History and Social Theory

by Peter Burke

. 2007 reprint, bright clean copy, no markings, Professional booksellers since 1981

Genres: History, Sociology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Social Science, World History

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Peter Burke is a British historian and professor. He was educated by the Jesuits and at St John's College, Oxford, and was a doctoral candidate at St Antony's College. From 1962 to 1979, he was part of the School of European Studies at Sussex University, before moving to the University of Cambridge, where he holds the title of Professor Emeritus of Cultural History and Fellow of Emmanuel College. Burke is celebrated as a historian not only of the early modern era, but one who emphasizes the relevance of social and cultural history to modern issues. He is married to Brazilian historian Maria Lúcia Garcia Pallares-Burke.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book addresses itself to professional historians and people in the "hard" social sciences, and basically tries to get them to talk to each other instead of putting "Kick Me!" signs on each other's backs and pantsing each other at recess to try to get each other's attention. Each chapter is dedicated to trying to get them to realize that they have a lot to learn from each other and crossing the department divides.

This thesis seems very dated now (though it was only written in 1990), since the history profession is absolutely suffused with theory now. Everywhere you freaking look, historians are writing from inside some system or another, and many of the theorists he talks about how are required history reading. There's a whole chapter called "central concepts" where he tries to introduce people like Foucault, Durkenheim, Bahktin and Mannheim and I couldn't stop laughing. As if historians could avoid them now if they tried! So either this book was really influential or it came out right in the period where everything was changing.

However, I still think this piece is a very useful introduction to a lot of theories. There were many in here that I had not heard of, or hadn't thought of using in the particular ways that he suggests. He's very good at picking out certain historical situations and showing how theory or at least "concepts" have been instrumental in highlighting certain things that hadn't been obvious before. He is also very good at pointing out the major flaws of each theory and not at all suggesting that anyone swallow these things whole, but perhaps try bits out here and there just to get a new perspective. I am a very good person to be reading that right now. I've been reading a crap ton of theory as I start to conceptualize my thesis, and had basically come to the realization that I hate theory and it should all die in a fire. So Burke's writing really reminded me to take a step back and remember again why it is helpful, and just how much theory that we now think of as an integral part of history is actually theory. For example, concepts like "social roles" and "mentalities" or even nationalist theory did not come out of history, but rather from sociologists and anthropologists, even if very famous historians have made these concepts their own.

Recommended to all frustrated history graduate students like me. Or just ones that maybe need a trip back to the basics to refresh their memories about what this stuff actually is about without all the frills added by professionals trying to get tenure.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Theorists and Historians
A. This book answers 2 simple questions- what is the use of social history to historians and what is the use of history to social theorists? [1]
B. A Dialogue of the deaf
1. Sociology: a study of human society with emphasis on generalizations [2]
2. History: is a study of plural societies examining the differences and changes over time
3. Historians and sociologists, for the most part, do not speak the same language. As Braudel put it "a dialogue of the deaf" [3]
4. How did this opposition between history & theory develop & how was it overcome?
5. The answer is in the next section looking at 3 periods: mid-18th, mid-19th, & 1920s
C. The Differentiation of History and Theory
1. The first social theorists arose in the 18th [4]
a) Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws
b) John Millar, Observation on the Distinction of Ranks
c) Adam Ferguson, Essay on the History of Civil Society
d) Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
e) Thomas Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population
f) They distinguished 4 types of society based on their subsistence (hunting, raising of animals, agriculture, commerce)
g) They escaped from traditional history of politics and war.
2. In the 19th historians were moving away from social theory and social history [5]
a) Political history recovered its domain with Ranke
b) Ranke's emphasis on original documents made social history look unprofessional [6]
c) Dilthey & Croce believed that sociology was only a pseudo-science [7]
d) Toqueville, Marx, & Gustov Schmoller were unusual in that they combined theory with historical situations [8]
3. At the turn of the 20th Social theorists had an interest in history, yet dismissed what the historians were writing about [10]
a) Vilfredo Pareto, Treatise on General Society
b) Emile Durkheim, was intent on carving out the new discipline of sociology by distinguishing it from sociology, philosophy, and psychology.
c) Max Weber drew on history in his social theory
D. The Dismissal of the Past
1. After 1920 social theorists turned away from the past [11]
2. Economists were draw into a pure economic model
3. Psychologists turned from the library to the laboratory [12]
4. Sociologists began to take their data from society.
5. This dismissal had a price because sooner or later the past had to be studied [14]
E. The Rise of Social History
1. Max Weber makes his studies between Protestantism and Capitalism around 1900 [15]
2. Karl Lamprecht attempted to break the dominance of social history. He was most successful in the U.S. and France
a) Lamprecht's views were adopted by F.J. Turner and Robinson in America
b) Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch criticized traditional history in France. Later, Braudel carried on their views [16]
F. The Convergence of Theory and History
1. In the 1960's social theorists and social historians began to produce a great number of books [18]
2. What are the reasons for this convergence?
a) Sociologists returning to fieldwork in underdeveloped countries began to examine change over time or history [19]
b) Historians had a massive shift of interest away from traditional political history
3. According to Peter Burke "Without the convergence of history and theory we are unable to understand either the past or the present."
4. Despite the convergence their is a tendency to fragment and debate models and methods [21]

