Historical Sociology
Historical Sociology
复制标题
历史社会学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Rosenberg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Hobson;George Lawson;J. Rosenberg
历史社会学兴起于20世纪80年代，成熟于20世纪90年代，兴起于21世纪初，已成为当代国际关系理论的一大特色。然而，历史社会学的起源远比这要深刻得多。事实上，历史社会学至少有两个世纪的历史--经济学家、历史哲学家和新生的社会学家试图对工业资本主义的出现、理性的官僚国家、新颖的战争形式和现代世界的其他核心特征提供一种历史敏感但普遍适用的解释（对该领域的介绍包括艾布拉姆斯1982; Skocpol编，1984; Smith 1991; Delanty & Isin编。2003; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003）。尽管历史社会学在社会学中的地位因该学科转向抽象理论以及与同类竞争对手的地盘之争而受到影响，但历史社会学在20世纪70年代末和80年代初经历了某种复兴，大约在那时，一波自觉的历史社会学工作开始出现在IR中。在过去的二十年里，国际关系中的历史社会学（HSIR）对一系列争论做出了贡献，这些争论从对现代国家体系起源的考察，（Rosenberg 1994; Spruyt 1994; Teschke 2003）来揭示当代历史时期的核心特征和相对新颖性。（Shaw 2000; Buzan & Little 2000; Rosenberg 2005）。然而，随着它的发展，所以HSIR在其口味上变得越来越“天主教”，经常表现为一种松散的方法，代表几乎任何包含历史或社会学情感的作品（劳森2007）。简而言之，即使取得了重大进展，但随之而来的是基本方法本身的淡化。奇怪的是，那里-
Emerging in the 1980s, maturing in the 1990s and taking-off in the 2000s, historical sociology has become a major feature of contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. However, the origins of historical sociology run much deeper than this. Indeed, historical sociology can be seen as at least two centuries old – an attempt by economists, philosophers of history and nascent sociologists to provide a historically sensitive, yet generally applicable, account of the emergence of industrial capitalism, the rational bureaucratic state, novel forms of warfare and other core features of the modern world (introductions to the field include Abrams 1982; Skocpol ed. 1984; Smith 1991; Delanty & Isin eds. 2003; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003). Although the place of historical sociology within Sociology suffered from that discipline’s diversion into abstract theorizing and its turf-wars with cognate rivals, historical sociology experienced something of a renaissance during the late 1970s and early 1980s, around the time that a wave of self-consciously historical sociological work began to appear in IR. Over the past twenty years, historical sociology in International Relations (HSIR) has contributed to a number of debates ranging from examination of the origins of the modern states-system (Rosenberg 1994; Spruyt 1994; Teschke 2003) to unraveling the core features and relative novelty of the contemporary historical period (Shaw 2000; Buzan & Little 2000; Rosenberg 2005). However, as it has developed, so HSIR has become increasingly “catholic” in its tastes, often presenting itself as a loose approach representing almost any work which contains either historical or sociological sensibilities (Lawson 2007). In short, even as substantial gains have been made, there has been a concomitant watering down of the underlying approach itself. Paradoxically, there-