Historical Sociology Research Articles

“Hungarian Supremacy Cannot Be Debated”. Hungarian Conservative Sociologists on the Nationalities Question (1908–1918)

Abstract Magyar Társadalomtudományi Szemle (MTSZ), i.e. Hungarian Review of Social Sciences, was published between 1908 and 1918, and it was the highest-toned journal of contemporary Hungarian conservative sociology. At that time, in the last years of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, one of the most pressing social issues was the nationalities question: what rights belong to non-Hungarian-speaking nationalities living in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary? This question was answered by two schools of tender-aged Hungarian social science. In general, liberal-left sociologists following Western scientific patterns believed that the language and cultural rights of national minorities need to be expanded. Conservatives, on the other hand, called for a restrictive policy to maintain the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Hungary. The analysis of the authors and writings in favour of the extension of rights has been completed (Litván 1978, 2006; Litván–Szücs 1973). Conservative sociologists who support the restriction, however, have so far received almost no attention in the history of sociology. In this writing, I would like to fill this gap. After the short institutional presentation of contemporary conservative sociology, I will focus on their central journal, MTSZ. I will analyse the articles in which the authors have taken a position on the nationalities question. I argue that the articles published in the MTSZ have primarily addressed the nationalities question as a political and demographic issue. Therefore, I will describe these two types of writing. (Beyond that, some articles focused on social theory, culture, or education when writing about the rights of non-Hungarian-speaking minorities.) My basic question is how those aspects of the nationalities question appeared in MTSZ and how those all create a specific political store of knowledge. If we get answers to this, not only will we shed light on one of the forgotten but exciting schools of early Central European social science, but perhaps the history of the first quarter of the 20th century will also be better understood.

The Reorganization of Hungarian Sociology after the 1956 Revolution

Abstract The history of Hungarian sociology in the state-socialist period can certainly be described in terms of a general Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) historical model, the most important feature of which is the undivided power of the Communist Party. Under such conditions, the Soviet Union and local political power holders had a direct influence on the institutionalization and functioning of sciences, including sociology. The study contributes to understanding the social impact of the 1956 revolution, particularly its crushing effect on the development of Hungarian sociology in relation to the general model. Firstly, the early development of sociology in the Soviet Union and most state-socialist countries in the 1950s was blocked in Hungary by the 1956 revolution. The trauma of the 1956 revolution made all groups of society, including the intelligentsia, realize that the system could not be changed in the long term. At the same time, it made it clear to the political authorities that the system could not be maintained in the long run with methods of the past. As a result, Kádár’s consolidation relied heavily on a compromising intelligentsia, needed for its expertise (in this case, modern sociological expertise) and legitimizing the system. Consequently, sociology in Hungary started developing and became institutionalized in the early 1960s. In this situation, sociology represented both a critical point of view opposing the system and, at the same time, a tool of its – covert or overt – legitimation.

Advantage of Backwardness: The Effect of Industrialisation on European Modern Design Movement

To answer specific questions of modern design history, historical analysis is needed, alongside chronicles and narrative, to promote deeper understanding. This paper, with the assistance of advantage of backwardness theory and the method characterised by historical sociology, focuses on the social origin of European modern design against the background of the industrial revolution. It aims to understand the link between technological change and the rise of modern design in Europe. The study starts with an explanation of the progress of industrialisation within those countries that were closely related to European modern design movement, and then investigates how this process diversely impacted the emergence of modern design in Europe through a comparative analysis on the interactive connection between industrialisation (as a case of technological change in modern times) and European modern design movement (as a cultural and social consequence of the change). This study particularly clarifies why the subsequent industrial countries, instead of the early industrial countries, had dramatically obtained the advantage to fully develop the modern design movement in Europe. It concludes that, in terms of technological change, advantage of backwardness played an important part in the origin of European modern design.

Socio-vital Institutions of the Cossack Everyday Life: Categorical and Conceptual Analysis