. Social Theory and Social Change
A. Structuralism and functionalism have been criticized because they fail to account for change.
B. This chapter examines change [130]
C. Spencer's Model: evolutionary model
1. Gradual social change occurs through evolution. There is a shift from the simple to the complex [132]
2. In the traditional society there is a change from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft or community to a large impersonal society
3. In the traditional society people are hostile to change. In a modern society change is considered progress [133]
4. The culture of traditional societies are religious and mystical, modern societies are described as scientific and rational
5. Problems with this model
a) Societies do not always move in terms of increasing complexity. The case of the late Roman Empire exemplifies regression with the Barbarian invasions [136]
b) This model is criticized because all change is considered inherent to the system. The Black Death was not inherent.
D. Marx's Model
1. This is the revolutionary model in which societies depend on economic systems (modes of production) and contain internal conflicts which lead to revolutions [141]
2. Sequence of the forms of society tribal, slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist, communist
3. There is place for change in the "wrong" direction or refeudalization
4. There is place for external factors influencing change (ex. the re-opening of the Mediterranean)
5. Thus Marx meets historians criticisms better than Spencer
E. Conclusion
1. Burke wants historians to take social theory more seriously
2. Theory can never be 'applied' to the past.
3. What theory can do is to suggest new questions for historians to ask about their period
4. A good historian and a good theorist are those who are open to new ideas [165]

[Isidora Ivanov · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ocena nula, minus deset, minus hiljadu. Hajde sto se ja bavim iskljucivo politickom i diplomatskom istorijom, i hajde sto volim rankeovsku metodologiju, i hajde sto mi je sve anglosax nekako sturo i skromno, ali, brate, nisam pristrasna, zivota mi, samo Berk jednostavno ne ume da pise. Berk je prototip "naucnika" koji nije dovoljno ni sociolog niti je dovoljno istoricar da bi mogao da se bavi preklapanjem ovih disciplina, a kamoli da o tome napise nesto zapravo konstruktivno. Kapiram ja da on hoce kroz primere da gradi teoriju, ali ovde cak nema ni konkretnih i reprezentativnih primera niti suvisle teorije. Ovo je neki buckuris, beskrajno tezak za pracenje, koji kod citalaca samo stvara averziju prema drustvenoj i kulturnoj istoriji. Nemoguce je hvatati beleske, nemoguce je prepricati ga, nemoguce je upotrebiti ga, moguce je samo lamentirati nad izgubljenim vremenom i potrosenim papirom. Nadam se da Berk i ja nikada vise necemo biti u kombinaciji.

[daph ୨୧]

war is finally over

[Grace]

This was a comprehensive introduction and helpful in understanding how history and social theory intersect. There were a lot of studies mentioned, so this is perhaps more useful as a tool for those who are looking to branch out and do wider research, or for those already familiar with sociology and it’s key works.

