THEORY, HISTORY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
he goal of cis book is to initiate a serious dialogue about socal theory
ove ces, The groundwork for such a
understanding of the
ine theo
indicate what shape
ould illuminate, and
your common proj
‘advance only by means of free, open, and
cy novel, at the beginning o
dialogue between historians and soci
‘example one ofthe stated ideals of Mn-questions of hiscorical
che ‘Moreover est inthe snes eile
Uegsk met
‘ening a return tothe golden age of our pred
academic
e eighteenth or eaty ni
generations
entists and historians have succeeded in forming dis
discourse,
h general laws or at least valid generaiza-
id co be defined by theirtheoriesand
y (bu no eae ffs
ly)requited cheory or methods course, bur
snasteing he theories and o
Print when chey bev isbo
Karl Mary, Max Weber
like household nam
laity oftheir subject matter—for example
from contemporary sources —than with discussions
interpretation.’ The same difference shows up in
is common for ns to be advertised ae sociolog-
ical theory, but I have never seen ajob
vuntless famous social sie
basis of work in cheory, bur
i @ handful of historians whose eminence arose from
bates. When historians borrow socialctheoretcal concepts we often find
epts don‘ quite fitathat they need tbe adjusted. nuanced, or
mbined with concepts from othe, apparent incomparible, theoretical
discourses in order tobe useful in historical research. Jn this sense, our use
y of California, Santa Cruz hac makes chem ungainly for
hiscorian who jean ‘orto propose new vocabularies or concep
ck LaCapra,an intellectual historian
raty theory, or William Reddy, who
‘work on the social and historical sig-
Chakarabarty, who is a major “post
ly rose co prominence on the basis of more em-
nificance of emotions; or Dipes