From Social History to the History of Society Author(S): E

Home , History of mentalities, Social history

From Social History to the History of Society Author(s): E. J. Hobsbawm Source: Daedalus, Vol. 100, No. 1, Historical Studies Today (Winter, 1971), pp. 20-45 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20023989 Accessed: 23/03/2009 03:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org E. J. HOBSBAWM

From Social History to the History of Society

essay is an to a This attempt observe and analyze, not to state or to is personal credo express (except where this clearly stated) the this at author's preferences and value judgments. I say the to are outset in order distinguish this essay from others which or for their defenses of pleas the kind of history practiced by it at authors?as happens social history does not need either the to two com moment?but also avoid misunderstandings especially mon in discussions heavily charged with ideology. All discus are. sions about social history to The first is the tendency for readers identify authors with the views they write about, unless they disclaim this identification even so. in the clearest terms and sometimes when they do The or second is the tendency to confuse the ideological political moti vations of research, or its utilization, with its scientific value. Where or or as is often ideological intention bias produces triviality error, case we the in the human sciences, may happily condemn motiva a tion, method, and result. However, life would be great deal simpler our were those if understanding of history advanced exclusively by we are in or in on with whom agreement sympathy all public and even private matters. Social history is at present in fashion. to seen None of those who practice it would care be keeping with all those who come under the same ideological company is more than to historical heading. Nevertheless, what important define one's attitude is to discover where social history stands today if after two decades of unsystematic copious development, and it whither might go. I

term The social history has always been difficult to define, and no to until recently there has been great pressure define it, for it has lacked the institutional and professional vested interests which 20 Social History to the History of Society

on until normally insist precise demarcations. Broadly speaking, at name?it was in the present vogue of the subject?or least of the senses. it the past used in three sometimes overlapping First, or more referred to the history of the poor lower classes, and spe move cifically to the history of the movements of the poor ( "social even more ments"). The term could be specialized, referring to essentially the history of labor and socialist ideas and organiza reasons tions. For obvious this link between social history and the or movements history of social protest socialist has remained strong. A number of social historians have been attracted to the subject were or as because they radicals socialists and such interested in subjects of great sentimental relevance to them.1 was on a Second, the term used to refer to works variety of to in terms as human activities difficult classify except such "man rea ners, customs, everyday life." This was, perhaps for linguistic a since the sons, largely Anglo-Saxon usage, English language lacks suitable terms for what the Germans who wrote about similar sub in a manner? jects?often also rather superficial and journalistic or was called Kultur- Sittengeschichte. This kind of social history not oriented the lower particularly toward classes?indeed rather more the opposite?though the politically radical practitioners tended to pay attention to them. It formed the unspoken basis of was what may be called the residual view of social history, which in put forward by the late G. M. Trevelyan his English Social as It History (London, 1944) "history with the politics left out." no comment. requires term was common The third meaning of the certainly the most and for our purposes the most relevant: "social" was used in com bination with "economic history." Indeed, outside the Anglo Saxon world, the title of the typical specialist journal in this field before the Second World War always ( I think ) bracketed the two as in u. words, the Vierteljahrschrift fuer Sozial Wirtschaftsgeschi chte, the Revue dHistoire E. 6- S., or the Annales d'Histoire E. ?r S. It must be admitted that the economic half of this combination was were overwhelmingly preponderant. There hardly any social histories of equivalent caliber to set beside the numerous volumes to economic devoted the history of various countries, periods, and were subjects. There in fact not very many economic and social 1939 otie can a histories. Before think of only few such works, admittedly sometimes by impressive authors (Pirenne, Mikhail W. mono Rostovtzeff, J. Thompson, perhaps Dopsch), and the 21 D DALUS

or was graphic periodical literature even sparser. Nevertheless, the habitual bracketing of economic and social, whether in the or definitions of the general field of historical specialization under the more banner of economic is specialized history, significant. an to It revealed the desire for approach history systemati one. cally different from the classical Rankean What interested historians of this kind was the evolution of the economy, and this in turn it on interested them because of the light threw the struc ture and in more on changes society, and especially the relation as ship between classes and social groups, George Unwin ad mitted.2 This social dimension is evident even in the work of the most or economic so as narrowly cautiously historians long they to claimed be historians. Even J. H. Clapham argued that economic was history of all varieties of history the most fundamental be cause was it the foundation of society. The predominance of the over we economic the social in this combination had, may suggest, two reasons. It was to a economic partly owing view of theory which refused to isolate the economic from social, institutional, and other elements, as with the Marxists and the German historical to over school, and partly the sheer headstart of economics the other social sciences. If to history had be integrated into the social economics was the one it had to come sciences, primarily to terms with. One might go further and argue (with Marx) that, whatever the essential inseparability of the economic and the social in human society, the analytical base of any historical inquiry into the evolu tion of human societies must be the process of social production. the a None of three versions of social history produced spe academic field social until the at cialized of history 1950's, though one time the famous Annales of Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch the economic its dropped half of subtitle and proclaimed itself was a purely social. However, this temporary diversion of the war now years, and the title by which this great journal has been a a known for quarter of century?Annales: ?conomies, soci?t?s, well as nature its civilisations?as the of contents, reflect the origi nal and essentially global and comprehensive aims of its founders. nor Neither the subject itself, the discussion of its problems, de in veloped seriously before 1950. The journals specializing it, still few in number, were not founded until the end of the 1950's: we may perhaps regard the Comparative Studies in Society and His as an tory (1958) the first. As academic specialization, social new. history is therefore quite 22 Social History to the History of Society