[Sinan Öner]

İngiliz Tarih Profesörü Sosyolog Yazar Peter Burke'nin kitabı Türkçe'de yirmi beş yıl kadar önce yayınlanmıştı! Peter Burke'nin "Tarih ve Toplumsal Kuram" kitabını Türkçe'ye Profesör Mete Tunçay çevirmiş, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları da yayınlamıştı. Peter Burke, kitabında, "tarihyazımı" ile "toplumsal bilimler" arasında yüzyıllardır sürüp gelen etkileşimi bir "disiplin" olarak inceliyor, "toplum kuramları"nı, "toplumsal kuram"ları "tarihyazımı tarihi" içinde gelişen kavramları ile araştırıyor. Tarih yazarken, Tarihçi, "kuram"lardan yararlanır hatta "kuram"lar oluşturur, "kuram"ları ise "kavram"larla yapılandırır, "toplum kuramları" ile ve "toplumsal kuram"la (değişkenlikleri ile) bir alışveriş içinde tarih yazmak, Tarihçinin ödevidir. 17. ve 18. Yüzyıl'dan itibâren "tarihyazımı" "modern" nitelikler kazanmıştır, "modern tarihyazımı" ise, "modern dünya"nın "kavram"larından yararlanarak yazılır. Peter Burke, "liberal" ve "Marxist" "kavram"larla oluşturulmuş "toplum kuramları"nın "modern tarihyazımı"nı nasıl etkilediğini kitabında ayrıntılı anlatıyor, "tarım toplumu", "sanayi toplumu", "sosyalist toplum", "tüketim toplumu", "bilgi toplumu" gibi kavramsal yaklaşımlarla oluşturulmuş "toplum kuramları"nın "tarihyazımı"nı etkilerken, "Annales Okulu" (Fransız Tarihçilik Okulu) gibi "tarihyazımı" akımlarının bu "etkileşim"i "eleştirel" bir tarzda karşıladığını ve "pratik tarihyazımı metodları" kullanarak (ve "toplumsal tarih malzemeleri"nden yararlanarak) "toplum kuramları" ile "tarihyazımı" arasındaki "etkileşim"leri yeniden kavramlaştırdığını yazıyor.

[Josie Pringle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because I’ve chosen to do a module on ‘History and sociology’ as part of my university course starting in October. I wouldn’t recommend reading this book to relax because it is intensely educational. Furthermore, the book is slightly dull at times purely because studying social theory in combination with history naturally involves the discussion terms which were exciting at the time of their creation, but to readers (who obviously live in the modern day), they are words that frequent the intellectual discourse so often that they are no longer particularly new or exciting. In spite of this, I have made a long list of things I found really interesting about the book. These are listed below for reference.

First thing to establish:
- Sociology- ‘defined as the study of human society, with an emphasis on generalisations about its structure and development.’
- History- ‘defined as the study of human societies (or cultures) in the plural, placing the emphasis on the differences between them and also on the changes which have taken place in each one over time’
- A model ‘is an intellectual construct which simplifies reality in order to emphasise the recurrent, the general and the typical, which it presents in the form of clusters of traits or attributes’. For example, just using the word Revolution e.g. The French Revolution is utilising a model.

Just flagging things I found super interesting. (All quotes and ideas have been extracted from the book (Peter Burke))

