NFSV5; CYTcN O f fHG

January 1991 Volume 3: Number 2

Chair Editor's Introduction Barbara Laslett Univ. of Minnesota With this issue, my term as section newsletter editor begins. By Sec'y-Treasurer way of (brief) introduction, I am a "new Ph.D." and assistant professor at Said Aijomand the University of Michigan. My dissertation addressed the classical socio­ SUNY-Stony Brook logical problem of the causes of the differentiation of states from economic . By means of a comparative analysis of the Dutch, French and Council English East Indies companies in the early modem period (1500-1800), I William Brustein argued that developing metropolitan states and mercantile/colonial initia­ Univ. of Minnesota tives shaped each other in ways that structured this process. The central puzzle was raised by the "zigzag" pattern of development of the Nether­ Michael Kimmel lands, where precocious politico-economic differentiation was blocked and SUNY-Stony Brook reversed. I then used the Dutch case as an entree to reanalyzing the more familiar French and English trajectories. Ewa Morawska Besides revising the thesis for publication, I am also working on a Univ. of Pennsylvania comparative-historical analysis of the impact of early modem European family practices on structures and policies. In the past year, under Lisa Fuentes' able editorship, the newsletter William Sewell, Jr. has functioned as a forum for substantive debate as well as a bulletin Univ. of Chicago board. I would like to see these debates continue. Please send your com­ ments and announcements to me at the University of Michigan Margaret Somers Department; 3012 LS&A Building; Ann Arbor, MI 48109, or call 313- Univ. of Michigan 936-0785. The next newsletter will be out in the spring.

Viviana Zelizer Julia Adams Barnard College

A Marriage Made in Heaven: Newsletter Editor and Comparative & Julia Adams Univ. of Michigan By Susan Cotts Watkins, University of Pennsylvania

Demography, said Marion J. Levy, is wasted on the demographers. He is not, of course, entirely right, but I think that demography could be more useful to those interested in historical and than has usually been the case. Although at the former dates most of the countries were demography has long been accepted as a respect­ demographically quite heterogeneous, while by able subfield of sociology, it has been 1960 the countries were demographically more ghettoized. Sociology departments (other than homogeneous (Watkins, 1990). Another way of those with demographic centers) seem to feel saying this is that on a demographic map of that it is a good thing to have one demographer, western Europe in 1870, national boundaries but one is enough; rarely are either demographic would be rather faint, but by 1960 demographic methods or subjects (births, deaths, marriages) of boundaries would be more deeply etched. This interest to anyone but demographers. Yet has implications for comparison. As late as 1870, demography would seem to have much to offer comparison across countries would be somewhat other areas of sociology, including comparative dubious because they were so heterogeneous. By and historical sociology. 1960, this heterogeneity had diminished substan­ In what follows I will show connections tially, thus making it more reasonable to com­ from my own work on demographic change in pare national units. It is not possible to do the Western Europe between 1870 and 1960 and one same sort of comparisons for sub-national socio­ of the concerns of historical and comparative economic groups, because adequate data are not sociology: the issue of the appropriate unit for available early enough; it is likely, however, that analysis. I will also suggest that this work raises the story would be much the same. A more questions about the centrality of the rational general implication of this work is that it may be actor framework for accounting for demographic reasonable to use demographic behavior as a change, and, by implication, for other kinds of way of defining . If, for example, demo­ changes as well; rather, it suggests paying graphic behavior is relatively homogeneous attention to the institutional environment, and within a group but distinctive from another how it changes over time. group, we could draw the social boundary Consider first the issue of the appropriate between the two. units for comparison raised earlier in these pages I suspect that these findings would be by Ewa Morawska (1990). Candidates range generalizable to other kinds of behavior as well. from a small group (e.g. a village) over time to We usually consider births and marriages to be the familiar macro-level cross-sectional compari­ among the most private of behaviors. There is sons of nation-states. The use of the latter can, now almost no state regulation of marriage or and has been, criticized on the grounds that birth (with the exception of regulating age of nation-states are too internally diverse to be marriage at a level that is in any case well below considered "societies"; rather, it is argued, they historical ages of marriages for western popula­ are collections of sub-societies which may lie tions), and there is widespread support for the within the same territorial boundary, or fall belief that when and whom one manies (or if under the same political authority, but have so one marries at all), and how many children one little in common with each other, and so little has, are decisions that are properly left to the interaction among themselves, that what we have individual (or couple). are "phantoms", not societies (Eberhard, 1964). Against these assertions of the primacy The results of my examination of demo­ of individual choice (both in rhetoric and in graphic change over the course of the last cen­ regulations), it is rather surprising to find so little tury suggests that nation-states have become an variation in behavior. Analysts of modem demo­ increasingly appropriate . Using graphic behavior make much of the slight varia­ measures of marital fertility, illegitimacy and tion that remains: we usually overlook the fact marriage for sub-units (e.g. counties, depart­ that we are playing with a much smaller deck ments, cantons) of 15 western European coun­ than in the past. If this is the case with demo­ tries between 1870 and 1960, one can show that graphic behavior — that intensely private domain