and What explains the rapid development growing emancipa in The could tion of social history the past twenty years? question be answered in terms of technical and institutional changes within deliberate the academic disciplines of social science: the speciali zation of economic history to fit in with the requirements of the economic and of which the rapidly developing theory analysis, is an and "new economic history" example; the remarkable world as an wide growth of sociology academic subject and fashion, turn which in called for subsidiary historical service-branches to cannot analogous those required by economics departments. We as neglect such factors. Many historians (such the Marxists) who had previously labeled themselves economic because the prob were in were not or even lems they interested plainly encouraged ex considered by orthodox general history, found themselves a economic truded from rapidly narrowing history and accepted or if welcomed the title of "social historians," especially their mathe matics were is in poor. It improbable whether the atmosphere of and someone the 1950's early 1960's like R. H. Tawney would have been welcomed among the economic historians had he been a not young researcher and president of the Economic History such academic and Society. However, redefinitions professional cannot shifts hardly explain much, though they be overlooked. more was Far significant the general historization of the social this sciences which took place during period, and may retrospec to the most tively appear have been important development within them at this time. For my present purpose it is not necessary to is explain this change, but it impossible to avoid drawing attention to the immense significance of the revolutions and struggles for political and economic emancipation of colonial and semicolonial countries, which drew the attention of governments, international and research organizations, and consequently also of social sci to are entists, what essentially problems of historic transforma were tions. These subjects which had hitherto been outside, or at on in best the margins of, academic orthodoxy the social sciences, and had increasingly been neglected by historians. At all events essentially historical questions and concepts ( some as in the case of or times, "modernization" "economic growth," crude have even the excessively concepts) captured discipline most to hitherto immune history, when not actually, like Rad social to cliffe-Brown's anthropology, actively hostile it. This pro is gressive infiltration of history perhaps most evident in economics, 23 D DALUS

an where initial field of growth economics, whose assumptions, more were though much sophisticated, those of the cookery book the or a mix ("Take following quantities ingredients through n, and cook, and the result will be the take-off into self-sustained growth"), has been succeeded by the growing realization that factors outside economics also determine economic development. In it is now to activities brief, impossible pursue many of the social scientist in a manner any but trivial without coming to terms with structure its social and transformations: without the history of societies. It is a economists were curious paradox that the begin to some or at ning grope for understanding of social ( any rate not strictly economic ) factors at the very moment when the economic historians, absorbing the economists' models of fifteen years earlier, were to trying make themselves look hard rather than soft by for getting about everything except equations and statistics. What can we at conclude from this brief glance the historical of social It can an development history? hardly be adequate guide to the nature and tasks of the under subject consideration, though it can certain more or less explain why heterogeneous subjects of research came to be loosely grouped under this general title, and how in other social sciences developments prepared the ground for the establishment of an academic theory specially demarcated as can such. At most it provide us with some hints, at least one of which is worth mentioning immediately. seems A survey of social history in the past to show that its best practitioners have always felt uncomfortable with the term itself. we owe They have either, like the great Frenchmen to whom so to as much, preferred describe themselves simply historians and aim as or or as men to their "total" "global" history, who sought integrate the contributions of all relevant social sciences in history, rather than to one Marc exemplify any of them. Bloch, Fernand are not names can Braudel, Georges Lefebvre which be pigeon as as holed social historians except insofar they accepted Fustel de is not events Coulanges' statement that "History the accumulation of of all kinds which occurred in the past. It is the science of human societies." can never Social history be another specialization like economic or its other hyphenated histories because subject matter cannot be isolated. We can define certain human activities as economic, at least for analytical purposes, and then study them historically. Though this may be ( except for certain definable purposes ) artifi 24 Social History to the History of Society

or it not In much same cial unrealistic, is impracticable. the way, at a though lower level of theory, the old kind of intellectual history which isolated written ideas from their human context and traced one to is one wants to their filiation from writer another possible, if or do that sort of thing. But the social societal aspects of man's cannot ex being be separated from the other aspects of his being, at the cost or extreme cept of tautology trivialization. They cannot, more a men for than moment, be separated from the ways in which even get their living and their material environment. They cannot, a for moment, be separated from their ideas, since their relations with one another are and in expressed formulated language which as soon as so on. implies concepts they open their mouths. And The intellectual historian may (at his risk) pay no attention to economic historian to economics, the Shakespeare, but the social historian who either will not far. neglects get Conversely, while it is that a on extremely improbable monograph proven?al poetry will or one on be economic history inflation in the sixteenth cen tury intellectual history, both could be treated in a way to make them social history.

Let us turn to from the past the present and consider the prob lems of writing the history of society. The first question concerns can how much societal historians get from other social sciences, or or indeed how far their subject is ought to be merely the science of as society insofar it deals with the past. This question is natural, though the experience of the past two decades suggests two dif answers to it. ferent It is clear that social history has since 1950 been and not the powerfully shaped stimulated, only by profes sional structure of other social sciences (for example, their specific course requirements for university students), and by their methods and but also their It is techniques, by questions. hardly too much to say that the recent efflorescence of studies in the British indus trial a once its own revolution, subject grossly neglected by experts because they doubted the validity of the concept of industrial revo is due to lution, primarily the urge of economists (doubtless in turn that of and to echoing governments planners) discover how industrial revolutions what makes them happen, happen, and what sociopolitical consequences they have. With certain notable excep the flow of in tions, stimulation the past twenty years has been one 25 DAEDALUS

way. On the other hand, if we look at recent developments in we another way, shall be struck by the obvious convergence of workers from different disciplines toward sociohistorical problems. millennial is a case in since The study of phenomena point, among writers on we find men these subjects coming from anthropology, not sociology, political science, history, to mention students of so as am econo literature and religions?though not, far I aware, mists. also note the men with other We transfer of professional at to formations, least temporarily, work which historians would consider historical?as with Charles Tilly and Neil Smelser from Sir sociology, Eric Wolf from anthropology, Everett Hagen and John Hicks from economics. is best not as con Yet the second tendency perhaps regarded as must never vergence but conversion. For it be forgotten that if to nonhistorical social scientists have begun ask properly historical it is questions and to ask historians for answers, because they none. themselves have And if they have sometimes turned them selves into historians, it is because the practicing members of our the Marxists discipline, with the notable exception of and others? a not necessarily Marxisants?who accept similar problematic, have not there are now a few provided the answers.5 Moreover, though social scientists from other disciplines who have made themselves our sufficiently expert in field to command respect, there are more a who have merely applied few crude mechanical concepts and a models. For every Vend?e by Tilly, there are, alas, several dozen numerous equivalents of Rostow's Stages. I leave aside the others who have ventured into the difficult territory of historical source material an are without adequate knowledge of the hazards they to encounter or means over likely there, of the of avoiding and coming them. In brief, the situation at present is one in which his with all their to learn from torians, willingness other disciplines, are to teach to required rather than learn. The history of society cannot written be by applying the meager available models from it new ones? other sciences; requires the construction of adequate at or, least (Marxists would argue), the development of existing sketches into models. This is not, of course, true of techniques and methods, where are net to a substantial and the historians already debtors extent, or at to even more will, least ought, go heavily and systematically I not into debt. do wish to discuss this aspect of the problem of the a or can in history of society, but point two be made passing. Given 26 Social History to the History of Society

