A Weberian perspective for the research in historical sociology
Introduction:
In this paper, I will review the literature regarding the principal sociological perspectives used in the research on comparative-historical sociology, as well as presenting a survey on the different readings of Weber’s analysis in American sociology that may allow for the creation of explicit empirical models that had better illustrate the dynamic of change in different societies.
There are different theories that attempt to elucidate the diverse aspects of social life (Giddens, A. & Turner, J., 1987), however, a detailed analysis of all those goes beyond the scope of this paper.
Competing Approaches in Comparative-Historical Sociology:
Historical sociology studies the interdependency of historical data with sociological theory in order to explain the dynamic of change in different societies. It applies the historical records and actual evidence from contemporary societies in order to test different hypotheses that, in principle, can be used to predict the course of social advancement. Moreover, the use of comparative methods allows us to ascertain the multicausality of social phenomena through analyzing cases that are similar in many respects while differing in only one or a few instances. The comparative method is one of the tools used for comparing large-scale occurrences of social phenomena (Lachmann, R., 1991; Calhoun, C., 1998).
There are three sociological perspectives that attempt to shed light in a whole range of issues in comparative-historical studies: world system theory, interpretative historical approach, and causal analytic perspective (Kalberg, S., 1994). However, these three theoretical worldviews fail to articulate explicit empirical models leaving some dilemmas that can be elucidated using strategic procedures of research that are inspired by the corpus of Weber’s writings.
World System Theory:
This theory opposes “the way the ways in which social scientific inquiry” has been systematically structured since the middle of the nineteenth century (Wallerstein, I., 1987, pg. 309). Succinctly, this theoretical model establishes that the interconnection in the economic and political arenas tie the world’s countries together (Henslin, J. M., 2005).
The basis for this argument is that the economic, the political and the sociocultural factors are interdependent one another in such a fashion that not valuable examination can isolate them, that is, considering only one factor as variable while holding the others as constant. As a result, this methodology considers that “there is a single set of rules or a single set of constraints within which these various structures operate” (Wallerstein, pg. 313).
This perspective instead of examining historical processes “through the lens of a particular conceptual scheme”, rather it outlines the complexities of a few number of differentiated cases in order to carry out thorough comparisons with the aim of isolate particularity; certainly this “all theory-centered strategy to establish causality” has many critics (Kalberg, pg. 5).
The proponents of this social theory stress structural forces (e.g., class relations, the state, and so forth) at the expense of cultural forces (e.g., family, religion, and the like) to establish multicausality (Kalberg).
They start with abstract conceptualizations and “move in the direction of the concrete” determining, in the process, the “hyper-complex” particularity of historical systems “that accounts plausibly for how they followed a particular concrete historical path” (Wallerstein, pg. 324).
Interpretative Historical Approach:
This approach to the study of comparative-historical sociology stands in opposition to an all-theory-centered strategy to ascertain causality in addition it focuses in the particular case itself, in all its complexity, historical development, and social context (Kalberg).
The adherents to this viewpoint create general causal propositions; they evaluate each “irreducible” historic event in relation to a previously outlined conceptualization, or “theme”, as a theoretical framework, seeking “to compare and contrast cases one with another”.
Thus, causality is conveyed “through a detailed chronicle of events”, and it limits “causal explorations to statements about the case”. In addition, this perspective acknowledges “a full panorama of causal forces” like the Weberian approach (Kalberg, pp. 5-7).
Causal Analytical Perspective:
The basis of this perspective is the detailed analysis of empirical cases, and it stands in opposition to the world system theory.
Also, it differs from the interpretative historical approach because the construction of causal analytic propositions is conducted by “explicit research designs that demarcate sources of variation”, which allows, “to produce valid inferences despite small number of cases” by which causal hypothesis are tested, as well as “generating new explanatory generalizations” (Kalberg, pp. 7-9).
This methodological perspective, along with the world systems and interpretative historical, are the most dominant approaches in the research in comparative-historical sociology. For instance, comparisons and contrasts between successful and failed social revolutions look for the isolation of features commons to the successful cases (Kalberg).