Page 2 — is it not likely to be the case also with other accounts, individuals are apparently not only sorts of behavior? It seems to me at least reason­ rational but also isolated. I do not wish to sug­ able to argue that if demographic behavior is gest that we replace an assumption of rationality similar across subgroups in a , then it is of rationality with one of irrationality. It does likely that other kinds of behavior are at least as seem, however, that individuals are far less similar as well. Thus, since the demographic data isolated, far more subject to social control than show that the nation-state has become a more our theories usually assume. We rarely examine appropriate unit of analysis over time, it is likely the influence of "others" on demographic that the nation-state has become a more appro­ behavior. On surveys, women are asked how priate unit for other analyses as well. many children they expect to have. They are A second theme of relevance to compara­ sometimes asked about their spouse, but not tive and historical sociology that this work raises about what their parents, siblings, friends or is that of connections between macro- and neighbors had to do with the decision. Indeed, it micro-level changes. The decline in demo­ would probably be somewhat embarrassing to graphic diversity is paralleled by national market respond that these others did have an influence — integration, state expansion, and nation building, reproduction is supposed to be a private indi­ all topics that have been of interest to compara­ vidual or couple decision. The responses from tive and historical sociologists. The problem is these surveys are then analyzed as if what mostly how to connect these macro-level structural mattered were the characteristics of the indi­ changes with what went on in the bedrooms and vidual woman (e.g. years of , whether courting parlors of western Europe. she worked or not) or perhaps those of her One way of providing this linkage is to husband (e.g. his occupation). The role of net­ look at the effects of market integration, state- works in accounting for the greater demographic and nation-building on personal networks. These uniformity of nations in western Europe suggests personal networks seem to be important in both that we should also ask about her (or his) signifi­ spreading information about new practices (for cant others - those whose opinions on these example, contraception) but also in legitimizing issues would matter. their use. I think women talked to other women In other words, rational actors should be about private matters, and in doing so reached a embedded in communities. If this is true for consensus with friends and neighbors about what behavior as private as marriage and reproduc­ was appropriate behavior — the right age to tion, it is likely to be true for other behavior of marry, whether or not it was proper to use interest to sociologists as well. contraception, how many children was enough. What market integration, state expansion and REFERENCES: nation-building did was to expand the geographic range of these personal networks. In Eberhard, Wolfram. 1964. "Concerns of the mid-19th century, most conversations were Historical Sociology." Sociologus: A Journal likely to be with members of the local for Empirical Sociology, Social community; by 1960, many more were likely to and Ethnic Research. Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 3-17. be with those outside the local community, both in face-to-face interaction and indirectly through Morawska, Ewa. 1990. "On Comparative and metaphorical conversations, such as with advice Historical Sociology." Newsletter of the columns in the national press. Comparative and Historical Sociology Lastly, this analysis suggests modifica­ Section of the ASA..\ol. 2, No. 1. tions to the rational actor framework that has dominated recent accounts of demographic behavior, as well as in other areas. In these