the our we can a nature of sources, hardly advance much beyond of the combination suggestive hypothesis and the apt anecdotal illustration without the techniques for the discovery, the statistical and grouping, handling of large quantities of data, where necessary with the aid of division of research labor and technological devices, which other social sciences have At long developed. the opposite we in need extreme, stand equal of the techniques for the observa tion and in analysis depth of specific individuals, small groups, and which have also been situations, pioneered outside history, and which to our may be adaptable purposes?for example, the partici observation of the pant social anthropologists, the interview-in even depth, perhaps psychoanalytical methods. At the very least these various can stimulate the techniques search for adaptations and in our to answer equivalents field, which may help otherwise im penetrable questions.6 I am much more doubtful about the prospect of turning social into a backward as of eco history projection of sociology, turning nomic into economic history retrospective theory, because these do not at us disciplines present provide with useful models or frameworks the analytical for study of long-run historical socio economic transformations. Indeed the bulk of their thinking has not been concerned or even interested if with, in, such changes, we such trends as Marxism. it except Moreover, may be argued that in their models important respects analytical have been developed and most systematically, profitably, by abstracting from historical This is I change. notably true, would suggest, of sociology and social anthropology. The founding fathers of sociology have indeed been more his torically minded than the main school of neoclassic economics not than the ( though necessarily original school of classical political but an economists), theirs is altogether less developed science. Stanley Hoffmann has rightly pointed to the difference between the "models" of the economists and the "checklists" of the sociologists and are more mere anthropologists.7 Perhaps they than checklists. These sciences have us with also provided certain visions, patterns of structures of elements which can possible composed be permuted and combined in various to ways, vague analogues Kekul?'s ring at glimpsed the top of the bus, but with the drawback of unverifia At bility. their best such structural-functional patterns may be both and at a elegant heuristically useful, least for some. At more modest 27 DAEDALUS

us or terms level, they may provide with useful metaphors, concepts, our ( such as "role" ), or convenient aids in ordering material. as Moreover, quite apart from their deficiency models, it may or be argued that the theoretical constructions of sociology ( social most that anthropology) have been successful by excluding history, or is, directional oriented change.8 Broadly speaking, the structural in common in functional patterns illuminate what societies have our is with spite of their differences, whereas problem what they not. not can have It is what light L?vi-Strauss's Amazonian tribes on on on throw modern (indeed any) society, but how humanity cavemen or got from the to modern industrialism postindustrialism, were or and what changes in society associated with this progress, or use necessary for it to take place, consequential upon it. Or, to another illustration, it is not to observe the permanent necessity of or all human societies to supply themselves with food by growing otherwise acquiring it, but what happens when this function, having been overwhelmingly fulfilled (since the neolithic revolution) by comes classes of peasants forming the majority of their societies, to be fulfilled by small groups of other kinds of agricultural producers come fulfilled in and may to be nonagricultural ways. How does this and I do not that happen why? believe sociology and social are anthropology, however helpful they incidentally, at present us provide with much guidance. remain most current On the other hand, while I skeptical of as a societies economic theory framework of the historical analysis of new am (and therefore of the claims of the economic history), I inclined to think that the possible value of economics for the histor is an ian of society is great. It cannot but deal with what essentially dynamic element in history, namely the process?and, speaking on a social globally and long time-scale, progress?of production. as Insofar as it does this it has, Marx saw, historical development a "eco built into it. To take simple illustration: the concept of the Baran to nomic surplus," which the late Paul revived and utilized is fundamental to the such good effect,9 patently any historian of me as more development of societies, and strikes not only objective more in and quantifiable, but also primary, speaking terms of analysis, than, say, the dichotomy Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft. Of are course Marx knew that economic models, if they to be valuable cannot for historical analysis, be divorced from social and institu tional realities, which include certain basic types of human com or not to structures munal kinship organization, mention the and 28 Social History to the History of Society

to or assumptions specific particular socioeconomic formations cul tures. And Marx is not as one yet, though for nothing regarded of the major founding fathers of modern sociological thought ( directly and through his followers and critics), the fact remains that his Das a major intellectual project Kapital took the form of work of are economic analysis. We required neither to agree with his con nor his we to clusions methodology. But would be unwise neglect the practice of the thinker who, more than any other, has defined or set suggested the of historical questions to which social scientists find themselves drawn today.

Ill

are we to write It is not How the history of society? possible for me to a or model what we mean produce definition of by society or even a we here, checklist of what want to know about its history. not Even if I could, I do know how profitable this would be. How ever, it may be useful to put up a small and miscellaneous assort or warn ment of signposts to direct off future traffic. 1 is to it ( ) The history of society history; that is say has real as one chronological time of its dimensions. We are concerned not structures only with and their mechanisms of persistence and and with the change, general possibilities and patterns of their but with what we are transformations, also actually happened. If not, then (as Fernand Braudel has reminded us in his article on et we "Histoire Longue Dur?e"10) are not historians. Conjectural a in our even history has place discipline, though its chief value is to us assess help the possibilities of present and future, rather, than where its is past, place taken by comparative history; but actual is what we must or history explain. The possible development nondevelopment of capitalism in imperial China is relevant to us insofar as it to only helps explain the actual fact that this type of at least to in one one economy developed fully, begin with, and only of the world. This in turn be region may usefully contrasted (again in the of light general models ) with the tendency for other systems of social relations?for the example, broadly feudal?to develop much more and in a areas. frequently greater number of The history of is thus a society collaboration between general models of social structure and and the set of ac change specific phenomena which occurred. This is true whatever the or tually geographical chrono our logical scale of inquiries. 29 D DALUS

