时间社课纲｜密西根大学徐晓宏：《比较历史社会学》

课纲-Syllabus
时间社课纲｜密西根大学徐晓宏：《比较历史社会学》

时间社THiS课程大纲系列介绍

自2022年2月成立以来，时间社THiS（Theory, History, Society）致力于推动历史社会科学和社会理论的思考、实践与对话。今年暑假，我们推出时间社课纲系列，定期授权分享社会理论与方法实践、历史学与社会科学交叉领域的相关课程教纲，供有兴趣的朋友参考。推出这个栏目，既是知识和经验的分享，也缘于教中学的理念。我们希望借此获取对课程设计的反馈，欢迎大家在评论区留言，提出建议或问题。也殷切期盼学界同好联系我们，在本公号发布相关课程大纲。

联系邮箱：

《比较历史社会学》课程介绍

比较历史社会学是晚近社会科学中勃兴的最具想象力和生命力的知识领域之一。它创造了一个空间，使得社会学者可以大胆地探究社会变迁的宏大问题，并通过严谨的历史研究与社会学、史学、政治学、经济学、人类学和文化研究等学科中的理论问题进行对话。它的研究不仅关涉久远的事件，也适用于当代社会变迁的研究，着重强调社会的时序、过程和时间性。本课程的设置，有三个宗旨。第一，体现比较历史社会学的思想脉络。第二，展示比较历史社会学内部多元的方法论传统以及相关的方法论和理论论争与考量。第三，帮助选课学生用适用的方法论路径发展研究计划。

《比较历史社会学》是徐晓宏教授为研究生开设的研讨课。课程每周一次，每次三小时，以讨论为主。课程从总括性的导论开始，进入如何选择有趣的比较历史社会学选题。而后，以比较历史社会学三波各选一本代表性著作进入细致的理论与方法论讨论。期间，穿插入应这些著作而起的重要方法论问题的争论，譬如比较研究的方法、合理性与意义，怎样看待个案与理论的关系，如何分析历史过程、时间性与事件性，如何创造性地与历史学和历史学者之间的争论建立勾连等。同时，课程中辅导学生发展自己的研究计划，并探究如何将历史研究、社会学理论和方法论思考转入论文写作实践。

《比较历史社会学》授课教授

徐晓宏 耶鲁大学社会学博士，曾任教于新加坡国立大学与香港岭南大学。主要研究兴趣在于将比较历史社会学、文化分析与政治经济学结合，在中国现代的政经变迁与全球现代性建立分析上的勾连，从而同时挑战两者既有的流行论述。研究成果发表在American Sociological Review, Critical Historical Studies等杂志，曾获得美国社会学学会多项论文奖。在密西根大学，徐晓宏开设的课程包括社会学理论，比较历史社会学，文化社会学和当代中国社会。

比较历史社会学 COMPARATIVE & HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY

COURSE OBJECTIVES

This course introduces the family of methods and reasoning called “comparative and historical sociology”. Over the last several decades, comparative and historical sociology has emerged as one of the most imaginative and vibrant intellectual fields in sociology and in the social sciences more broadly. It has created space for sociologists to ask bold questions about social change and engage theoretical issues in sociology, history, political science, economics, and anthropology through rigorous historical research (which, as we will see, does not necessarily concern events in the distant past but primarily involves emphasizing sequence, process and temporality).

One crucial feature of comparative and historical research is that each project requires the development and justification of a logic of inquiry and methodological architecture capable of responding adequately to the unique ambitions and considerations of that project. The course content is constructed based on three considerations. First, to showcase crucial characteristics in the development of comparative and historical sociology (the three “waves”). Second, to give us broad exposure to the variety of tools and traditions in the field (and to the assumptions behind them and the critical objections that have been raised). Third, to incorporate your interests and help advance your intellectual agenda.

Our objectives are to understand the foundational perspectives and key theoretical and methodological debates in comparative and historical sociology; to engage with course material deeply and critically, take stances on the arguments raised, and advance a productive relationship with the methodological tradition that is your own; to develop your own research agenda in light of our reflection on these perspectives and debates.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

  1. Active Participation (10%) (文字说明略去)

  2. Presentation/Leading Discussion (20%) (同上)

  3. Response Memos (20%) (同上)

  4. Research Proposal (50%) (同上)

READINGS

Required:

Most of the readings for the course are available on the Canvas website. In addition, the following books are recommended for purchase:

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. Ruling Oneself Out: A Theory of Collective Abdications. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.