Weber’s Sociology in America:
Weber’s Sociological Foundation:
The foundational components of Weber’s sociology are methodological individualism, four specific types of social action, Vesterhen, and pluralism of motives (Kalberg; Gerth & Mills, C. W., 1946; Giddens, A., 1976; Weber, M., 1921[1976]).
Weber emphasized the individual actors and the potentiality that they have to influence their surroundings. Individuals are not seen as a product of social forces of sort, and the subjective motivations of individuals constitute a “meaning-complex” (Kalberg).
Sociology for Weber, therefore, was defined as the interpretative understanding of social action, or Vesterhen (Kalberg). This German term is characterized as “to have insight into someone’s situation” (Henslin).
The fundamental building block in the analysis of any society is the societal actions performed by individuals, which include a social and subjective meaning. This societal actions involves one of four types of consequential actions (which might be positive or negative), and they are means-end rational, value-rational, affectual, and traditional (Kalberg).
The motives are the causes of action; they orient action through subjective meaning; and Weber highlighted the plurality of motives (Kalberg).
Weber’s approach is considered, then, valid because “it provides a explicit and specific ways of thinking of linking agency and social structure”, and, in doing so, he explained the different ways in which subjective meanings orient actions, demonstrating the relevance of the intensity of those actions, as well as “the contextual constrains and opportunities that surround regular action” (Kalberg).
Weberian Understudies in America:
As posited by Swedberg, R. (2003), there are three typical, or “ideal-typical”, theoretical approaches to research in comparative-historical sociology based on Weber’s writings: traditional or conventional, rational choice, and interest viewpoint.
Each one of them incorporates Weber’s Vesterhen, the plurality of motives, or causes of action, and his view of methodological individualism; but they are distinctive on how they apply these premises.
The traditional viewpoint highlights that values and norms are the principal causes of action. This theoretical approach downplays methodological individualism as enunciated by Weber, although it incorporates the notion of Vesterhen. The adherents of this methodology see history as “a progression in term of rationality” (Swedberg).
Rationalization implies efficiency, calculation, steadiness, logic, and systematization, with the goal of obtaining better profits (Weber; Henslin). Moreover, for Weber, capitalism was “the embodiment of rational impersonality” (Gerth & Mills, pg. 73).
Rationalization in society as a broad social phenomenon is better seen in the context of social structures. Social institutions are relatively unchangeable structures of social patterns, role, and relationships that people establish for satisfying basic social needs (Henslin; Fichter, J., 1961).; and they adopt sanctions and unified means with the objective of increasing efficiency (e.g., systematic growth of bureaucracy, improvement in the methods of bookkeeping, and so forth).
The rational choice viewpoint focuses on historical comparisons. The causes of actions of the individuals are rational choices, that is, the actor makes a rational decision. This perspective downplays the view of Vesterhen, while they see methodological individualism as context-bound (Swedberg). Adherents of this theoretical approach emphasize that it has the potential of increasing the links between substantive domains; while recognizing the imperfections of their proposals to explain a number of social problems, they highlight the fact that the anomalies that may result by using this method are major sources of new ideas for further research (Kiser & Hechter, 1998). This procedure “suggests a radical recasting of Weber’s viewpoint that, to a large extent, has been created after Weber’s death” (Swedberg).
Finally, interest analysis considers the interests of the individual or actor as the driven force of the cause of action. The adherents to this worldview incorporate Vesterhen, and their outlook of methodological individualism is social. The interest analysis is mainly involved in the study of different types of capitalisms (Swedberg).
Summary and Conclusions:
Commenting on Weber’s texts, Kalberg stated, “the task of sociology must always include the construction of theories” (Kalberg, pg. 204). These theories are frameworks that allow us to study analyze social behaviors, and then may the inferences that allow us to predict different outcomes (Henslin; Fichter).
