colored and refracted by the respective national intellectual and cultural environments. In France, the nouvelle histoire promoted within the long established interdisciplinary tradition of the Annales school (Raphael 1984, Stoianovich 1976) was characterized by a rather balanced multilevel (longue Z nements) and multidimensional dureT e, conjonctures, eT e (economy, social structure, and civilizational mentalities) mode of historical analysis. In England, a strong neo-Marxist inuence shaped the rise of economic and social history with a particular emphasis on social inequality and class history (Kaye 1984). In the United States the interdisciplinary social science history was inuenced by the development of historical-comparative multidimensional modernization research and the special attraction of econometric, statistical, and social research methods for the quantication of historical processes (Tilly 1981). In Germany, Marxian and Weberian traditions of scholarship combined with elements of Western modernization theories and led to Historische Sozialwissenschaft and Gesellschaftsgeschichte, in which the analysis of social inequality and political power with a particular emphasis on the German special path were treated (Kocka 1977, Wehler 1980). At the same time, these national variations reect not only diering intellectual and theoretical traditions, but also a dierent emphasis on the use of qualitative and quantitative methods in historical-social inquiry. This is also indicated by the paradigmatic oscillations between the concepts of 6831

2. Interdisciplinary Con ergence

Inuenced by these precursors, the historical and social sciences combined programmatically, rst in the Annales school (Raphael 1994, Stoianovich 1976) and then later in the American Social Science History approach (Tilly 1981), some proponents of English Marxist historiography (Kaye 1984) and in their emulation in the West German Historische Sozialwissenschaft (Kocka 1977, Wehler 1980). This interdisciplinary convergence led to dierent forms of

History and the Social Sciences (a) historical social science, (b) structural history, and (c) social-scientic history. Historical social science (Historische Sozialwissenschaft) serves as a loosely dened summary category. Still, the historical-comparative analysis of large-scale and multidimensional processes of social change from traditional life-worlds to modern society has been at the center. In particular, the concepts of historicalcomparative modernization research, historical sociology, societal history, and synthetic structural history, with dierent theoretical and methodological orientations, belong to this category. In the French Annales school in a mixture of Durkheimian and Marxian traditions, the comparative analysis of feudalism by Marc Bloch and the social history of capitalism by Fernand Braudel (to be followed by Immanuel Wallersteins history of the modern world system) are important examples. Among English Marxist historians, the debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in a line from Maurice Dobb to Perry Anderson and the social history of modern classes, developed in dierent directions by Eric Hobsbawm and Edward Thompson, carried the eld. In the United States, modernization research guided by a mixture of Max Webers comparative sociology and Talcott Parsons structural functionalist theory of social change was of major importance, resulting in path-breaking studies like Neil Smelsers analysis of social change in the English industrial revolution; Shmuel Eisenstadts civilizational comparison of empires; Barrington Moores historical explanation of the development of twentieth-century dictatorship and democracy; Tillys edited volume on the formation of national states in Western Europe; and