Abstract
History long occupies a vital place in China’s fields of social science. Its significance, nonetheless, abated in the late twentieth century, as Chinese social scientists wanted to align themselves with the mainstream scholars in the West, making their productions of knowledge steered from narrations to theorizations. Since the millennium, there have been calls on the return to history (also known as the historical turn). History has been then regaining momentum in the fields of social science both in China and the West. I would like to argue that it is the context of Guo Taihui’s latest monograph – Lishi shehui-xue de liliang, The Power of Historical Sociology – which ponders the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of such a cross-disciplinary field of study.
Intriguingly, Guo contextualizes his exploration in the Western development of historical sociology. He argues that history was once an indispensable part of social scientific inquiries in the West. In the nineteenth century, big name theorists such as August Comte, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Max Weber, though history was treated differently in their works, looked for theoretical insights from the past experiences of human beings (Ch. 6). Meanwhile, there was another push. Those who searched for universal truths demanded that the form of social scientific knowledge could and should be in parallel with that of scientific knowledge. They urged to develop general theories by applying the self-proclaimed scientific methods. Theoretical interpretation, universal and decontextualized, became preferable in the fields of social science. Particularly in the United States in the early-twentieth century, then, social science was not only split into several disciplines but history was also separated from social science in the course of the high academic division of labor. This tendency – combining the preferred form of social scientific knowledge and the diversified institutionalization – was further reinforced and mimicked globally after the United States established its hegemony in the post-Second World War era. Still, there has been a small number of scholars including Charles Tilly, Andrew Abbott, and Julia Adams who firmly defend the cross-disciplinary approach of history and sociology (Ch. 7). They have challenged the mainstream approaches in the fields of social science and their works have enriched our understanding on today’s increasingly sophisticated world. The Power sets foot here and echoes with the historical sociologists in the West. By the same token, we can infer that historical sociology ought to be also appreciated in China.
Most importantly, where lies the power of historical sociology? Guo admits that historical sociology is by no means a unified field of study from the epistemological and ontological perspective. In historical sociology is an inner tension regarding how to weigh between theoretical generalization and historical narration. As for the production of knowledge, putting in another way, is general interpretation or detailed story-telling on the wh-questions more superior? This is a perplexing question that is constantly debated among historical sociologists (Ch. 8 and p. 318). Guo reckons that human being is mortal and that one’s existence is temporally and spatially constrained. Theoretical generalization stemmed from human experience can hardly be universally valid in time and space. In the fields of social science, the mainstream form of knowledge is ignorant of temporal and spatial variations, and it can hardly improve our understanding on the increasingly sophisticated world. History is the answer to such weakness (pp. 1–5). Instead of rejecting the form of theory-laden knowledge, Guo chooses a middle ground between universal theory and detailed narrative. He articulates that history can thicken theoretical interpretation with insights, making it more powerful. Historical sociology, placing a heavy emphasis of historical awareness, can bridge the extremely divided fields of social science which has been restrained by the diversified institutional settings for long. That being said, this field of study can save sociology as well as other fields of social science from the high academic division of labor in our times. It is what can be powerfully done by historical sociology in the West. So can it be in China (pp. 317–324).
Guo’s argument, at large, is persuasive. He not only elaborates what historical sociology is for but also justifies the return to history in the fields of social science. Nevertheless, his work still leaves us two critical questions which need to be further polished. First, the contemporary historical sociologists discussed in this monograph are mostly from the elite schools in the United States such as Harvard, Yale, and the University of Chicago. I have no intention to deny their academic achievements, but I would like to point out that their global intellectual influences, at least partly, are facilitated by America’s political and economic position in the world. Seemingly, academic dependency in historical sociology might not be overlooked. How would Guo position his own response to the voices from the elite American schools in the global hierarchy of historical sociology? Discussing this question, I believe, can help us better understand The Power from the post-colonial perspective. Second, The Power highlights the importance of historical awareness in social scientific inquiries and encourages social scientists to contextualize what is theorized. In other words, Guo calls for social scientists’ attention on the spatio-temporal contexts of their own theorizations. In this sense, historical sociological theories are culturally relative and plural. Yet, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of this field of study seem to be culturally universal in The Power. How would Guo transcend the cultural difference between China and the West in historical sociology? To a certain extent, it is an essential question for Chinese social scientists to think of in their national context.
Generally speaking, Guo has offered us a well-organized argument in great detail. What is historical sociology? What is it for? Where lies its power? Readers can find Guo’s careful consideration in The Power; two fundamental questions regarding historical sociology and China are left however. Perhaps, Chinese social scientists need to continue to examine these two questions, as history has returned to sociology, and other fields of social science in China.