➤ Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

➤ de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1983. The Old Régime and the French Revolution. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Other editions are acceptable.

COURSE SCHEDULE

Week 1 (September 5): Introduction

➤ Adams, Julia, Elisabeth Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff. 2005. “Introduction: Social Theory, Modernity, and the Three Waves of Historical Sociology.” Pp. 1-72 in Adams, Julia, Elisabeth Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (eds.), Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology. Durham: Duke University Press.

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. “Comparative Historical Analysis: Achievements and Agendas.” Pp. 3-38 in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

➤ Sewell, William H., Jr. 2005. Chapter 2 of Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Week 2 (September 12): Defining a Research Topic / Discussion of Proposal Assignment

➤ Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (Pp. xi-xii, 8-13, 211-248)

➤ Davis, Murray S. 1971. “That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1(4):309-344.

➤ Tavory, Iddo, and Stefan Timmermans. 2014. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Chapter 7, “The Community of Inquiry”)

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Tavory, Iddo, and Stefan Timmermans. 2014. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Introduction)

➤ Zald, Mayer N. 1995. “Progress and Cumulation in the Human Sciences after the Fall.” Sociological Forum 10(3):455-79.

Week 3 (September 19): Exemplary Book 1.

➤ Tocqueville, Alexis. 1983. The Ancient Regime and the French Revolution. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. The entire book. Other editions are acceptable.

➤ Tocqueville, Alexis. 2000. “Introduction,” Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Week 4 (September 26): Comparison 1 (The Basics) / Discussion of Research Topics

  • Come prepared to discuss potential research topic(s).

➤ Mill, John Stuart. 1950 [1881]. “Of the Four Methods of Experimental Inquiry.” Pp. 211-38 in John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy of Scientific Method, edited by Ernest Nagel. New York: Hafner.

➤ Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. (vii-xi, 1-68)

➤ Skocpol, Theda and Margaret Somers. 1980. “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2):174-97.

Week 5 (October 3): Exemplary Book 2.

➤ Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Pp. xi-xvii, 3-99, 109-40, 147-57, 161-73, 284-93)

Week 6 (October 10): Comparison 2 (Criticisms and Extensions) / Discussion of Research Design

  • Have selected your research topic and come prepared to discuss dilemmas of research design.

➤ Sewell, William H., Jr. 1985. “Ideologies and Social Revolutions: Reflections on the French Case.” Journal of Modern History 57(1):57-85.

➤ Mahoney, James. 1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 104(4):1154-96.

➤ Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Chapters 6 & 8)

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. “Small Ns, Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases.” Social Forces 70(2):307-320.

➤ Burawoy, Michael. 1989. “Two Methods in Search of Science.” Theory and Society 18 (6): 759–805.

➤ Skocpol, Theda. 1985. “Cultural Idioms and Political Ideologies in the Revolutionary Reconstruction of State Power: A Rejoinder to Sewell.” Journal of Modern History 57(1):86-96.

➤ Steinmetz,George. 2004. “Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and ‘Small N’s’ in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 22 (3): 371-400.

➤ Tilly, Charles. 1997. “Means and Ends of Comparison in Macrosociology.” Comparative Social Research 16:43-53.

Week 7 (October 17): Working with Cases

For Part I:

➤ Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2003. “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” Pp. 305-336 in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

➤ Walton, John. 1992. “Making the Theoretical Case.” Pp. 121-37 in What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

➤ Armato, Michael, and Neal Caren. 2002. “Mobilizing the Single-Case Study: Doug McAdam’s Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970.” Qualitative Sociology 25(1):93-103.

For Part II:

➤ Emigh, Rebecca Jean. 1997. “The Power of Negative Thinking: The Use of Negative Case Methodology in the Development of Sociological Theory.” Theory and Society 26:649-84.

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2014. “Exceptional Cases: Epistemic Contributions and Normative Expectations.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 55(02):223-43.