The contentions to Weber’s hypotheses have been multidimensional, ranging from the specificity of the relationship between Calvinistic values and entrepreneurial attitudes, and the understanding of the principal components of Western culture as a whole (Giddens). In addition, it has been argued the emphasis in his investigations of the dominant role that the economic and political institutions plays in any given society, especially ours (Fichter), and the fact that he was not particularly interested in analyzing the problematic aspect of the dynamics of capitalism (Gerth & Mills). Yet, the methodology applied by him, notwithstanding its deficiencies, does not invalidate completely his survey.
The theories of world system, interpretative historical, and causal analysis, do not consider the importance of cultural forces besides the structural, demographic, economical, and even political forces (Kalberg). However, the different interpretations given to Weber’s sociology in America attempt to address those points not considered by the other theorists, even though, that they count with numerous critics (Somers, M. R., 1998; Kalberg).
Nonetheless, we may conclude that cultural factors (e.g., religion, family, and others subjective issues) are necessary in the analysis of social phenomena. In our pluralistic society, for instance, factors such as the individual cultural identity have to be taken into consideration if we seek to explain social issues such as the mobility and assimilation of certain ethnic groups.
As posited by Diop, C. A. (1991), three major factors contribute to the development of cultural identity, and that have to be included in a framework for the systematic study on intercultural relations: historical, linguistic, and psychological. The last variable, the psychological and which forms part of the subjective meanings or Vesterhen advanced by Weber, includes the unchanging relationships that are still present in different societies even after radical sociopolitical upheavals occurring within them (pp. 209-227).
The interdependency among the nations in today’s world because of the process of globalization and the impact that it has in our culture and of how we can predict different outcomes (Isaak, R. A., 2005; Polillo & Guillen, M. F., 2005; Nourzad, F., 2005; Gil, Szelenyi & Townsley, E., 2001; Davis & Robinson, R. V., 1996) makes the research on historical sociology indispensable.
References:
Calhoun, C. (1998). Explanation in historical sociology: Narrative, general theory, and historically specific theory (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Gale Thomson database.
Davis, N. J. & Robinson, R. V. (1996). Are the rumors of war exaggerated? Religious orthodoxy and moral progressivism in America. The American Journal of Sociology, 102 (3). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Diop, C. A. (1991). Civilization and barbarism: An authentic anthropology. (1st. ed.). New York: Lawrence Hill Books.
Fichter, J. H. (1961). Sociology. (6th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W. (1946). Introduction. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1976). Introduction. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (1st ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Giddens, A. & Turner, J. (1987). Introduction. Social theory today. (1st ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gil, E.; Szelenyi, I. & Townsley, E. (2001). The utopia of postsocialist theory and the ironic view of history in neoclassical sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 106 (4). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Goldstone, J. A. (1998). Initial conditions, general laws, path dependence, and explanation in historical sociology (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Henslin, J. M. (2005). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach. (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Isaak, R. A. (2005). The globalization gap: How the rich get richer and the poor get left further behind. (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kalberg, S. (1994). Max Weber’s comparative-historical sociology. (1st. ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. (1998). The debate on historical sociology: Rational choice theory and its critics. The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Lachmann, R. (1991). The Encyclopedic Dictionary of sociology. (4th ed.). Guilford: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Mahoney, J. (2004). Revisiting general theory in historical sociology. Social Forces, 83 (2). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Nourzad, F. (2005). Macroeconomic and sectoral effects of international trade: A vector error-correction study. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33 (1). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Polillo, S. & Guillen, M. F. (2005). Globalization pressures and the state: The worldwide spread of central bank independence (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 110 (6). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Sica, A. (2004) Why “unobservables” cannot save eneral theory: A reply to Mahoney. Social Forces, 83 (2). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Somers, M. R. (1998). “We’re no angels”: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in Social Science (1). (Response to Edgar Kiser and Michael Hechter, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 97, p1, 1991). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Gale Thomson database.
Swedberg, R. (2003). The changing picture of Max Weber’s sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 29. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Wallerstein, I. (1987). World-systems analysis. Social theory today. (1st ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Weber, M. (1921[1976]). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (1st ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
In this paper, I will review the literature regarding the principal sociological perspectives used in the research on comparative-historical sociology, as well as presenting a survey on the different readings of Weber’s analysis in American sociology that may allow for the creation of explicit empirical models that had better illustrate the dynamic of change in different societies.
