Abstract
“Time” and “temporality” are difficult and central notions for historical scholarship. They exist in many varieties, which renders generalizations challenging. An interesting attempt has been made by US-scholar William H. Sewell in his Logics of History. Social Theory and Social Transformation (2005). He qualifies historical temporality as fateful, contingent, complex, eventful, and heterogeneous. It is rare for a historian to be so explicit. Sewell was inspired by discussions with sociologists and anthropologists during his transition from social to cultural history in the 1980 and 1990s. This article examines the question whether and how the change of the intellectual environment impacted the theoretical outcome. Are Sewell’s attributes to historical temporality plausible for historical scholarship in general, or do they reflect the boundary work of a particular group?
Highlights
IntroductionCRSO probably means Center for Research on Social Organization, and CSST might be the Center for the Study of Social Transformations
Sewell was inspired by discussions with sociologists and anthropologists during his transition from social to cultural history in the 1980 and
Are Sewell’s attributes to historical temporality plausible for historical scholarship in general, or do they reflect the boundary work of a particular group?
Summary
CRSO probably means Center for Research on Social Organization, and CSST might be the Center for the Study of Social Transformations Sewell thanks his undisclosed colleagues from all these seminars, workshops, and centers of US-American elite universities for friendship, scholarly exchange, and for their “boundless capacity for critical thought”, which made the book possible.. In ten out of thirty-five years did he hold a position in a purely historical department Otherwise it included tasks in the fields of interdisciplinarity, sociology, or political science.. His dissertation examined the working class in Marseille in the mid-nineteenth century, and later—as we will see—Sewell took a decisively historical stance in his historical-sociological-anthropological networks It was precisely the intense participation in interdisciplinary debates that prompted him to sharpen his identity as a historian and the theoretical premises of the historical discipline. I focus on the chapters and passages directly linked to the debate on temporalities and its interdisciplinary context. I will include critical voices, and the conclusion points to a surprising transformation undergone by the author after this substantial publication
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