Page 3 CONFRONTING DUALITIES: which seem to have lost all authority over the INHERENT COMPARISONS IN present") can be useful (Bloch, 1953: 42). Con­ HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY trast this approach to "sociology of the present's" concepts of "random error", "deviant case", and Jeremy Hein "the atypical": while historical sociology de­ University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire pends on duality and comparison, presentist sociology results in singularity and linearity. Not so long ago comparative sociologists For a "sociologist of the present", a new vigorously defended the uniqueness of their sub­ period is valuable primarily because it increases discipline against those who claimed that since the sample size. In a recent critique of compara­ all sociology sought to explain variation all tive historical sociology, Lieberson (1990: 1-2), sociology was comparative. Articles concerning following Smelser (1976: 157-8), argues: "If comparative sociology gave way to books; the data were available with appropriate depth and leading champions might be Ragin's The Com­ detail for a large number of cases, obviously the parative Method and Tilly's Big Structures, researcher would not be working with these Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. Yet in more limited cases." Yet it is rather than legitimating comparative sociology, Ragin, Tilly simple data availability that limits case selection. and others cast the subdiscipline largely as the As Isaac and Griffin (1989: 878 n. 5) note, one contrasting of macro-level cases to infer causal­ cannot arbitrarily include years in time-series ity from similarities and differences. This em­ analysis simply to obtain an adequate sample phasis on cross-national comparison has led size. Dealing with time as the source of cases some to conclude that it is the "historical" rather rather than as a source of N generates an inher­ than the "comparative" that forms the core of our ent comparative logic in historical sociology. section (Morawska, 1990). Historical sociologists also agree that the Historical sociology is not inherently analysis of place is a basic ingredient of their comparative if by comparative we mean only work. Like time, place is a duality, since space contraasting macro-level cases. But historical must be measured at least two points. And like sociology employs a comparative logic because its approach to time, historical sociology retains it emphasizes conceptual dichotomies like time the duality of place through the development of and space, and does not evade research dilem­ cases. The "sociology of the present" collapses mas like missing data and historical possibilities. this duality into the search for more N. In My remarks on these dualities parallel Isaac and historical sociology, however, places are Griffin's (1989) criticism of ahistoricism in time- generally not substitutable; they are unique. To series analysis, particularly the advantages of an use my own research as an example, adding a inductive approach to time and place. My point third country to a comparison of the French and is that induction means working from diversity American resettlement of Indochinese refugees to generality, but conceptualizing diversity since 1975 would alter the nature of the compari­ requires constructing cases, and cases can only son, since no other country admits these be constructed through comparison. refugees due to prior imperialism in Indochina. Historical sociologists agree that time is a For a "sociology of the present" the addition of basic ingredient of their analysis. The measure­ countries would not alter the research design. ment of time involves at least two points, thus The uniqueness of place also means that imparting a duality to historical research. Al­ some locales are more significant than others, though "periods" are constructs, for historical such as France in 1789 or Russia in 1917. Be­ sociologists a new period provides a case to cause historical sociology does not eliminate the compare against an earlier period. From this duality of place it must continually revisit some perspective even anachronisms ("those things places.