1. ‘The wrath of Edward Thompson, who denounced the inability of ‘sociology’ to comprehend that ‘class’ is a term referring to process rather than structure. The point is that sociology, a discipline focussed on static theory, fails to account for the fact that class cannot be used as a general static term. This is simply because a specific group of people from a specific society at a specific place and time only become a ‘class’ as a result of their own language and actions which defines their relationship with other groups or ‘classes’ in society. Therefore, you cannot impose the term class in a general sense on a group of people, but must understand that it is an evolving term that is created and changed by the people in which it refers to.
2. Some historians reject comparison in the pursuit of being specific and not trying to draw tenuous parallels between inherently different societies. However, the book makes a very important point that ‘it is only thanks to comparison that we are able to see what isn’t there’.
3. Two dangers of comparison that historians need to be wary of. The first one is ‘the assumption that societies ‘evolve’ through an inevitable sequence of stages’. For example, Marx’s comparative method involved ‘identifying the stage which a particular society has reached, in placing it on the ladder of social evolution’. The second one is the risk of ethnocentrism. Where historians have treated the West as the norm or the centre of gravity from which other cultures diverge. Comparison should be done on an even playing field as opposed to indulging in the concept of ‘otherness’ when referring to societies that aren’t ‘Western’ and in turn, suggesting that the way those societies operate is wrong, even if it is just as effective.
4. Interesting sociological hypothesis: ‘relative deprivation’. This is the notion that revolutions occur ‘not so much when times are bad... [but when] there is a discrepancy between the expectations of a particular group and their perception or reality.’
5. Communities and identities. Conflict often occurs between groups with minor differences rather than major differences. Freud’s concept of ‘the narcissism of minor differences’ to analyse recent events in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda and Sri Lanka concludes that violence is often sparked by fear of ‘the imminent loss of differences’. However it is more informative to treat these minor differences as major symbols of identity. E.g. Trotskyists treated worse than anti-Marxists.
6. Conspicuous consumption- not being efficient about money and profit in order to prove that one was so wealthy they didn’t need to care about money and assets. For example, the chiefs were no t interested in accumulating wealth, but in using it to gain status and power. Pierre Bourdieu argued that ‘economic power is first and foremost the power to distance oneself from economic necessity; that is why it is always marked by the destruction of wealth, conspicuous consumption, waste and all forms of gratuitous luxury’. This is interesting because it challenges the theory of classical economics which puts profit first.
1. There are 3 basic systems of economic organisation. Only one of them, the market system is subject to the laws of classical economics. The other 2 modes of organisation is the ‘reciprocity’ and ‘redistribution’ systems.
2. System of ‘reciprocity’ is based on the gift. The exchange has no economic value but it maintained social solidarities. Exchanged between equals.
3. System of redistribution depends on social hierarchy. Leaders distribute to their followers the goods they have taken from outsiders. The followers give their leaders loyalty and perform services for them.
7. Social capital- ‘trust, norms and networks’, informal social links that may be mobilised to get something done. Yet term has been generalised and moralised. E.g. the argument that Northern Italy has social capital whereas Southern Italy lacks it. But Southern Italy’s patronage of corruption still is a demonstration of social capital. Social theory/anthropological approaches provide order to what modern Western observed would dismiss as disorder.
1. ‘The cardinal might not have survived politically had he not acted in this way. He needed subordinates he could trust, and apart from relatives, he could only trust his creatures, just as princes could only trust their favourites’ ‘This ‘nepotism’ was often condemned in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but we need to be aware of the positive aspects of the practice.
2. Corruption- defining it in a ‘relativistic manner as behaviour deviating from the formal duties of a public role, transgressing ‘moral boundaries’ of a given society’. As ‘the more formally organised the society, and the sharper the distinction between public and private domains, the clearer the cases of corruption will be’. Question obviously is ‘whether this form of behaviour fulfils a social function for the public as well as for the officials involved’
8. Historians analyse societies with two predominant theories. 1) Rational Choice Theory assumes that ‘individuals evaluate possible outcomes associated with their choices in accordance with preferences and values’ 2) Cultural relativists argue that ‘what counts as rational depends on the local circumstances and the wider culture.’ - interesting point- you can see why RCT may apply to North America with its stress on the individual but much more difficult to apply to for example Japan where liberal individualism is much less prevalent.- As per usual the nuanced view seems to work best I.e. supplementing RCT with cultural analysis. For example, the use of violence is as much to do with ‘the meaning of violence for the community’ as a ritual or symbol as ‘about its rewards for individual participants’. Furthermore fear or anxiety interferes with conscious motivations.
9. Social theory and social change 1) Spencer’s model - social change as gradual and cumulative determined from within from traditional to modern society. 2) Marx’s model as ‘crisis, revolution and discontinuous change’. Advantages of Marx’s model over Spencer’s model- model for change in the wrong direction. Marx offers a more global account of change, where other areas of the world affect change in a particular area. A Third Way? Synthesising the 2 models.
10. The idea of history as progress. Generally true with some exceptions. But what is important is that ‘modernisation’ and the ‘civilisation’ of societies is not a unilinear process, social change is multilinear and can be measured in a variety of ways. Norbert Elias divided his study of ‘the process of civilisation’ into sections on ‘behaviour at the table’, ‘blowing one’s nose’, ‘spitting’ etc. Arguing that the appearance of new material objects such as handkerchiefs and forks signify a shift in the frontiers of embarrassment and shame. Likewise other nuances need to be noticed. For example in the Netherlands, the Veluwe is an example of modernisation without industrialisation- most adults were literate and there was economic efficiency. Whilst the north of England is an example of industrialisation without modernisation Seinfeld towns and factories coexisted with illiteracy and a strong sense of community.
11. Patterns of culture. When people no nothing else to what they have change is static. ‘An awareness of alternatives diminishes the power of tradition and gives individuals more freedom to make choices’. For example a Chinese landscape painters changed their style in the face of European prints but ‘they did not imitate the Western style, but awareness of it helped to free themselves from traditional ways of representing landscape’.
12. Patterns of culture. Kuhn’s theory- major changes in scientific paradigms come about in a series of stages. 1) individual observers become aware of information inconsistent with the paradigm 2) in response, paradigm is modified and patched up 3) discrepancies multiply leading to a state of ‘crisis’ new theories emerge. 4) one of the competing theories is adopted as the new paradigm. Question of whether Kuhnian theory can be applied to other things. For example, Columbus’ discovery of America’s- originally thought as part of Asia until evidence became undeniable that this was a fourth continent. However the practice of conquest differs from the practice of science in the sense that ‘The conquerors had the power to turn their perceptions into reality by treating E.g. The zamindars as landlords. English translated Indian society into terms that were intelligible to them- cultural reconstruction