Reinhard Bendixs study on corresponding historical changes in the legitimacy of political domination (see as an overview Skocpol 1984). In Germany, the modernization paradigm in a mixture of Weber and Marx directed Ralf Dahrendorf s sociological analysis of Germanys troublesome process of democratization or Hans-Ulrich Wehlers (198795) and Ju $ rgen Kockas (1993) comparative social-historical investigations of the German special path and the role of the social classes within it. Structural history, again, has had dierent meanings with dierent outlooks. It materialized in innovative areas of a variety of new histories along the lines between the main subsystems of modern society and the related social-scientic disciplines. In the New Economic History of the 1960s, the application of economic concepts and theories has given rise to the history of economic growth, technology, capitalist markets, and institutions; here, David Landes (1969) Prometheus or Sidney Pollards (1981) Peaceful Conquest are examples of a qualitative type, whereas Gianni Toniolis (1991) comparative history of European industrializationdebating Alexander Gerschenkrons theory of economic backwardness represents a quantitative type of economic history. In 6832 the New Social History in the 1960s and 1970s, sociological concepts were used in the historical analysis of demographic development, social structure, and social mobility; social groups, occupational structures, and social classes; social institutions, associations, and interest groups; as well as social movements, social protest, and political mobilization (Kocka 1977). This was combined with the application of political-scientic approaches to the history of political modernization, state formation, nation building, the development of democratic regimes and party systems, as well as political power and contestation (Tilly 1984). Further, social-scientic approaches inuenced by social anthropology have also been applied to cultural phenomena and developments such as family and socialization, religion and secularization, as well as value systems and mental structures (see dierent essays in Ru $ rup 1977). The concept of social-scientic history has been used primarily for the application of rigorous quantitative research methods in structural or social history (Landes and Tilly 1970, Schro $ der 1994). Not always, but often it has been equated with historical social research or the systematic quantitative operationalization and measurement of historical-social variables. In addition, this often combined with a deductive application of theoretical models to historical data and their explanation through statistical-mathematical and increasingly computer-assisted methods. Also this type of social-scientic historical research followed, either in close cooperation or in separate organization, the main areas of the new histories. Particularly, the New Economic History has been suited to cliometric, statistical, and econometric research methods as for instance in Paul Bairochs and Maurice Le! vy-Leboyers (1981) analysis of economic growth disparities since the industrial revolution. But also in the new social history, social-demographic family, mobility, and migration studies such as Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett (1983) as well as time-series of social protest such as Charles Tilly, L. Tilly, and R. Tilly (1975) are prominent examples. In the new political history, the historical change of voting behavior, in particular, became an important eld of historical social research (e.g., Best and Thome 1991). But also in the cultural history of mentalities as carried through particularly in the Annales tradition, the application of quantitative methods were fruitfully developed (e.g., Shapiro and Marko 1998).