Numerous scientific and popular works have been written about the Russian Cossacks, and in modern Russia, interest in Cossacks as a subject of scientific analysis is growing. Presidential Decree No. 505 of August 9, 2020, approved the "Strategy of State Policy of the Russian Federation in relation to the Russian Cossacks for 2021-2030", that emphasises "promoting the scientific study of the history of the Russian Cossacks, countering the falsification of pages of Russian history related to the Russian Cossacks". To ensure the scientific study of the history of the Russian Cossacks, it is important to understand the system of key categories and concepts that reflect Cossack everyday life. The development of a scientific toolkit to achieve this goal requires interdisciplinary research, including turning to historical sociology and sociology of culture, conceptualising the socio-vital institutions of the Russian Cossacks, revealing the features of Cossack everyday life.
 Vitalist sociology, in turn, paradigmatically supports the author's scientific installation and provides an expanded categorical and conceptual analysis of the ethnocultural sphere of the life activities of Cossack communities in a cultural vitalist key. Attention is drawn to the material side of the socio-personal evolution of Cossack communities in the historical everyday life of the Russian Empire from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century and the preservation, through commemorative practices, of the socio-vital institutions of the Russian Cossacks to the present day.
 The basic resource for life support is housing as a product of the creative activity of the Cossacks and a form of their territorial-spatial localisation within Cossack settlements. The cultural vitalist narrative presents traditional Cossack food, considered in a chronotopic key, positioning Cossack communities as a social group with rational consumption and at the same time external self-presentation.
 Historically, Cossacks have had predominant relationships with such an important resource for life support as clothing, and here we encounter profound symbolic interactionism in the self-interpretation of the Cossack costume. In other words, three key categories of Cossack everyday life are taken as an example for interdisciplinary analysis: housing, food, and clothing. This article is dedicated to their study by two scientists who have been working fruitfully in the capital of the world and Russian Cossacks, the city of Novocherkassk.

Of nomads and khanates: heteronomy and interpolity order in 19th-century Central Asia

Scholars of International Relations (IR) and Global Historical Sociology alike have recently become more and more interested in Eurasian order(s). Yet, most recent works on Eurasian historical international relations approach the subject from a long durée perspective, mostly focusing on “big polities” from a “high altitude.” Central Asia, or “Turkestan,” and its constitutive polities such as the khanates of Bukhara, Khiva, and Khoqand and the vast array of nomadic groups surrounding them are yet terra incognita in IR, specifically with respect to the pre-Tsarist period. By relying on both primary and secondary sources, this inductive research reveals how precolonial Central Asia was an interpolity order on its own, premised on heteronomy and based on the institutions of sovereignty between the khanates and suzerainty between khanates and nomads; territoriality; Sunni Islam; trade and slavery; diplomacy; and war and aq oyluk. This paper contributes to filling this gap, and to the broader literature on Eurasian historical orders, in three respects. First, it adds granularity, detail, and specificity to current IR knowledge on Eurasia by looking at smaller polities as opposed to empires, which as noted have been the main analytical focus so far. Second, the paper adopts an emic approach to uncover local practices, institutions, and norms of precolonial Central Asia, thus adding to the recent “Global IR” debate. Third, by focusing on a case where heteronomy was the rule, this paper adds a new case to the literature on the entrenchment and durability of heteronomy in historical IR and contributes to its theory-building.

The making of the Single European Act reconsidered: IPE, UCD and the challenge of supranationalism

Recent UCD-inspired International Political Economy (IPE) approaches have tried to explain short-term economic and political events by expanding the theory of UCD towards an enhanced operational toolkit. This recent ‘policy turn’, I argue, has progressed empirically without having clarified prior analytical and methodological steps, both regarding the general premises of UCD, as well as in relation to foreign policy analysis, and the field of international politics. This article unpacks important blind spots of UCD’s emerging IPE framework by emphasising the crucial role of the supranational institutional level in foreign policy formation. By historicising the run-up to ratification of the 1986 Single European Act (SEA), I show that the SEA emerged as an interactive compromise, based on diverging state interests and, yet strongly managed by the overarching agency of the Commission of the EEC. While the multiplicity of advanced capitalisms, or the ‘unevenness and combination’ of diverging national European interests, cannot explain this outcome, I demonstrate that the SEA’s ratification process was decisively driven by dynamics emerging from within the European sphere, created by tensions between Commissioner Jacques Delors and President François Mitterrand. Unable to capture competing strategies on the national vs. supranational level, UCD-IPE’s current framework fails to grasp the process of foreign policy formation. By redrawing the contours of the SEA with a radical historicist methodology, this study stands as a contribution to the field of the Historical Sociology of International Politics, exploring how structural processes are politico-diplomatically managed and resolved within the wider field of international politics.