Peter Burke’s conclusion does very well to sum up the book.
- He argues that social theory is useful to historians. But ‘in return historians... offer reminders of the complexity and variety of human experience which theories inevitably simplify’. Historians historicise models showing where they apply and where they don’t and to what degree.
-Historians should be ‘open to new ideas, wherever they come from, and to be capable of adapting them to ones own purposes and of finding ways to test their validity’. Theory ‘enlarges the imagination of historians by making historians more aware of alternatives to their habitual assumptions and explanations’

[Daeng]

Baru berputar di bab 1 dan 2... :((

[Julia]

None of these are assigned readings. I read them for fun, I swear.

[Gavin Furst · Rating 1 out of 5]

Would not wish reading this book upon my worst enemy

[ale 🍎 · Rating 4 out of 5]

é um livro introdutório muito bom

[Jing · Rating 4 out of 5]

Writing sample: review + epistemology + methodology.

Burke’s own insights deserve to be noticed.

[Hedyhohoho · Rating 5 out of 5]

知识强度极高的一本学科综述，虽说是社会学对历史学的理论扶贫，但对于非本行看起来，社会学洋洋洒洒的各种理论其实也挺贫困的.....简化下来的模型都是自己取悦自己，那种自以为改宗换代的概念，其实更多像是自己重新拉个角度or打标签的标准+一些新词的发明

[anis Ahmad · Rating 3 out of 5]

bagus,
buku ini menginspirasi saya tentang beberapa hal,salah satunya adalah tentang hakikat dari belajar, yakni cara paling efektif untuk memahami sesuatu adalah dengan mengajarkannya, ya iya lah, soalnya saya kan seorang pendidik,thanx mr burke

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

General historiography and social theory - how social scientists can share information to assist each others' research. I read this during graduate school a few years back, but I remember being impressed with it at the time.

[Johan Persson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Burke argumenterar för att låta historisk och sociologisk/samhällsvetenskaplig teori befrukta varandra, en tes som antagligen var mer revolutionerande 1992 än den är idag. De korta kapitlen om olika centrala teoretiska koncept är dock en bra introduktion.

[Nono Warsono]

beri free downloadnya donk

[R Hanida · Rating 5 out of 5]

huhujijbjuuhi

[Osikubi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Only an introduction

[Kaxing Leung · Rating 5 out of 5]

彼得伯克应是敏感、开放而至博学。他作为历史学者从历史学与社会学的相互影响的过往中抓住核心的理论、概念、问题作为准绳，将众多理论、体系悬系其上，博采众长又不至于陷入相对主义，就是为了提醒历史学者要更能采纳优秀理论的功用，不要只看到孤立的特殊性；理论家要警惕去历史化的教条论述，不能将学问悬空于历史事实之外。

[Paula]

Authors/page wr

[Chyi · Rating 4 out of 5]

大型历史学和社会理论文献综述，可能自己学力有限，读起来颇为困难。

[王棕 · Rating 5 out of 5]

@微信读书

[Kyle Cameron Studstill]

key concepts in the contrasting and complimentary fields of sociocultural study and history

[Jerry]

ini yang saya butuh kan