Against Historicism/ for Theory: A Reply to Levine Author(s): Jeffrey Alexander Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 118-120 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/202067 Accessed: 26/05/2010 11:26 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=asa. 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 service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. John Wiley & Sons and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory. http://www.jstor.org AGAINST HISTORICISM/ FOR THEORY: A REPLY TO LEVINE JEFFREY ALEXANDER U.C.L.A. While Levine's reply to my essay demon- "conflict versus order" and "action versus strates the broad grounding in historical order." I devote two of the six pages of my considerations that we have come to expect essay to demonstrating how two gener- both from him and his students, it also ations of theorists have been preoccupied betrays a reluctance to grapple with the with debating theoretical issues in these distinctively theoretical issues which were terms, and this is also one of the central that essay's raison d'etre. preoccupations of my earlier book, Twenty To demonstrate this failure, and to Lectures: Sociological Theory since World make the original theoretical points more War Two (Columbia, 1987). Because pointed still, I will discuss briefly the two Levine does not address these arguments, central issues that Levine raises. he refutes a claim I did not make. (1) He argues first against my contention (2) But there is another piece of my "that Structure established the 'base line argument for the vast influence of Structure, vocabulary for modern sociology'." To a piece which leads us into the second and refute this suggestion, Levine asks how most significant problem in Levine's reply. many basic terms in modern sociology I suggested (Alexander 1988:97) that derive from Structure, referring to such Structure had "constructed-through selec- "nonParsonian concepts" as mobility, net- tion and interpretation-the classical heri- work, modernization, inequality, stratifi- tage from which subsequent theoretical cation, age, and elite. and empirical sociology would draw [italics My problem here is, first, that Levine added]." In objecting to this argument, exaggerates my claim and, second, that he Levine, in his words, focuses on "Struc- misses its point. I wrote in my essay ture's vulnerability as a piece of scholar- (Alexander 1988:97) that Structure played ship." By italicizing three words in the "a key role, perhaps the key role in estab- former passage, I am drawing attention to lishing a base line vocabulary for modern the inadequacy of this historical focus. sociology." I did not say, in other words, The principal point in my essay was that Structure"established" the vocabulary precisely that in evaluating Structure's all by itself. Second, and much more im- influence, we cannot do so by taking it as portant, by "base line" vocabulary I am an exercise in causal explanation in either obviously not referring here to empirically- empirical social science or historical scholar- directed concepts like stratification, ship. This was the approach taken in what modernization, age, or elite. To the con- I called the second stage of Structure's trary, I describe the base line issues I am reception, for it represented an activity concerned with as oriented to a higher that still fell under the spell of Parsons' level of generality, namely to "three central original empiricist claims. My premise was questions-order, action, and values." that now, however, fifty years after the These are the issues I have called pre- publication of Structure, we are in a suppositional in my work. position to deconstruct these claims. We Recognizing the generality of these issues should view Structure, then, not as a is critical for evaluating my claim about signified, as a reflection of reality, but as a Structure's influence, for I rest that claim signifier, as a creator of reality. Decon- in the manner in which Parsons' formu- struction, in an epistemological rather lations structured the distinctively theo- than a nihilistic sense, is at the core of the retical debates in the postwar period. I postpositivist approach I employed: suggest that these debates were structured around two conceptual issues that were Armedwith the postempiricistphilosophy, distinctively formulated by Structure, history, and sociology of science, we under- AGAINST HISTORICISM/FOR THEORY: 119 standtheorizing differently than we once did. the theoretical framework, whether by We are less inclined to see theory as a sympathizers or challengers to Parsonian pragmatictest shot at empiricaltargets, the theory. of whichare taken for To the reality granted. The empiricism with which Levine we now understandthat has contrary, theory approaches Structure is underscored in his an importantrole in creatingthe objects as that "one must the well as their 1988: suggestion question explanation. (Alexander success with which Structure the 97; originalitalics) pursued aim . of 'taking stock of the theoretical resources at our disposal'." Why? Because It will not do, then, to challenge Struc- "the effect of Structure was to exclude a ture's intrinsic theoretical interest or ex- number of authors who had been significant trinsic intellectual influence by pointing to in theoretical discussions before he wrote." the fact that Parsons' whiggish reading of Again, this is not a critical response to my the history of social theory was highly essay but a point that is actually central to distorted. It was certainly not my intention my argument. In contrast to Levine, how- in this essay to argue that anything else ever, when I make this point, I do not view was the case (see the "if often quite it as damaging to Structure's theoretical mistakenly" in Alexander 1988:98). Indeed, claims. In concluding this response, let me I have never had anything positive to say briefly suggest why. for what I have always viewed as Parsons' Following postpositivist deconstruction, pseudo-historiography (e.g. Alexander I suggested in my essay that if we are to 1984:215ff). My point, rather, has been understand the extraordinary impact of that to provide such an historical accounting Structure we must set aside Parsons' own for sociological theory was not the im- limited understanding of his own project, portant thing that Parsons was doing in for it was largely rooted in a natural Structure. Not just history but the classics scientific point of view. From our present themselves were foils for his analytical perspective, it is clear that Parsons certainly arguments about the nature of social intended to exclude Simmel and Marx, reality. It was not good historical scholar- among others, from his historical con- ship but brilliant (if also deeply flawed) struction. Only in this way could he provide theory building that has allowed Structure compelling "evidence" for his theoretical to stand so tall. We can see this from the claims. But he cannot be hung on this fact that it was with these theoretical petard. If he had not excluded these claims, not with the historical suggestions, authors, he would have excluded others. that 50 years of theoretical debate has felt All texts, whether poetic or scientific, are a compelled to come to grip. combination of presences and absences; It is, therefore, not only a serious none faithfully mirror "reality" in an misunderstanding of Structure but of the objective way. We investigate these ab- peculiar genre, sociological theory, to sences not to disprove a text, but to find suggest, as Levine does, that the "principal out what the text, and the author, might claims" of Structure are historical ones and really mean. that a more accurate historical discussion This investigation is called interpre- somehow "refutes it." What is the "it"? tation. When we are making interpreta- Surely not Structure's theoretical account! tions, moreover, we are ourselves construct- In fact, the upshot of Levine's own dis- ing a text that is informed by our own cussion is merely to redirect the historical theoretical interests. Interpretations are locus of Parsons' central theoretical cate- merely theories in a different key. That is gories like voluntarism, value and norm- why historicism can never replace system- ative, concepts which in themselves Levine atic theory, even when the peculiar genre does not challenge. In a perverse sense, of sociological theory makes history and then, Levine's historical discussion actually theory often shabbily intertwined. Structure supports my argument for Structure's cen- is a work of theory, not history. Its trality, for I have made this argument by influence, its weaknesses, its strengths pointing to the continuing employment of cannot be demonstrated or refuted by 120 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY historiography. They must be confronted REFERENCES by theoretical reasoning itself.' Alexander, Jeffrey C.