How Historical Sociology Can Be Taken and How Then It Should Be Practiced

The essay presents its author's understanding of historical sociology, as well as a view on how to practice historical sociology. The preconditions that have been necessary for the emergence of historical sociology from the American intellectual tradition are the following: first, to overcome the 'historiosophical ahistoricism' of classical sociology and the ahistoricism of early empirical sociology in the United States. Second, the emergence of 'social history' in Europe under the influence of the Great War and the social sciences rejecting the idea of progress in its evolutionary and revolutionary interpretations. The essay provides a detailed investigation of the features of the 'new historical science' in comparison with its traditional counterpart, as well as exploring the similarities and differences between social history and historical sociology. Social history is considered as an intermediate link between the classical 'sociology of history' and American historical sociology. Following social history, historical sociology turns to comparative studies and quantitative methods, but at the same time does not abandon hermeneutics. Historical sociology presupposes a mutual weakening of the nomothetics of classical 'grand theories' and the ideography of traditional history. It also implies a full-fledged sociological investigation of historical phenomena using procedures accepted in empirical sociology, rather than the reinterpretation of historical research in sociological-theoretical terms. This results in the emergence of special (rather than general) processual and medium-level theories of social change based on historical facts. Historical sociology focuses on theoretical generalizations, which clearly distinguishes it from social history. The essay investigates the different approaches and purposes of using the comparative historical method — and the quantitative methods that complement it. In turn, their utilization leads to problems with the acceptance of their results by traditional historians specialized in a single country and on studying primary sources in the original. Instead of concluding, the author discusses his experience and participation in the institutionalization of historical sociology in Russia and points out the problems hindering it.

1. Blok M. (2001) A Contribution Towards a Comparative History of European Societies. Odysseus. Man in History (13): 65-93. — In Russ.

2. Zider R. (1993) What is social history? Gaps and continuity in the development of the "social". Thesis (1), 163-181. — In Russ.

3. Krom M. M. (2014) Comparison in History and Historical Sociology: the Commonality of the Method and the Difference in Disciplinary Approaches. “Walls and Bridges" — II: interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research in history: proceedings of an international scientific conference. M.: Academic Project. — In Russ.

4. Mann M. (2018) The Sources of Social Power. Vol. 1. A history of power from the beginning to ad 1760. M.: Publishing house "Delo” RANEPA. — In Russ.

5. Marx K. (1968) The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Marx K., Engels F. Selected Op. in 9th volume, vol. 4. M.: Politizdat, 1968. — In Russ.

6. Mills C. R. (1998) Sociological imagination. M.: Strategy. — In Russ.

7. Mironov B. N. (1984) Historian and Sociology. L.: Nauka. — In Russ.

8. Mironov B. N. (2004) Sociology and historical Sociology: a historian's view. Sociological Research(10): 55-62. — In Russ.

9. Mogilnitsky B. G. (2003) The history of historical thought of the XX century; A course of lectures. Issue II: The formation of a "new historical science”. Tomsk: Tomsk Univercity's Publishing house. — In Russ.

10. Repina L. P. (2009) “New Historical Science" and Social History. M.: LKI Publishing House, 2009. — In Russ.

11. Romanovsky N. V. (2006) Towards the results of the "round table” on historical sociology. Sociological Research (7): 123-132. — In Russ.

12. Skochpol T. (2017) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. M.: Publishing House of the Gaidar Institute, 2017. — In Russ.

13. Tilly C. (2009) Historical Sociology. Sociological Research (5): 95-110. — In Russ.

14. Touraine A. (1998) Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society M.: Scientific World, 1998. — In Russ.

15. Fourcade M., Olkhon E., Algan Ya. (2015) The superiority of economists. Economic Issues (7): 45-72. — In Russ.

16. Shtompka P. (1996) Sociology of social change. M.: Aspect Press, 1996. — In Russ.

17. Arjomand S. A. (2004) Theory and the Changing World. Mass Democracy, Development, Modernization and Globalization. International Sociology (3): 299-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580904045344

18. Goldthorpe J. H. (1991). The Uses of History in Sociology: Reflections on Some Recent Tendencies. The British Journal of Sociology, (42): 211-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/590368

19. Lang M. (2012) Comparative-Historical Methods. SAGE.

20. Mann M. (1994) In Praise of Macro-Sociology: A Reply to Goldthorpe. British Journal

21. of Sociology (45): 37-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/591524

22. Nisbet R. (1969) Social Change and History. N. Y.: Oxford University Press.

23. Ragin C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. California University Press.

24. Ritter H. (1986) Dictionary of concepts in history. N. Y.: Greenwood Press.

25. Skocpol T., Somers M. R. (1980) The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History (22): 174-197.

26. Tilly C. (1983) Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. Russel SAGE Foundation. Zagorin P. (1982) Rebels and Rulers, 1500-1600. Vol. 1. Society, States, and Early Modern Revolution. Cambridge University Press.