The (2) history of society is, among other things, that of of specific units people living together and definable in sociological terms. is the as as It history of societies well of human society (as distinct or from, say, that of apes and ants), of certain types of and their as society possible relationships (as in such terms "bour or or geois" "pastoral" society), of the general development of as a a humanity considered whole. The definition of society in this sense even raises difficult questions, if we assume that we are de an as seems we as fining objective reality, likely, unless reject illegit imate as such statements "Japanese society in 1930 differed from even we English society." For if eliminate the confusions between different uses of the word we face a "society," problems ( ) because the and of these units for size, complexity, scope varies, example, at different historical or periods stages of development; and (b) we one because what call society is merely set of human interrela tions among several of varying scale and comprehensiveness into which are or people classifiable classify themselves, often simultane with as ously and overlaps. In extreme cases such New Guinea or Amazon tribes, these various sets may define the same group of this is in fact rather But people, though improbable. normally this is neither group congruent with such relevant sociological units as the nor with certain community, wider systems of relationship of which the forms a and which society part, may be functionally essential to it (like the set of economic relations) or nonessential ( like those of culture ). or are as Christendom Islam exist and recognized self-classifi a societies cations, but though they may define class of sharing common are sense certain characteristics, they not societies in the in we use or which the word when talking about the Greeks modern Sweden. On the other hand, while in many ways Detroit and Cuzco are of a today part single system of functional interrelationships one (for example, part of economic system), few would regard as the same them part of society, sociologically speaking. Neither we as one or would regard the societies of the Romans the Han and those the who a of barbarians formed, quite evidently, part of wider we system of interrelationships with them. How do define these units? It is far to us from easy say, though most of solve?or evade? some the problem by choosing outside criterion: territorial, ethnic, or not political, the like. But this is always satisfactory. The problem is more than methodological. One of the major themes of the history of modern societies is the increase in their scale, internal homo 30 Social History to theHistory of Society

or geneity, at least in the centralization and directness of social an to an essen relationships, the change from essentially pluralist structure. In tially unitary tracing this, problems of definition be come as very troublesome, every student of the development of national societies or at least of nationalisms knows. The of societies us to if not a (3) history requires apply, formalized and elaborate model of such structures, then at least an of a approximate order research priorities and working assumption constitutes nexus or connections about what the central complex of our course a of subject, though of these things imply model. Every social historian does in fact make such assumptions and hold such I priorities. Thus doubt whether any historian of eighteenth-century Brazil would the Catholicism of that give society analytical priority over its or slavery, any historian of nineteenth-century Britain would as central a nexus as in regard kinship social he would Anglo-Saxon England. A tacit consensus among historians seems to have established a common of fairly working model this kind, with variants. One starts with the material and historical environment, goes on to the some forces and techniques of production (demography coming where in between), the structure of the consequent economy? sur divisions of labor, exchange, accumulation, distribution of the and so forth?and the social relations from these. plus, arising These be followed so might by the institutions and the image of and its which underlie ciety functioning them. The shape of the structure social is thus established, the specific characteristics and as can details of which, insofar they derive from other sources, then be most is determined, likely by comparative study. The practice to thus work outwards and upwards from the process of social pro duction in its specific setting. Historians will be tempted?in my view on one rightly?to pick particular relation or relational com as central and to plex specific the society (or type of society) in question, and to group the rest of the treatment around it?for example, Bloch's "relations of interdependence" in his Feudal or those out of Society, arising industrial production, possibly in in industrial society, certainly its capitalist form. Once the structure has been established, it must be seen in its historical movement. In the French "structure" must be seen in phrase "conjuncture," this term must not be taken to exclude though other, and possibly more forms and relevant, patterns of historical change. Once again the tendency is to treat economic movements (in the broadest 31 DAEDALUS

as an sense) the backbone of such analysis. The tensions to which is the society exposed in the process of historic change and trans then to formation allow the historian expose (1) the general structures mechanism by which the of society simultaneously tend to lose and their reestablish equilibria, and (2) the phenomena are which traditionally the subject of interest to the social his torians, for example, collective consciousness, social movements, the so on. social dimension of intellectual and cultural changes, and in I My object summarizing what believe?perhaps wrongly? to a is be widely accepted working plan of social historians not to even am recommend it, though I personally in its favor. It is rather the to we opposite: suggest that try and make the implicit assump tions on we to which work explicit and ask ourselves whether this is plan in fact the best for the formulation of the nature and struc ture of societies and the mechanisms of their historic transforma tions (or stabilizations), whether other plans of work based on other can or are questions be made compatible with it, to be pre ferred to or can to it, simply be superimposed produce the his torical equivalent of those Picasso portraits which are simultane and in ously displayed full-face profile. as we In brief, if historians of society are to help in producing? for the benefit of all the social sciences?valid models of socio we a historic dynamics, shall have to establish greater unity of our our practice and theory, which at the present stage of the game means in first instance to watch what we are probably the doing, to to correct it in of generalize it, and the light the problems arising out of further practice.