A system of mutual dependence and antagonism: exploring the potential of uneven and combined development within Global Political Economy

U&CD scholarship has made vital conceptual and analytical contributions to international relations and international historical sociology scholarship during recent decades. However, so far, it has mainly focused on the longue durée of capitalist transitions rather than contemporary analyses of the dynamics, crises and policy shifts within the global political economy. A small body of literature has recently begun to apply a U&CD conceptual toolkit towards just such ends. In this special issue, we showcase a range of original thought and empirical work which advances the U&CD perspective within the growing and critically oriented field of global political economy. Transcending the pitfalls of orthodox liberal and realist approaches, U&CD draws a direct link between ruptures, contradictions and crises in the global economy and its ongoing division into a multiplicity of nominally sovereign territorial political units. Focusing on a breadth of divisions and antagonisms across lines of class, race, gender and nationality, the articles contained herein point to the immense potential for creative applications of U&CD to play a role in GPE scholarship as it emerges from the grip of the stifling orthodoxies of international political economy.

Champions of democracy or agents of professionalization? The extension era at the universities of Toronto, Queen's, and McMaster.

I narrate a historical sociology of extension work undertaken at Queen's University, McMaster University, and the University of Toronto from the late 1800s through the early 1960s. University administrators positioned extension work as dedicated to the democratization of higher education. However, a critical analysis of archival data reveals that the rise and fall of extension reflected these universities' material interests and organizational goals relating to public relations, government relations, and enrollment growth. Further, extension programs at these universities were primarily oriented to providing alternative credential pathways to those seeking professional status as schoolteachers, accountants, bankers, and business managers. Indeed, extension leaders demonstrated substantial agency in the professionalization of these fields. Contributing to the historical sociology of higher education and the professions, I argue that the extension era in Ontario resulted in partial democratization of higher education whilst helping to construct mechanisms of social closure rooted in credentialism and professionalization.

Colonial Sociology and the Historical Sociology of the Social Sciences

Colonial Sociology and the Historical Sociology of the Social Sciences

Toward a Historical Sociology of Canonization: Comparing the Development of Sociological Theory in the English-, German-, and French-Language Contexts since the 1950s

AbstractThis paper adds to a vital international tradition of discussing the history of sociological theory by empirically investigating its structure, dynamics, and relationships. Our primary contribution to this tradition is to bring to the conversation a greater level of comparative and historical scope, a more systematic quantitative methodology, and a degree of reflexivity and synthesis. To do so, we examine some 670 editions of sociological-theory books geared toward students, published in English, German, and French between 1950 and 2020. Our empirical analysis highlights patterns, trends, and relationships among the theorists featured in these books, the narratives and approaches that define their visions of sociological theory, and the characteristics of the authors who wrote them. Our findings reveal some key intellectual as well as sociological factors associated with the changing composition of the canon.

The Death of White Sociology and the Academic Awakening of a Ghetto Jew

Commemorating the 50th anniversary of Joyce Ladner’s ground-breaking text, this essay traverses the border between book review and autobiography. The narrative, written in the first person, begins in Brownsville, Brooklyn in the mid-1960s. The author is a third generation Eastern European Jew who was nurtured by Black activist elders and became a white beneficiary of the educational opportunities created by the civil rights and Black power movements. Her undergraduate path was paved with classics in Black Studies, critical theory and Marxism. But it was Ladner’s seminal text that catapulted her into pursuit of an academic career in sociology. Its opening salvo - that the history of all hitherto American mainstream sociology has been the history of White sociology -held the promise that the color curtain was about to fall and that this profession was about to become an exciting place. The anticipated excitement derived partly from the book’s revelations of the hidden spurious claims underlying the discipline, its scathing criticism of research methods rooted in unproven and racist theories of human nature, and damaging distortions of Black life masquerading as “scientific sociology.” But Ladner’s volume reaches beyond critique: it illuminates the rich history of Black scholarship so long ignored by the discipline’s white gate-keepers; it offers a vision of engaged research conducted by Black scholars and their allies that would begin to remedy the damage, erase the distortions, and fortify the current generation of Black scholars against the tribulations they face in the profession. In doing so the text gives life to the project of creating a distinctive Black sociology.

The Historical Sociology of Class Formation in the Southern Kurdistan: 1921-1991

This article attempts to investigate the phenomenon of class formation in Southern Kurdistan from 1921 to 1991, during which the class structure of this society changed gradually. On this basis, a historical sociological reading of the political upheaval implications for class formation has been made in Southern Kurdistan. Since the establishment of the Iraqi state in 1921, under the supervision of a British Mandate, in Southern Kurdistan, which was regarded as a part of this country, the feudal system was dominant until the July 1958 revolution in Iraq and the coming to power of Abdulkarim Qasim, which began to reform agricultural lands. On the other hand, the successive uprisings of the Kurdish nation, especially the Eylul uprising in 1961-1975 had a significant influence on the formation and change of the class relations in Southern Kurdistan. As a result, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were significant changes in class relations, which led to the formation of petit-bourgeoisie that played a crucial role in the coming years in Southern Kurdistan.