There are different theories that attempt to elucidate the diverse aspects of social life (Giddens, A. & Turner, J., 1987), however, a detailed analysis of all those goes beyond the scope of this paper.
Competing Approaches in Comparative-Historical Sociology:
Historical sociology studies the interdependency of historical data with sociological theory in order to explain the dynamic of change in different societies. It applies the historical records and actual evidence from contemporary societies in order to test different hypotheses that, in principle, can be used to predict the course of social advancement. Moreover, the use of comparative methods allows us to ascertain the multicausality of social phenomena through analyzing cases that are similar in many respects while differing in only one or a few instances. The comparative method is one of the tools used for comparing large-scale occurrences of social phenomena (Lachmann, R., 1991; Calhoun, C., 1998).
There are three sociological perspectives that attempt to shed light in a whole range of issues in comparative-historical studies: world system theory, interpretative historical approach, and causal analytic perspective (Kalberg, S., 1994). However, these three theoretical worldviews fail to articulate explicit empirical models leaving some dilemmas that can be elucidated using strategic procedures of research that are inspired by the corpus of Weber’s writings.
World System Theory:
This theory opposes “the way the ways in which social scientific inquiry” has been systematically structured since the middle of the nineteenth century (Wallerstein, I., 1987, pg. 309). Succinctly, this theoretical model establishes that the interconnection in the economic and political arenas tie the world’s countries together (Henslin, J. M., 2005).
The basis for this argument is that the economic, the political and the sociocultural factors are interdependent one another in such a fashion that not valuable examination can isolate them, that is, considering only one factor as variable while holding the others as constant. As a result, this methodology considers that “there is a single set of rules or a single set of constraints within which these various structures operate” (Wallerstein, pg. 313).
This perspective instead of examining historical processes “through the lens of a particular conceptual scheme”, rather it outlines the complexities of a few number of differentiated cases in order to carry out thorough comparisons with the aim of isolate particularity; certainly this “all theory-centered strategy to establish causality” has many critics (Kalberg, pg. 5).
The proponents of this social theory stress structural forces (e.g., class relations, the state, and so forth) at the expense of cultural forces (e.g., family, religion, and the like) to establish multicausality (Kalberg).
They start with abstract conceptualizations and “move in the direction of the concrete” determining, in the process, the “hyper-complex” particularity of historical systems “that accounts plausibly for how they followed a particular concrete historical path” (Wallerstein, pg. 324).
Interpretative Historical Approach:
This approach to the study of comparative-historical sociology stands in opposition to an all-theory-centered strategy to ascertain causality in addition it focuses in the particular case itself, in all its complexity, historical development, and social context (Kalberg).
The adherents to this viewpoint create general causal propositions; they evaluate each “irreducible” historic event in relation to a previously outlined conceptualization, or “theme”, as a theoretical framework, seeking “to compare and contrast cases one with another”.
Thus, causality is conveyed “through a detailed chronicle of events”, and it limits “causal explorations to statements about the case”. In addition, this perspective acknowledges “a full panorama of causal forces” like the Weberian approach (Kalberg, pp. 5-7).
Causal Analytical Perspective:
The basis of this perspective is the detailed analysis of empirical cases, and it stands in opposition to the world system theory.
Also, it differs from the interpretative historical approach because the construction of causal analytic propositions is conducted by “explicit research designs that demarcate sources of variation”, which allows, “to produce valid inferences despite small number of cases” by which causal hypothesis are tested, as well as “generating new explanatory generalizations” (Kalberg, pp. 7-9).
This methodological perspective, along with the world systems and interpretative historical, are the most dominant approaches in the research in comparative-historical sociology. For instance, comparisons and contrasts between successful and failed social revolutions look for the isolation of features commons to the successful cases (Kalberg).