to Consequently, I should like conclude by surveying the actual in or in order to see practice of social history the past decade two, and it This what future approaches problems suggests. procedure it in with has the advantage that fits both the professional inclina tions of a historian and with what little we know about the actual have progress of sciences. What topics and problems attracted are most attention in recent years? What the growing-points? What are answers to the interesting people doing? The such questions do we not exhaust analysis, but without them cannot get very far. The or or? consensus of workers may be mistaken, distorted by fashion as case in a as is obviously the such field the study of public disorder 32 Social History to the History of Society

and but ?by the impact of politics administrative requirements, we it at our The of science has derived less neglect peril. progress a from the attempt to define perspectives and programs priori?if we now an it did should be curing cancer?than from obscure and often simultaneous convergence upon the questions worth asking an answer. us see and, above all, those ripe for Let what has been at insofar as it is reflected in the happening, least impressionistic view of one observer. me in Let suggest that the bulk of interesting work social history in the ten or has clustered past fifteen years around the following or topics complexes of questions: ( 1 ) Demography and kinship (2 ) Urban studies insofar as these fall within our field ( 3 ) Classes and social groups or consciousness or (4) The history of "mentalities" collective sense of "culture" in the anthropologists' (5) The transformation of societies (for example, moderniza tion or industrialization ) movements of ( 6 ) Social and phenomena social protest. can out The first two groups be singled because they have al as of the im ready institutionalized themselves fields, regardless and now their own portance of their subject matter, possess organ of ization, methodology, and system publications. Historical demog is a and fruitful which rests not so raphy rapidly growing field, on a as on a in much set of problems technical innovation research it to derive (family reconstitution) that makes possible interesting as or results from material hitherto regarded recalcitrant exhausted thus a new of (parish registers ). It has opened range sources, whose characteristics in turn have led to the formulation of questions. The interest historians of historical lies in major for social demography it on certain of structure and the light sheds aspects family behav on at on ior, the life-curves of people different periods, and inter These are generational changes. important though limited by the nature of the sources?more limited than the most enthusiastic in champions of the subject allow, and certainly by themselves sufficient to provide the framework of analysis of "The World We Have Lost." Nevertheless, the fundamental importance of this field is not in question, and it has served to encourage the use of strict quantitative techniques. One welcome effect?or side effect? has been to arouse a interest in greater historical problems of 33 DAEDALUS

kinship structure than social historians might have shown without a this stimulus, though modest demonstration effect from social not anthropology ought to be neglected. The nature and prospects of this field have been sufficiently debated to make further dis cussion unnecessary here. a certain Urban history also possesses technologically deter is a mined unity. The individual city normally geographically lim ited and coherent unit, often with its specific documentation and even more often of a size which lends itself to research on the Ph.D. scale. It also reflects the urgency of urban problems which the or at least most have increasingly become major, the dramatic, and in modern problems of social planning management industrial tend to urban a societies. Both these influences make history large container with ill-defined, heterogeneous, and sometimes indis contents. It cities. But it criminate includes anything about is clear that it raises to social at problems peculiarly germane history, least sense can never an in the that the city be analytical framework for must a economic macrohistory (because economically it be part of it as a larger system), and politically is only rarely found self state. It is a of contained city essentially body human beings living in a together particular way, and the characteristic process of urbanization in modern societies makes it, at least up to the pres in most ent, the form which of them live together. The technical, social, and political problems of the city arise essentially out of the interactions of masses of human beings living in close proximity to one another; and even the ideas about the city ( insofar as it is not a mere some are stage-set for the display of ruler's power and glory) those in which men?from the Book of Revelation on?have tried to express their aspirations about human communities. Moreover, in recent it centuries has raised and dramatized the problems of rapid more other social change than any institution. That the social his torians who have flocked into urban studies are aware of this need hardly be said.11 One may say that they have been groping toward a as a view of urban history paradigm of social change. I doubt can at to whether it be this, least for the period up the present. I also doubt whether many really impressive global studies of the cities era so far con larger of the industrial have been produced, vast of work in sidering the quantity this field. However, urban a concern history must remain central of historians of society, if it out?or can only because brings bring out?those specific aspects 34 Social History to the History of Society

structure which and social of societal change and with sociologists are psychologists peculiarly concerned. The other clusters of concentration have not so far been insti one or two be this tutionalized, though may approaching stage of The classes and social has development. history of groups plainly out of common no developed the assumption that understanding of an com society is possible without understanding of the major no on no ponents of all societies longer based primarily kinship. In more field has the advance been dramatic and?given the neglect in of historians the past?more necessary. The briefest list of the most works in social must significant history include Lawrence on on Stone the Elizabethan aristocracy, E. Le Roy Ladurie the on the Languedoc peasants, Edward Thompson making of the En Daumard on Parisian glish working class, Adeline the bourgeoisie; are in is a but these merely peaks what already sizeable mountain to more range. Compared these the study of restricted social groups?professions, for instance?has been less significant. its or The novelty of the enterprise has been ambition. Classes, of as are specific relations production such slavery, today being on the of a or in inter systematically considered scale society, or as of societal comparison, general types social relationship. They are now in in all their also considered depth, that is, aspects of social existence, relations, and behavior. This is new, and the are achievements already striking, though the work has barely we intense as begun?if except fields of specially activity, such the a comparative study of slavery. Nevertheless, number of difficulties can be discerned, and a few words about them may not be out of place. ( 1 ) The mass and variety of material for these studies is such of historians is that the preindustrial artisan technique older plainly inadequate. They require cooperative teamwork and the utilization of modern technical equipment. I would guess that the massive will the of this works of individual scholarship mark early phases on one kind of research, but will give way the hand to systematic as the of the cooperative projects ( such projected study Stockholm and on the other hand working class in the nineteenth century)12 still at to periodic (and probably single-handed) attempts syn thesis. This is evident in the field of work with which I am most Even most familiar, the history of the working class. the ambitious work?E. P. no more than a single Thompson's?is great torso, with a rather short though it deals period. (J?rgen Kuczynski's 35 D DALUS