The Inevitability and Promise of Historical Sociology

ABSTRACT As sociologists, we engage in history whether or not we see ourselves, professionally, as historical sociologists. These remarks discuss the varieties of ways sociologists use and approach historical scholarship, including history-as-context, analytic comparative/historical sociology, and interpretive approaches. I also reflect on the first fifty years of Midwest Sociological Society to show that, at different moments, the MSS mirrored, propelled, or lagged behind societal change.

Versions of Social Constructivism and Perspectives of Neo-Constructivism in the Theory of International Relations

Social constructivism in the international relations theory (IRT) is the youngest paradigm, which, together with neorealism and neoliberalism, is one of the three most popular theoretical patterns among international specialists. This paradigm explains global transformations and regional noticeable changes by studying the social construction of international reality. Key concepts in constructivism are identity, which shapes the interests of international actors, and intersubjectivity in cross-border relations. Constructivism in IRT considers norms as a factor that constitutes the role and standards of behavior that influence the identity and choice of participants in the global political process. The understanding of norms changes over time, which causes the instability of international relations. However, anarchy in international relations for constructivists is not inevitable; instead it depends on different cultures and practices. The main variants of the classification of social constructivism in IRT are considered. Leading reviewers, as a rule, divide the constructivists into three conditional groups, separately mentioning the Copenhagen School. The first group, “neoclassical constructivism”, according to John Ruggie, included followers of Durkheim and Weber. The second group, “postmodern constructivism”, had roots in Nietzsche’s irrationalism and Foucault’s poststructuralism. The third group, “naturalistic constructivism”, rejected necessity of choosing between internal and external interpretations of social action and social order. Emanuel Adler identified groups of “neoclassicists”, “linguistic modernists” and “supporters of compromise synthesis” among the constructivists. Branching out in several directions, constructivism was very popular in IRT in the first decade of the 20th century, but in the last decade it lost a significant part of its supporters in the struggle with other theories for influence in the discipline. That is why the supporters of the development of the science of international relations at the expense of its further sociologization intensified attempts to renew constructivism. Efforts are being made to develop social constructivism due to the introduction of IRT based on relationalism, practice theory and actor-network theory, which David McCourt tries to use in the book “The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory”. The supporters of a new constructivism in IRT prefer to see the improvements in the appearance of a number of practical constructivist empirical studies tangential to the practice theory, among which the most recent books by Mark Raymond, Mark Shirk and Ayşe Zarakol, working mainly in the genre of historical sociology. The work of neoconstructivist enthusiasts deserves the attention of IRT specialists and the subsequent restrained demand of the public, because it needs the elimination of methodological inconsistencies and reinforcement with serious empirical data from related disciplines.

Unpartitionable: C.H. Alexandrowicz, Sovereign Divisibility, and the Longue Durée of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

AbstractIn recent years, scholars of international legal history have demonstrated much newfound interest in C.H. Alexandrowicz, a Polish jurist renowned for his anti-Eurocentric revisionist account of Asian and African agency within the meta-narrative of international law. Building on efforts to link his Polish origins with his studies of the Afro-Asian world, especially on matters of imperialism and state personality, my purpose in this Article is to explore these connections through a materially grounded historical sociology of international legal thought. Centering the issue of whether sovereignty is divisible, I situate the historic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—extinguished by a series of Partitions in 1772, 1793, and 1795—as a unique divided sovereignty-based polity that provided a basis for Alexandrowicz’s study of the juridical status of non-European sovereigns. This analogy united his overarching critique of nineteenth-century international legal positivism as an unjustifiable denial of both Polish and Afro-Asian sovereignty. In deciphering the materiality of Alexandrowicz’s imagination against this presumption, I build a narrative of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the evolution of its distinct approach to sovereign divisibility. Through analysis of the interplay between internal and external factors, I account for the Commonwealth’s medieval origins, its development in opposition to the consolidating indivisible sovereignty of its absolutist neighbors, its attempts to maintain independence in the face of Partition, and the continued assertions of its variegated legacies following its destruction. This, I argue, provides a novel means of assessing Alexandrowicz’s theory, and the materiality of international law more generally.

