No fear of comparisons or context: on the foundations of historical sociology

Abstract

Exploring the role of comparative history in macro‐social inquiry, Theda Skocpol suggested, in the early 1980s, that historical sociology aimed to derive causal regularities in history without assuming a ‘preconceived general model’. This triggered off a debate on the foundations of historical sociology. Starting from a sketch of the historical and theoretical background, this essay analyses the various positions that evolved in this debate. The analysis relies on an analytical framework that maps various understandings of theory in the social sciences. Three positions are discussed: standard, social‐philosophical and pragmatist conceptions of social science theory. We conclude that both standard scholars (the early functionalists and the later rational choice theorists) and social philosophers fail to overcome the fear of comparisons and context. Pragmatists, in contrast, have no such fear, since they avoid high‐level notions of theory and allow only internal analogies when they analyse historical developments.