Weber’s Sociology in America:
Weber’s Sociological Foundation:
The foundational components of Weber’s sociology are methodological individualism, four specific types of social action, Vesterhen, and pluralism of motives (Kalberg; Gerth & Mills, C. W., 1946; Giddens, A., 1976; Weber, M., 1921[1976]).
Weber emphasized the individual actors and the potentiality that they have to influence their surroundings. Individuals are not seen as a product of social forces of sort, and the subjective motivations of individuals constitute a “meaning-complex” (Kalberg).
Sociology for Weber, therefore, was defined as the interpretative understanding of social action, or Vesterhen (Kalberg). This German term is characterized as “to have insight into someone’s situation” (Henslin).
The fundamental building block in the analysis of any society is the societal actions performed by individuals, which include a social and subjective meaning. This societal actions involves one of four types of consequential actions (which might be positive or negative), and they are means-end rational, value-rational, affectual, and traditional (Kalberg).
The motives are the causes of action; they orient action through subjective meaning; and Weber highlighted the plurality of motives (Kalberg).
Weber’s approach is considered, then, valid because “it provides a explicit and specific ways of thinking of linking agency and social structure”, and, in doing so, he explained the different ways in which subjective meanings orient actions, demonstrating the relevance of the intensity of those actions, as well as “the contextual constrains and opportunities that surround regular action” (Kalberg).
Weberian Understudies in America:
As posited by Swedberg, R. (2003), there are three typical, or “ideal-typical”, theoretical approaches to research in comparative-historical sociology based on Weber’s writings: traditional or conventional, rational choice, and interest viewpoint.
Each one of them incorporates Weber’s Vesterhen, the plurality of motives, or causes of action, and his view of methodological individualism; but they are distinctive on how they apply these premises.
The traditional viewpoint highlights that values and norms are the principal causes of action. This theoretical approach downplays methodological individualism as enunciated by Weber, although it incorporates the notion of Vesterhen. The adherents of this methodology see history as “a progression in term of rationality” (Swedberg).
Rationalization implies efficiency, calculation, steadiness, logic, and systematization, with the goal of obtaining better profits (Weber; Henslin). Moreover, for Weber, capitalism was “the embodiment of rational impersonality” (Gerth & Mills, pg. 73).
Rationalization in society as a broad social phenomenon is better seen in the context of social structures. Social institutions are relatively unchangeable structures of social patterns, role, and relationships that people establish for satisfying basic social needs (Henslin; Fichter, J., 1961).; and they adopt sanctions and unified means with the objective of increasing efficiency (e.g., systematic growth of bureaucracy, improvement in the methods of bookkeeping, and so forth).
The rational choice viewpoint focuses on historical comparisons. The causes of actions of the individuals are rational choices, that is, the actor makes a rational decision. This perspective downplays the view of Vesterhen, while they see methodological individualism as context-bound (Swedberg). Adherents of this theoretical approach emphasize that it has the potential of increasing the links between substantive domains; while recognizing the imperfections of their proposals to explain a number of social problems, they highlight the fact that the anomalies that may result by using this method are major sources of new ideas for further research (Kiser & Hechter, 1998). This procedure “suggests a radical recasting of Weber’s viewpoint that, to a large extent, has been created after Weber’s death” (Swedberg).
Finally, interest analysis considers the interests of the individual or actor as the driven force of the cause of action. The adherents to this worldview incorporate Vesterhen, and their outlook of methodological individualism is social. The interest analysis is mainly involved in the study of different types of capitalisms (Swedberg).
Summary and Conclusions:
Commenting on Weber’s texts, Kalberg stated, “the task of sociology must always include the construction of theories” (Kalberg, pg. 204). These theories are frameworks that allow us to study analyze social behaviors, and then may the inferences that allow us to predict different outcomes (Henslin; Fichter).
The contentions to Weber’s hypotheses have been multidimensional, ranging from the specificity of the relationship between Calvinistic values and entrepreneurial attitudes, and the understanding of the principal components of Western culture as a whole (Giddens). In addition, it has been argued the emphasis in his investigations of the dominant role that the economic and political institutions plays in any given society, especially ours (Fichter), and the fact that he was not particularly interested in analyzing the problematic aspect of the dynamics of capitalism (Gerth & Mills). Yet, the methodology applied by him, notwithstanding its deficiencies, does not invalidate completely his survey.