Civilizational Analysis as a Mode of the Intercultural: Intercivilizational Encounters, the Intercultural and Contemporary Historical Sociology

ABSTRACT Classical and contemporary civilizational analysis has not sat comfortably with theoretical constructions of the intercultural or their empirical applications. A ‘classical era’ of civilizations analysis generated a program of research problems that was productive in critical and multidisciplinary ways and limited in scope and vision in others, but this failed to generate a provisional notion of the intercultural. Contemporary civilizational analysis improves on this position significantly in respect of the intercultural, particularly in the development of a current around ‘intercivilizational encounters’. This essay examines this current especially in the work of Benjamin Nelson, Marshall Hodgson and Johann P. Arnason. Arguing that this approach represents vital advances for theoretical constructions of the intercultural in civilizational analysis and more generally in the human sciences, the essay also identifies limitations in latter-day approaches.

The International Turn in Far-Right Studies: A Critical Assessment

In recent years, there has been an intense public debate regarding the worldwide re-emergence of far-right politics and the ways in which it has engaged with the international. Surprisingly, thus far there have been no reflections on the broader implications of conceptualising the far-right in its international, transnational, and global dimensions. This article argues that we are witnessing an international turn in far-right studies that posits the international as constitutive of far-right politics, opening new forms of understanding it both from a historical and theoretical point of view. It develops a conceptual assessment of the international turn in three steps: first, it identifies that what binds this interdisciplinary literature together and breaks away from mainstream approaches is a shared critique of methodological nationalism; second, it classifies innovations in two different conceptual levels: the ‘globalisation front’, which sees transformations in the nature of far-right politics due the intensification of globalisation, and the ‘historiographical front’, which claims that the far-right has always been an international phenomenon. The article then analyses the main limitations of the international turn and offers a way to overcome it by articulating an intersocietal approach to the study of the far-right that draws from Global Historical Sociology. Le tournant international dans les études sur l’extrême droite : Une évaluation critique

Historical sociology and its impact on international relations.

The challenges facing historical social studies in international relations are multifaceted and have different aspects. As the relationship between the science of social history and the science of international relations is deep, intertwined and interdependent because it relates to the history of societies and their social characteristics that determines its identity, lifestyle, and relationship with its peers from other societies. Therefore, the role that historical sociology plays in serving researchers in the field of international relations is essential. Most international relation theories are based on it.
 Also, the relationship of historical sociology with theories of international relations helps to understand generalizations in the field of international relations. It contributed to its interpretation, analysis and testing throughout history, in addition to the contribution of the science of social history in revealing the laws that control the conduct of events that societies go through during a certain period of time. Through research and analysis, it was found that historical sociology has a positive impact on international relations.
 By providing research material for specialists in this field, the interdependence and overlap between the social sciences makes it difficult to distinguish the boundaries and breaks between them. It also provides ample room for specialists in this field to cooperate with each other.

Alice Stokes Paul (1885-1977)

Alice Stokes Paul was born in the United States (USA) on January 11, 1885 at Paulsdale in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. She received a Ph.D. in sociology and devoted her life to achieving rights for women. While her academic work was completed before the term “clinical sociology” was used in the United States, her work certainly should be seen as part of the history of clinical sociology.

On the 100th anniversary of Lev N. Kogan. A Sociologist as an Object of Museum Discourse

This article examines the activities of a unique sociological museum, based out of the Ural Federal University in Yekaterinburg. The museum is dedicated to the life and work of Professor L.N. Kogan, one of the highest profile Soviet/Russian sociologists of the second half of the XX century. The authors of the article focus on the goals, methods, style of work of the museum and its significance when it comes to reproducing the history of sociology in the Urals. Described are the main forms and types of the museum’s educational activities among students, postgraduates, applicants receiving sociological education and professional training, as well as teachers and numerous guests of the university, city and region. The article shows how Kogan’s image is constructed in the museum’s space; also considered are the potential of his creativity and its implementation in theoretical and empirical research. A large number of documents, artifacts, and various sources gathered in the museum allow visitors via training sessions and tours to get an idea about the main stages of Kogan’s life, studies, work, and his achievements in scientific, journalistic, and social activities. In the museum you can get acquainted with the style and methods of the scientist’s work, the specifics of his interactions with students, postgraduates, applicants and sociologist colleagues. Almost all of L.N. Kogan’s monographs and most important publications are presented on the shelves. The museum’s exposition demonstrates the breadth of his scientific interests, which, in addition to sociology, extended to such areas as philosophy, political science, cultural studies, art and theater. The museum gives you a vivid idea of the personality of the scientist, his willingness to impart knowledge upon people, his professionalism in the study of social processes, how skilled he was in the culture of academic communication, as well as his ability to instill optimism into people. In addition, thanks to the abundance of historical documents, visitors have the opportunity to trace the history of the formation and development of sociology at the Ural University and the region over a period of 50 years. At the end of the article, the authors introduce the readers of the journal to the future prospects of the work of the L.N. Kogan Sociological Museum.