titanic Geschichte der Lage der Arbeiter unter dem Kapitalismus, as on its title implies, concentrates only certain aspects of the work ing class. ) even (2) The field raises daunting technical difficulties, where as conceptual clarity exists, especially regards the measurement of over into and out change time?for example, the flow of any spe or in cified social group, the changes peasant landholdings. We be to have sources may lucky enough from which such changes can be derived (for example, the recorded genealogies of the as a or aristocracy and gentry group ) from which the material for our analysis may be constructed (for example, by the methods of or on historical demography, the data which the valuable studies of the Chinese bureaucracy have been based). But what are we to do, say, about Indian castes, which we also know to have contained such movements, presumably intergenerational, but about which it is so to even far impossible make rough quantitative statements? are (3) More serious the conceptual problems, which have not always been clearly confronted by historians?a fact which does work can be and ridden not preclude good (horses recognized by we those who can't define them), but which suggests that have to more of been slow face the general problems social structure and relations and their transformations. These in turn raise technical as problems, such those of the possibly changing specification of the of a over which membership class time, complicates quantitative more study. It also raises the general problem of the multidimen To a sionality of social groups. take few examples, there is the well one sense a known Marxian duality of the term "class." In it is gen a eral phenomenon of all post-tribal history, in another product of in one sense an modern bourgeois society; almost analytical con struct to sense of otherwise in an make inexplicable phenomena, a seen as in other group of people actually belonging together their own or some other or group's consciousness, both. These problems of consciousness in turn raise the question of the language of class? the changing, often overlapping, and sometimes unrealistic ter minologies of such contemporary classification13 about which we know as in terms. yet very little quantitative (Here historians might look at carefully the methods and preoccupations of social anthro pologists, while pursuing?as L. Girard and a Sorbonne team are doing?the systematic quantitative study of sociopolitical vocab ulary.14) are use Again, there degrees of class. To Theodore Shanin's 36 Social History to the History of Society

of Marx's Brumaire is a "class of low phrase,15 the peasantry 18th is a of classness," whereas Marx's proletariat class very high, per There are the of the homo haps of maximal "classness." problems or of or what be much geneity heterogeneity classes; may the same, of their definition in relation to other groups and their internal is the divisions and stratifications. In the most general sense, there relation static problem of the between classifications, necessarily at any given time, and the multiple and changing reality behind them. one (4) The most serious difficulty may well be the which us as a arises leads directly toward the history of society whole. It a in from the fact that class defines not group of people isolation, a it but system of relationships, both vertical and horizontal. Thus a but is relationship of difference (or similarity) and of distance, a of of also qualitatively different relationship social function, Research on class must exploitation, of dominance/subjection. there a fore involve the rest of society of which it is part. Slaveowners cannot be understood without slaves, and without the nonslave sectors of society. It might be argued that for the self-definition of the nineteenth-century European middle classes the capacity to exercise over power people (whether through property, keeping or servants, even?via the patriarchal family structure?wives and over children), and of not having direct power exercised them selves, was essential. Class studies are therefore, unless confined to a deliberately restricted and partial aspect, analyses of society. The most Le impressive?like Roy Ladurie's?therefore go far beyond the limits of their title. in the most It may thus be suggested that recent years direct ap come proach to the history of society has through the study of class in this wider sense.10 Whether we believe that this reflects a correct or we perception of the nature of post-tribal societies, whether it to current of merely put down the influence Marxisant history, the future prospects of this type of research appear bright. In many ways the recent interest in the history of "mentalities" marks an even more direct to approach central methodological prob It lems of social history. has been largely stimulated by the tradi interest in "the common who are to tional people" of many drawn social history. It has dealt largely with the individually inarticulate, undc ^umented, and obscure, and is often indistinct from an inter est in or in more so their social movements general phenomena of cial which an behavior, today, fortunately, also includes interest in 37 DAEDALUS

those who fail to take part in such movements?for example, in the as as or conservative well in the militant passively socialist worker. a treatment This very fact has encouraged specifically dynamic as of culture by historians, superior to such studies those of the "culture of poverty" by anthropologists, though not uninfluenced by so their methods and pioneering experience. They have been not an or much studies of aggregate of beliefs and ideas, persistent not mat ?though there has been much valuable thought about these in ters, for example, by Alphonse Dupront17?as of ideas action and, more in situations of tensions and as in specifically, social crisis, Grande which so Georges Lefebvre's Peur, has inspired much sub of sources sequent work. The nature for such study has rarely al lowed the to to historian confine himself simple factual study and He to exposition. has been obliged from the outset construct models, to that is, fit his partial and scattered data into coherent systems, more without which they would be little than anecdotal. The cri terion is or its of such models ought to be that components should fit and a to nature together provide guide both the of collective action in specifiable social situations and to its limits.18 Edward the "moral Thompson's concept of economy" of preindustrial Eng one own land may be such; my analysis of social banditry has tried to base itself on another. as and action or Insofar these systems of belief are, imply, im as a as ages of society whole (which may be, occasion arises, or its images either seeking its permanence transformation), and as insofar these correspond to certain aspects of its actual reality, us to core our as suc they bring closer the of task. Insofar the most or cessful such analyses have dealt with traditional customary so even cieties, though sometimes with such societies under the im pact of social transformation, their scope has been more limited. For a period characterized by constant, rapid, and fundamental a in change, and by complexity which puts society far beyond the or even dividual's experience conceptual grasp, the models deriv able from the have a con history of culture probably diminishing tact with the not even social realities. They may any longer be very useful in the constructing pattern of aspiration of modern society to be For ("what society ought like"). the basic change brought about the in by Industrial Revolution the field of social thought has been to substitute a on system of beliefs resting unceasing progress toward can as a aims which be specified only process, for one rest on ing the assumption of permanent order, which can be described 38 Social History to the History of Society

