Logics of History in Sociological Argument

• In Event: 41066 - Methods and Methodological Innovations in Comparative Historical Sociology

Abstract

Many contemporary sociologists tout the importance of history. But is there a nontrivial way to describe this relevance? Rather than canvass sociologists’ claims about history, I propose that we treat the formulation of arguments as a practice—how sociologists use concepts to make claims—that involves historical logics. Doing so illuminates three distinct logics of history: 1) analytical, historically specific claims formed out of transhistorical concepts, often delimited by localized processes, 2) systemic, historically specific concepts and claims whose relevance is delimited by essential or constitutive tendencies of a period, and 3) situational, historically specific concepts and claims whose relevance is delimited by localized processes. These distinct logics have different analytical implications and create different analytical challenges. By disentangling them, we can avoid misleading accounts of why history matters and raise precise analytical questions about distinct argumentative practices. Most important, this analysis identifies an underappreciated issue: the rhetorical plea for history’s value to sociology can contradict how history functions in argumentative practices. Thus, more precise tools for assessing argumentative practice are needed.

Author

• Tad P. Skotnicki, University of North Carolina-Greensboro