3. Interdisciplinary Challenges
Successful as these dierent new historical subdisciplines in their qualitative and quantitative orientations have been, the guiding vision of social-scientic approaches to history has been the combination of the various structural histories in a unifying societal

History and the Social Sciences history, histoire totale or Gesellschaftsgeschichte (Iggers 1993, Wehler 1980). This vision follows the epistomological ideal of merging the historical sciences and the social sciences in a common paradigmas essentially expressed in the paradigmatic concepts of social science history, historical sociology, or historische Sozialwissenschaft (Abrams 1982, Smith 1991, Wehler 1980). With this unifying vision, however, the disciplinary traditions and methodological dierences between historicized conceptions of the social sciences and social-scientic approaches to history become easily blurred. On the one hand, historical approaches in the social sciences basically proceed within a generalizing frame of reference (Monkkonen 1994). For instance, historical economics follows the basic idea of uncovering time\space bound economic laws or regularities (Kindleberger 1990, Monkkonen 1994, Wallerstein 2000). Also historical sociology is primarily oriented to the general features of time\space bound social processes, patterns, and gurations (as exemplary studies see Eisenstadt 1996,Mann 1986\1993,Smelser 1992).In parallel, historical approaches in the political sciences concentrate on general features of political development (Monkkonen 1994). Also, historicized versions of anthropology are interested in the general evolutionary patterns of human behavior (Monkkonen 1994). On the other hand, social-scientic approaches to history as multidimensional structural or combined societal history usually remain in the connes of a narrative frame of referenceeven when applying rigorously social-scientic theoretical concepts and research methods. Thus, in spite of all interdisciplinary convergence, there have been limits to a full merger between historically oriented social sciences and social science oriented history. A second problematique, expressed in the oscillating meanings of historical social science, structural history, and social-scientic history, concerns the relationships between theory and method. Structural approaches to history often use social-scientic concepts in order to systematize, interpret, and explain long-term historical processes in one or another societal dimension. Social-scientic approaches to history are often oriented to theoretical models in order to explain deductively quantied historicaldevelopmental data. Approaches in historical social science and related synthetic orientations to history often use multidimensional theories of social change in order to explain causal connections between the various societal dimensions. Many varieties of historical social science, structural history, and socialscientic history use theories and concepts, deductive and inductive modes of explanation or interpretation, as well as qualitative, quantitative, and comparative methods of analysis. In an eort to systematize these methodological strategies in historical-social inquiry, Theda Skocpol proposed to distinguish model-theoretical, causal-analytical, and interpretive modes of explanation (Skocpol 1984, pp. 35691). Charles Tilly, concentrating on the types of comparison and the number of cases and variables involved, dierentiated between individualizing, generalizing, encompassing, and variation-nding forms of comparison (Tilly 1984, 84.). Charles Ragin (2000), attempting to bridge qualitative and quantitative modes of analysis, distinguished between case-analytical and variationoriented methodological strategies. Fruitful as these methodological distinctions are, particularly the methodological relationships between explanatory and interpretive research strategies, the theoretical sources and analytical consequences of these methodological distinctions for sociohistorical inquiry still remain unexplored (Hall 1999, p. 173). A third increasingly salient but divisive problematique concerns the role of culture in the diering modes of historical social science, structural history, and social-scientic history. Not only in practice, but also often programmatically, social-scientic approaches to sociohistorical inquiry tend to favor the analysis of the economic, social, and political dimensions and to limit the analysis of culture to value systems or cultural institutions. The contents and forms of culture in their constitutive or causal role in history are often neglected and the corresponding hermeneutic or deconstructive methods to interpret their meanings, symbols, values, and identities are often seen as secondary. Against these prevailing tendencies of social-scientic approaches to culture, there emerged an increasingly inuential challenge by the new cultural history or cultural-scientic versions of history (Hunt 1989, Dirks et al. 1994, Mergel and Welskopp 1996). This cultural turn consists of dierent countercurrents against the social-scientic vision of a systematic, generalizing, and explanatory structural and societal history. First, the revival of the narrative insists on the interpretive, literary, and narrative tasks of history (Stone 1979). Second, the development of micro-history or Alltagsgeschichte emphasizes the complexity of life-worlds as such or as microfoundations of historical macrostructures (Luedtke 1989). Third, the linguistic turn presupposes the all-pervasiveness of language in the social world, thus stressing the analytical task of deconstructing discourses and decoding linguistic-symbolic structures (Hunt 1989). Fourth, the cultural turn is consciously oriented to those social groups such as women, ethnic minorities, or the underclass, seen as neglected by the predominating social-scientic approaches to history (e.g., History Workshop Journal 1976 or Radical History 1975). Finally, some authors are inuenced by a postmodernist perspective emphasizing the fragmentation and decentering against the structuring and ordering of the social world (Iggers 1993). The result is not only the generation of a whole new set of historical subdisciplines such as womens and gender history, ethnic and minority history, regional and local history as well 6833