or illustrated in terms of some concrete social model, normally drawn from the past, real or imaginary. The cultures of the past the measured their own society against such specific models; cul can measure tures of the present them only against possibilities. in Still, the history of "mentalities" has been useful introducing to of the social something analogous the discipline anthropologists into history, and its usefulness is very far from exhausted. of the numerous studies of social I think the profitability conflict, riots to more careful assessment. ranging from revolutions, requires attract research is obvious. That al Why they should today they are ways dramatize crucial aspects of social structure because they not in cer here strained to the breaking point is doubt. Moreover, cannot be studied at all in and tain important problems except which do not into through such moments of eruption, merely bring so concentrate the open much that is normally latent, but also and of the while?not the magnify phenomena for the benefit student, our least of their advantages?normally multiplying documentation a we about them. To take simple example: How much less would know about the ideas of those who normally do not express them or at in ex selves commonly all writing but for the extraordinary which is so of plosion of articulateness characteristic revolutionary of periods, and to which the mountains pamphlets, letters, articles, and not to mention the mass of court de speeches, police reports, positions, and general inquiries bear witness? How fruitful the study of the great, and above all the well-documented, revolutions can be which has is shown by the historiography of the French Revolution, more of been studied longer and intensively perhaps than any period It has and equal brevity, without visibly diminishing returns. been, an still remains, almost perfect laboratory for the historian.19 in the to The danger of this type of study lies temptation isolate overt crisis from the wider context of a the phenomenon of society undergoing transformation. This danger may be particularly great we when launch into comparative studies, especially when moved as to or rev by the desire to solve problems ( such how make stop is not a fruitful in or so olutions ), which very approach sociology common one cial history. What, say, riots have in with another (for It even example, "violence") may be trivial. may be illusory, insofar as we an anachronistic may be imposing criterion, legal, political, or on the which stu otherwise, phenomena?something historical are same or dents of criminality learning to avoid. The may may not be true of revolutions. I am the last to to person wish discourage 39 DAEDALUS an interest in such since I a matters, have spent good deal of pro fessional time on them. in them we to However, studying ought our define the precise purpose of interest clearly. If it lies in the transformations of we major society, may find, paradoxically, that our the value of study of the revolution itself is in inverse propor tion to our concentration on the brief moment of conflict. There are about the Russian or things Revolution, about human history, which can on only be discovered by concentrating the period from March to or November 1917 the subsequent Civil War; but there are other matters which cannot from such a emerge concentrated study of brief of periods crisis, however dramatic and significant. and in On the other hand, revolutions similar subjects of study ( movements can into a cluding social ) normally be integrated wider not a field which does merely lend itself to, but requires, comprehen sive grasp of social structure and dynamics: the short-term social as transformations experienced and labeled such, which stretch over a a few or are not period of decades generations. We dealing out a simply with chronological chunks carved of continuum of or but with growth development, relatively brief historic periods is as during which society reoriented and transformed, the very course phrase "industrial revolution" implies. ( Such periods may of include cannot be great political revolutions, but chronologically terms delimited by them.) The popularity of such historically crude as "modernization" or "industrialization" indicates a certain appre hension of such phenomena. an are The difficulties of such enterprise enormous, which is are as no studies of the perhaps why there yet adequate eighteenth as nineteenth century industrial revolutions social processes for any one or two are country, though excellent regional and local works now as on available, such Rudolf Braun the Zurich countryside and on Oldham.20 It be that a John Foster early nineteenth-century may to such can be at derived practicable approach phenomena present not economic has studies of in only from history (which inspired in dustrial revolution ), but from political science. Workers the field of the and of colonial liberation have prehistory history naturally in an exces been forced to confront such problems, though perhaps and African studies have sively political perspective, proved par recent to extend to ticularly fruitful, though attempts this approach India may be noted.21 In consequence the political science and po litical sociology dealing with the modernization of colonial societies can us some furnish with useful help. 40 Social History to the History of Society

The analytical advantage of the colonial situation (by which I mean that of formal colonies acquired by conquest and directly ad an or ministered) is that here entire society group of societies is an sharply defined by contrast with outside force, and its various internal as as its shifts and changes, well reactions to the uncontrol and can lable rapid impact of this force, be observed and analyzed as a whole. Certain forces which in other societies are internal, or in a operate gradual and complex interaction with internal elements of that can here be considered for society, practical purposes and in the short run as is entirely external, which analytically very help ful. We( shall not of course overlook the distortions of the colonial societies?for example, by the truncation of their economy and so cial hierarchy?which also result from colonization, but the interest of the colonial situation does not on depend the assumption that colonial is a society replica of noncolonial. ) is a more A There perhaps .specific advantage. central preoc cupation of workers in this field has been nationalism and nation and colonial situation can a building, here the provide much closer to the approximation general model. Though historians have hardly come to with can yet grips it, the complex of phenomena which be called national is to the (ist) clearly crucial understanding of social structure and dynamics in the industrial era, and some of the more work in come to interesting political sociology has recognize it. The project conducted by Stein Rokkan, Eric Allardt, and others on "Centre and Formation, Nation-Building Cultural Diversity" pro some vides very interesting approaches.22 a The "nation," historical invention of the past two hundred years, whose immense practical significance today hardly needs dis cussion, raises several crucial questions of the history of society, for the in example, change the scale of societies, the transformation of social into ones pluralist, indirectly linked systems unitary with di rect linkages (or the fusion of several preexisting smaller societies into a larger social system ), the factors determining the boundaries of a such as and social system ( territorial-political ), others of equal To what extent are these significance. boundaries objectively im the posed by requirements of economic development, which neces sitate as the locus for the of, example, nineteenth-century type industrial economy a territorial state of minimum or maximum size in extent given circumstances?23 To what do these requirements not automatically imply only the weakening and destruction of earlier social but also of structures, particular degrees simplification, 41 DAEDALUS

standardization, and centralization?that is, direct and increasingly rather exclusive links between "center" and "periphery" (or "top" an and "bottom")? To what extent is the "nation" attempt to fill the void left by the dismantling of earlier community and social structures which could or by inventing something function as, a produce symbolic substitutes for, the functioning of consciously or of the "nation apprehended community society? (The concept state" might then combine these objective and subjective develop ments. ) are more The colonial and ex-colonial situations not necessarily suitable bases for investigating this complex of questions than is European history, but in the absence of serious work about it by the historians of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe, who have it seems been hitherto?including the Marxists?rather baffled by it, likely that recent Afro-Asian history may form the most convenient starting-point.