The theories of world system, interpretative historical, and causal analysis, do not consider the importance of cultural forces besides the structural, demographic, economical, and even political forces (Kalberg). However, the different interpretations given to Weber’s sociology in America attempt to address those points not considered by the other theorists, even though, that they count with numerous critics (Somers, M. R., 1998; Kalberg).
Nonetheless, we may conclude that cultural factors (e.g., religion, family, and others subjective issues) are necessary in the analysis of social phenomena. In our pluralistic society, for instance, factors such as the individual cultural identity have to be taken into consideration if we seek to explain social issues such as the mobility and assimilation of certain ethnic groups.
As posited by Diop, C. A. (1991), three major factors contribute to the development of cultural identity, and that have to be included in a framework for the systematic study on intercultural relations: historical, linguistic, and psychological. The last variable, the psychological and which forms part of the subjective meanings or Vesterhen advanced by Weber, includes the unchanging relationships that are still present in different societies even after radical sociopolitical upheavals occurring within them (pp. 209-227).
The interdependency among the nations in today’s world because of the process of globalization and the impact that it has in our culture and of how we can predict different outcomes (Isaak, R. A., 2005; Polillo & Guillen, M. F., 2005; Nourzad, F., 2005; Gil, Szelenyi & Townsley, E., 2001; Davis & Robinson, R. V., 1996) makes the research on historical sociology indispensable.
References:
Calhoun, C. (1998). Explanation in historical sociology: Narrative, general theory, and historically specific theory (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Gale Thomson database.
Davis, N. J. & Robinson, R. V. (1996). Are the rumors of war exaggerated? Religious orthodoxy and moral progressivism in America. The American Journal of Sociology, 102 (3). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Diop, C. A. (1991). Civilization and barbarism: An authentic anthropology. (1st. ed.). New York: Lawrence Hill Books.
Fichter, J. H. (1961). Sociology. (6th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W. (1946). Introduction. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1976). Introduction. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (1st ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Giddens, A. & Turner, J. (1987). Introduction. Social theory today. (1st ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gil, E.; Szelenyi, I. & Townsley, E. (2001). The utopia of postsocialist theory and the ironic view of history in neoclassical sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 106 (4). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Goldstone, J. A. (1998). Initial conditions, general laws, path dependence, and explanation in historical sociology (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Henslin, J. M. (2005). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach. (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Isaak, R. A. (2005). The globalization gap: How the rich get richer and the poor get left further behind. (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kalberg, S. (1994). Max Weber’s comparative-historical sociology. (1st. ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. (1998). The debate on historical sociology: Rational choice theory and its critics. The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Lachmann, R. (1991). The Encyclopedic Dictionary of sociology. (4th ed.). Guilford: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Mahoney, J. (2004). Revisiting general theory in historical sociology. Social Forces, 83 (2). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Nourzad, F. (2005). Macroeconomic and sectoral effects of international trade: A vector error-correction study. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33 (1). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Polillo, S. & Guillen, M. F. (2005). Globalization pressures and the state: The worldwide spread of central bank independence (1). The American Journal of Sociology, 110 (6). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Sica, A. (2004) Why “unobservables” cannot save eneral theory: A reply to Mahoney. Social Forces, 83 (2). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.
Somers, M. R. (1998). “We’re no angels”: Realism, rational choice, and relationality in Social Science (1). (Response to Edgar Kiser and Michael Hechter, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 97, p1, 1991). The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from Gale Thomson database.
Swedberg, R. (2003). The changing picture of Max Weber’s sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 29. Retrieved May 21, 2006, from Infotrac database.
Wallerstein, I. (1987). World-systems analysis. Social theory today. (1st ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Weber, M. (1921[1976]). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (1st ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
posted by O. Azkue at 4:57 PM
0 comments