Page 4 Braudel's (1982) explanation of why Paris and (Weber, 1949), and historical alternatives not Lyon became the center of France is a classic (Moore, 1978). In explaining how Paris became example. This work illustrates the comparison of the metropolitan center of France, Braudel place without chronology (the discussion leaps (1986: 306-7) notes: "To try to imagine a between events hundreds of years apart) and the different history for France is one way of trying significance of some particular places. In histori­ to understand what history did have in store for cal sociology, place becomes case, fostering an it." My favorite example comes from inherent comparative logic. Fredrickson's comparative history of South The combination of time and place is an Africa and the American south (1981: 246-7). "event". But historical sociologists who are He "creates" apartheid in the U.S. by having familiar with primary documents are acutely Native Americans outnumber European aware that history is not simply a series of colonists, turning reservations into homelands, events; some events are recorded and others are and making a "red" rather than black source of not. The "silences in history" result form the cheap labor. destruction of primary sources and the absence This approach to the hypothetical of documents from people who did not have the contrasts with the "sociology of the present's" skill or power to record events. Even the best reliance on a null hypothesis. Counterfactual reconstruction of the past is always incomplete, cases are not universally accepted by historical and this leads to a tension between the discov­ sociologists. But they indicate our realization ered and the lost (or in the case of oral history, that history is never filled with inconsequential the remembered and the forgotten). moments. Presentist sociology asumes that it is Missing data is a problem for all forms possible to dip into social life, find "nothing of sociology. However, for the "sociology of the happening", and confirm the null hypothesis. present" data is presumed to be "out there". Historical sociologists combine attention to Access issues are technical and financial for substantive particulars and an awareness of surveys, and interpersonal for participant alternative outcomes, articulating the two observation. For example, the problem of non­ through inductive reasoning, which requires case respondents in surveys is solved by random construction and comparison.* sampling. Historical sociology cannot so easily resolve the dilemma of the written and the *1 would like to thank Julia Adams, Ron unwritten, the remembered and the forgotten, Aminzade, and Charles Ragin for their helpful and our assumption is that our data is scarce and comments on this paper, although they are not partial. These two approaches promote very responsible for any shortcomings that remain. different uses of data. Historical sociologists use data to reconstruct, while "sociologists of the REFERENCES present" use data to sample. The logic of sampling seeks to eliminate the duality of Bloch, Marc. 1953. The Historians Craft. present and absent data, and thus presents data New York: Vintage Books. that is self-contained and "speaks for itself'. A reconstructive logic accepts duality, comparing Braudel, Fernand. 1986. The Identity of what has been found to what remains missing. France, volume 1. New York: Harper & Row. A final duality resolved differently by the two forms of sociology is "the hypothetical". Fredrickson, George. 1981. White Historical sociologists acknowledge both the Supremacy: A Comparative Study in actual and the possible, leading to such American and South African History. comparative techniques as counterfactual New York: Oxford University Press. examples (Tilly, 1981), imaginary experiments

Page 5 Isaac, Larry W. and Larry J. Griffin. 1989. "Ahistoricism in Time-Series Analysis of CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS AND NOMINATIONS Historical Process: Critique, Redirection, and Illustrations from U.S. Labor History." ASA Comparative Historical Sociology Prize American Sociological Review 54: 873-90.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1990. "Small N's and Big The section on Comparative Historical Conclusions: An Examination of the Sociology will award a prize for the best article Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based in historical and/or comparative historical on Small Numbers of Cases." Paper presented sociology published in the last two years (since January 1, 1989) or not yet published. Papers at the Northwestern University conference "What Is A Case?" may be submitted by the authors or by others. The committee for the 1991 prize consists of Andrew Abbott, Liah Greenfeld, Thomas Hall, Moore, Barrington. 1978. Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt. and Larry Isaac. Four copies of papers submitted White Plains, New York: M.E. Sharpe. should be sent to Andrew Abbott, Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, PO Box 5072, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5072, to arrive Morawska, Ewa. 1990 "On Comparative and no later than 15 March 1991. Historical Sociology." Newsletter of the ASA Section on Comparative and Historical Sociology. Spring: 2-4.

Smelser, Neil J. 1976. Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Tilly, Charles. 1981. As Sociology Meets History. New York: Academic Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage.

Weber, Max. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.

Page 6