us a How far has the research of recent years advanced toward Let me cards on the table. I cannot history of society? put my point to which to any single work which exemplifies the history of society we to us in La so ought, I believe, aspire. Marc Bloch has given a an work on nature ci?t? f?odale, masterly, indeed exemplary, the a certain of social structure, including both the consideration of type of society and of its actual and possible variants, illuminated by the into re comparative method, the dangers and the much greater wards of which I do not propose to enter here. Marx has sketched out for us, or allows us to sketch for ourselves, a model of the ty the historical transformation evolution of pology and long-term and as societies which remains immensely powerful and almost far as were ahead of its time the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun, whose own on model, based the interaction of different types of societies, course in has of also been fruitful, especially pre-history, ancient, and am of the oriental history. (I thinking late Gordon Childe and Owen Lattimore.) Recently there have been important ad vances toward the study of certain types of society?notably those on in based slavery the Americas (the slave-societies of antiquity in on a appear to be recession) and those based large body of peas ant a cultivators. On the other hand the attempts to translate com me so as prehensive social history into popular synthesis strike far 42 Social History to the History of Society

not either relatively unsuccessful or, with all their great merits, the least of which is stimulation, as schematic and tentative. The is I in this tried history of society still being constructed. have essay some its to assess some its to suggest of problems, of practice, and to at certain which incidentally hint problems might benefit from more it to concentrated exploration. But would be wrong conclude without and the state noting, welcoming, remarkably flourishing of is a to a the field. It good moment be social historian. Even those of us never set to name not want to who out call ourselves by this will it disclaim today.

References

1. See the A. C. in remarks of J. Rueter IX congr?s international des sciences historiques (Paris, 1950), I, 298.

2. R. H. Studies in Tawney, Economic History (London, 1927), pp. xxiii, 33 34, 39. 3. H. A J. Clapham, Concise Economic History of Britain (Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1949), introduction.

4. Two quotations from the same document (Economic and Social Studies Conference Social Board, Aspects of Economic Development, Istanbul, illustrate the 1964) may divergent motivations behind this new pre the Turkish of the board: "Economic occupation; By president development or in the areas is one most growth economically retarded of the important which the . . . questions confronts world today Poor countries have made of this issue of a ideal. Economic is to development high development them associated with and a sense of political independence sovereignty." By Daniel Lerner: "A of decade global experience with social change and economic lies behind us. The has development decade been fraught with in of the to economic efforts, every part world, induce development without cultural to accelerate economic without producing chaos, growth disrupting societal to economic equilibrium; promote mobility without subverting political stability" (xxiii, 1 ).

5. Sir Hicks's is characteristic: . . . John complaint "My 'theory of history' will be a deal nearer to the kind of that was . . . good thing attempted by Marx Most can of [those who believe ideas be used by historians to order their so that the course of can into . . . material, general history be fitted place] use or would the Marxian categories, some modified version of them; since there is so little in the way of an alternative version that is available, it is not that should. It remain surprising they does, nevertheless, extraordinary that one hundred after Das after a which years Kapital, century during there have been enormous in so developments social science, little else should A Economic have emerged." Theory of History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), pp. 2-3.

43 D DALUS

6. Thus Marc Ferro's sampling of the telegrams and resolutions sent to Petro in the first is the grad weeks of the February revolution of 1917 plainly a equivalent of retrospective public opinion survey. One may doubt whether it would been have thought of without the earlier development of opinion research for nonhistorical purposes. M. Ferro, La R?volution de 1917 (Paris: Aubier, 1967).

7. At on the conference New Trends in History, Princeton, N. J., May 1968.

8. not as I do regard such devices for inserting direction into societies "in as true. creasing complexity" historical. They may, of course, be

9. P. Baran, The Political Economy of Growth (New York: Monthly Review 2. Press, 1957), chap.

10. For an version see English of this important article, Social Science Infor mation, 9 (February 1970), 145-174.

11. Cf. "At stake in a broader view of urban is the of history possibility making the societal of urbanization central to the of process study social change. Efforts should be made to urbanization in conceptualize ways that actually social Eric in Oscar represent change." Lampard Handlin and John Burch The Historians the ard, and City (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963), p. 233.

12. This work is in progress under the direction of Professor Sven-Ulric Palme at the University of Stockholm.

13. For the see possible divergences between reality and classification, the discussions about the complex socioracial hierarchies of colonial Latin America. Magnus M?rner, "The History of Race Relations in Latin Amer in L. Foner D. in the ica," and E. Genovese, Slavery New World (Engle wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), p. 221.

14. See A. et Prost, "Vocabulaire typologie des familles politiques," Cahiers de lexicologie, XIV (1969).

15. T. as a Shanin, "The Peasantry Political Factor," Sociological Review, 14 (1966), 17.

16. Class has been the long central preoccupation of social historians. See, for A. C. Rueter in IX international des sciences example, J. congr?s historiques, I, 298-299.

17. A. "Probl?mes et m?thodes dune Dupront, histoire de la psychologie col Annales: 16 lective," ?conomies, soci?t?s, civilisations, (January-February 1961), 3-11.

18. I mean a By "fitting together" establishing systematic connection between sometimes different, and apparently unconnected, parts of the same syn drome?for the the example, beliefs of classic nineteenth-century liberal in a bourgeoisie both individual liberty and patriarchal family structure.

19. We look forward to the time when the Russian Revolution will provide historians with comparable opportunities for the twentieth century.

44 Social History to the History of Society

20. R. Braun, Industrialisierung und Volksleben (Erlenbaeh-Zurich: Rentsch, 1960); Sozialer und kultureller Wandel in einem l?ndlichen Industriegebiet . . . im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Erlenbaeh-Zurich: Rentsch, 1965). J. O. Foster's thesis is for being prepared publication.

21. who is is conscious the of Eric Stokes, doing this, of applying results work in African history. E. Stokes, Traditional Resistance Movements and Afro Context 1857 in Asian Nationalism: The of the Mutiny-Rebellion India ( forthcoming ). on a 22. Centre Formation, Nation-Building and Cultural Diversity: Report Symposium Organized by UNESCO (duplicated draft, n.d.). The sympo sium was held August 28-September 1, 1968.

23. as a economic interac Though capitalism has developed global system of in the real units its have been certain tions, fact of development territorial political units? British, French, German, U. S. economies?which may be neces due to historic accident but also ( the question remains open ) to the even in era sary role of the state in economic development, the of the purest economic liberalism.