History and the Social Sciences as the history of identities and memory, but also an inuential shift from social-scientic history to cultural-scientic history (see however Bonnell and Hunt 1999). In a sense, the cultural turn signies a revitalization of historicism and cultural-scientic approaches to historyre-emphasizing qualitative, interpretative, ethnographical, and hermeneutic methods against systematic-explanatory orientations and, with it, reversing the causal or structural determination of history from society to culture. At the same time, this theoretical and analytical movement reects a parallel shift in the social sciences from social-structural to institutional and cultural paradigms (Skinner 1985, Matthes 1992, McDonald 1996). For instance, in economics and economic sociology the new institutionalism has gained wide recognition, but also cultural neo-Weberian approaches reappear (North 1981, Monkkonen 1994, Swedberg 1998). In various domains of sociology as well, the new institutionalism and various forms of a new cultural sociology become inuential (Monkkonen 1994, Crane 1994). Further, in political science the traditional institutional approaches become challenged by cultural paradigms (Monkkonen 1994). All this is inuenced by a crucial shift in anthropology from social and structural anthropology to various forms of interpretative, ethnographic, historical, and cultural anthropology (Monkkonen 1994). As a result, social-scientic history is not merely confronted with systematic, generalizing, and explanatory forms of the social sciences, but also with individualizing, interpretative, and reexive varieties of the cultural sciences. In other words, new opportunities of interdisciplinary cooperation emerge. history, and social-scientic history. These tensions develop, on the other hand, within the wider historical sciences, in the often polarized opposition to renewed historicist and culturalist, narrative and hermeneutic or deconstructivist modes of historical-social inquiry. At the same time, these theoretical and methodological oppositions and polarizations are not solely characteristic for the historical sciences. Parallel disciplinary developments can also be observed in the social sciences and the widespread and often sharp oppositions to cultural-scientic approaches in the various social-scientic disciplines. These epistemological, theoretical, and methodological oppositions and conicts have often led into a stalemate in both disciplinary areas of the historical and social sciences between renewed forms of narrative-interpretative and anthropological-cultural history in contradistinction to the nomothetic social sciences. However, these oppositions in the historical as well as the social sciences can and should be used to re-energize a wider intra- and interdisciplinary cooperation between the historical, social, and cultural sciences. These renewed cooperative eorts should concentrate on the crucial epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and analytical dimensions in sociohistorical inquiry within and across the established academic disciplines: on the epistemological level, combining social-scientic and cultural-scientic as well as generalizing and particularizing modes of knowledge; on the theoretical level confronting systematically social-structural and cultural approaches to historical-social reality; on the analytical level, mediating between the social-structural, institutional and cultural dimensions as well as between the global, national, regional and local macro-\microdimensions in sociohistorical inquiry; and on the methodological level, clarifying the relationships between qualitative and qualitative as well as historical, social-scientic, and cultural-scientic comparative research strategies (Bourdieu 1995, Haupt and Kocka 1996, Spohn 1998). All these renewed epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and analytical eorts of an inter- and intradisciplinary cooperation should not be done in segmented isolation, but in a multidisciplinary and multivoiced context of practiced sociohistorical inquiry. Such an opening of the historical and social sciences, however, is not only a matter of an intellectual intra- and interdisciplinary cooperation, but also demands an institutional cross-cutting between and across the segmented academic disciplines of the historical and social sciences (Gulbenkian Commission 1996). See also: Anthropology and History; Cultural History; Demography, History of; Econometrics, History of; Economic History; Economics, History of; Family and Kinship, History of; Gender and Feminist Studies in History; Historical Sociology; History: Forms of Presentation, Discourses, and Functions; History:

4. Interdisciplinary Perspecti es
The interdisciplinary cooperation and convergence of history and the social sciences have opened up novel and dynamical elds of sociohistorical research. At the same time, the ideT es directrices of that historicalsocial-scientic convergence have often privileged quasi-natural-scientic epistemologies and methodologies. As a consequence, generalizing modes of sociohistorical inquiry stand in tension with particularizing modes; structural and macro-analytical theories used in historical-social analysis conict with action and micro-analytical theories; causal explanation is often limited to the application of theoretical models and causal-analytic methodologies in opposition to interpretation and hermeneutic strategies; and, accordingly, there are tensions between qualitative and quantitative methods, including generalizing and particularizing methods of comparison. These tensions are revealed, on the one hand, within the social-scientic convergence of history and the social sciences in the paradigmatic oscillations between the guiding concepts of historical social science, structural 6834