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2005. “Negative Case Selection: The Possibility Principle.” in Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide, edited by Gary Goertz. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Week 8 (October 24): Historical Process, Temporality, and Events

➤ Abbott, Andrew. 1988. “Transcending General Linear Reality.” Sociological Theory 6(2):169-86.

➤ Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29(4):507-48.

➤ Sewell, William H., Jr. 1996. “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.” Pp. 245-80 in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, edited by Terrence J. McDonald. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

➤ Haydu, Jeffrey. 1998. “Making Use of the Past: Time Periods as Cases to Compare and as Sequences of Problem Solving.” American Journal of Sociology, 104 (2): 339-371

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Clemens, Elisabeth S. 2007. “Toward a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes, and Emergence.” Annual Review of Sociology 33:527-49.

➤ Griffin, Larry J. 1993. “Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis, and Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1094-133.

Week 9 (October 31): Theorizing and Engaging History / Student-Selected Readings

For Part I:

➤ Kiser, Edgar and Michael Hechter. 1991. “The Role of General Theory in Comparative-Historical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology, 97:1-30.

➤ Somers, Margaret R. 1998. “We’re No Angels: Realism, Rational Choice, and Relationality in Social Science.” American Journal of Sociology 104(3):722-84.

➤ Gorski, Philip S. 2004. “The Poverty of Deductivism: A Constructive Realist Model of Sociological Explanation.” Sociological Methodology 34(1):1-33.

➤ Tilly, Charles. 2002. “Event Catalogs as Theories.” Sociological Theory 20(2):249-54.

➤ Dibble, Vernon K. 1963. “Four Types of Inference from Documents to Events.” History and Theory 3:203-21.

➤ Various Authors. 2008. “From the Archives: Innovative Use of Data in Comparative Historical Research.” Pp. 1-11 in Trajectories: Newsletter of the ASA Comparative and Historical Sociology Section, 19(2).

For Part II:

  • Select one comparative-historical reading (broadly construed) from your own topical area of interest and come prepared to present its logic of analysis to the class.

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2019. “Causality and History: Modes of Causal Investigation in Historical Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 45 (1): 581–606.

➤ Paige, Jeffrey. 1999. “Conjuncture, Comparison, and Conditional Theory in Macrosocial Inquiry.” American Journal of Sociology 105:781-800.

➤ Weber, Max. 1978 [1906]. “The Logic of Historical Explanation.” Pp. 111-131 in Max Weber: Selections in Translation, edited by W.G. Runciman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Week 10 (November 7): Exemplary Text 3.

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2008. Ruling Oneself Out: A Theory of Collective Abdications. Durham: Duke University Press. xi-xxx, 3-57, 181-210, 245-304, 323-345.

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2015. “The Structure of Contingency.” American Journal of Sociology 121(1):64-125.

Suggested Supplemental Reading:

➤ Collins, Randall 2017. “Emotional Dynamics and Emotional Domination Drive The Microtrajectory of Moments of Collective Contingency: Comment On Ermakoff.” American Journal of Sociology 123(1):276-83.

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2017. “Emotions, Cognition, and Collective Alignment: A Response to Collins.” American Journal of Sociology 123 (1): 284–91.

➤ Ermakoff, Ivan. 2013. “Rational Choice May Take Over.” Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, 89–107.

Week 11 (November 14): Behind the Scenes: Article Writing and Revision

For Part I:

➤ Krippner, Greta R. 2017. “Democracy of Credit: Ownership and the Politics of Credit Access in Late Twentieth-Century America.” American Journal of Sociology 123(1):1-47.

➤ Xu, Xiaohong. 2013. “Belonging Before Believing: Group Ethos and Bloc Recruitment in the Making of Chinese Communism,” American Sociological Review, 78 (5): 773-796.

➤ ASR R&Rs and revision memos provided by Professor Xiaohong Xu.

For Part II:

  • Read materials provided by guest speaker Dr. Luciana de Souza Leão.

Week 12 (November 21): *** NO CLASS: SSHA MEETINGS ***

Week 13 (November 28): *** NO CLASS: THANKSGIVING ***

*** Draft proposal due (for circulation) Friday, November 27, 5:00pm ***

Week 14 (December 5): Proposal Draft Workshop

  • Read all other student proposals and be prepared with comments on each.

*** Final proposal due Thursday, December 12, 5:00pm ***