History and the Social Sciences Theories and Methods; Marxist Social Thought, History of; Social History; Weberian Social Thought, History Of
Matthes J (ed.) 1992 Zwischen den Kulturen? Die Sozialwissenschaften or dem Problem des Kultur ergleichs. Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen McDonaldT J (ed.) 1996 The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Michigan University Press, Ann Arbor, MI Mergel T, Welskopp T (eds.) 1997 Geschichte zwischen Kultur und Gesellschaft. Beitra W ge zur Theoriedebatte. Beck, Mu $ nchen Monkkonen E H (ed.) 1994 Engaging the Past. The Uses of History. Across the Social Sciences. Duke University Press, Durham, NC North D C 1981 Structure and Change in Economic History. Norton, New York Pollard S 1981 Peaceful Conquest: the Industrialization of Europe 17601970. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Ragin C C 2000 Fuzzy-set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Raphael L 1994 Die Erben on Bloch und Feb re. Klett und Cotta, Stuttgart Ru $ rup R (ed.) 1977 Historische Sozialwissenschaft: Beitr. zur Einf in d. Forschungsprais. Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen Schro $ der C 1994 Historische Sozialforschung. Minerva, St. Katharinen Shapiro G, Marko J 1998 Re olutionary Demands: A Content Analysis of the Cahiers De DoleT ances of 1789. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA Skinner Q (ed.) 1985 The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences. Canto, Cambridge, UK Skocpol T (ed.) 1984 Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Smelser N J 1991 Social Paralysis and Social Change: British Working-Class Education in the Nineteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Smith D 1991 The Rise of Historical Sociology. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA Spohn W (ed.) 1998 Kulturanalyse und vergleichende Forschung Comparati . Leizpiger Beitra W ge zur Uni ersalgeschichte und ergleichenden Gesellschaftsforschung 8(1) Stoianovich T 1976 French Historical Method: The Annales Paradigm. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY Stone L 1979 The revival of the narrative: Reections on a new old history. Past and Present 85: 324 Swedberg R 1998 Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Tilly C 1981 As Sociology Meets History. Academic Press, New York Tilly C 1984 Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, Russel Sage Foundation, New York Tilly C, Tilly L, Tilly R 1975 The Rebellious Century 18301930. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Toniolo G Sylla R (ed.) 1991 Patterns of European Industrialization in the 19th Century. Routledge, London Wall R, Robin J, Laslett P (eds)1983 Family Forms in Historic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Wallerstein I M 2000 The Essential Wallerstein. New Press, New York Wehler H-U 1980 Historische Sozialwissenschaft und Geschichtsschreibung. Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen Wehler H-U 19871995 Gesellschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands. Beck, Mu $ nchen, 3 Vols. Zunz O 1985 (ed.) Reli ing the Past: the World of Social History. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC

Bibliography
Abrams P 1982 Historical Sociology. Open Books, Shepton Mallet, UK Bairoch P, Le! vy-Leboyer M (eds.) 1981 Disparities in Economic De elopment Since the Industrial Re olution. St. Martins Press, New York Best H, Thome H (eds.) 1991 Neue Methoden der Analyse historischer Daten. Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, St. Katharinen Bonnell V E, Hunt L (eds.) 1999 Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Bourdieu P (ed) 1995 Histoire sociale des sciences sociales. Actes de la Recherche en sciences sociales 106/107 Burke P 1992 History and Social Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK Crane D (ed.) 1994 The Sociology of Culture. Emerging Theoretical Perspecti es. Blackwell, Oxford, UK Dirks N B, Eley G, Ortner S B (eds.) 1994 Culture\Power\ History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Eisenstadt S N 1996 Japanese Ci ilization. A Comparati e View. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences 1996 Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Uni ersity Press. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA Hall J R 1999 Cultures of Inquiry. From Epistemology to Discourse in Sociohistorical Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Haupt H-G, Kocka J (eds.) 1996 Geschichte und Vergleich. Campus Frankfurt Hunt L (ed) 1989 The New Cultural History: Essays. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Iggers G G 1993 Geschichtswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein q berblick im internationalen Zusammenhang. kritischer U Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen Kaye H J 1984 The British Marxist Historians An Introductory Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Kindleberger C P 1990 Historical Economics. Art of Science? University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Kocka J 1977 Sozialgeschichte; Begri, Entwicklung, Probleme. Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, Go $ ttingen Kocka J (eds.) 1993 Bu W rgertum und bu W rgerliche Gesellschaft im 19. Jahrhundert. Beck, Mu $ nchen Landes D S 1969 The Unbound Prometheus: Techological Change and industrial De elopment in western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Landes D S, Tilly C 1971 History as Social Science. PrenticeHall, Englewood Clis, NJ Lipset S M, Hofstadter R (eds.) 1970 Sociology and History: Methods. Basic Books, New York Lepenies W 1988 Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Luedtke A (ed.) 1989 Alltagsgeschichte: Zur Rekonstruktion Historischer Erfahrungen und Lebernweisen. Campus, Frankfurt Mann M 1986\1993 The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2 Vols

W. Spohn Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 6835

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences

ISBN: 0-08-043076-7