Page 23 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 23
1.3 Interdisciplinary Aspects of the Study
planation, between the occurrence of events and the definition of causes’
are examples of the fundamental problems of social theory (Ascione &
Chambers, 2016, p. 302). Zwitter (1937, p. 507) and Smith (2011, pp. 12–
13) criticised sociologists on the grounds that their theories do not rely
enough on the knowledge of historical sources and their ability to criti-
cally evaluate them. Some sociologists and historians insisted that social
relationships must be understood historically, in action (Abrams, 1980,
p. 6). The temporal component is recognised in social analyses, as can
be seen from publications of some recognised sociologists like Weber or
Giddens (p. 13),¹⁸ which has enabled the development of historical soci-
ology.
An interesting perspective is that of Giddens, who sees ‘no logical or
even methodological distinctions between the social sciences and history,’
although this is not generally accepted (Abrams, 1980, p. 14; Steinmetz,
2011, p. 46; Šubrt, 2012, p. 403). Similar views can be found in Čarni (2012,
pp. 27–28), who argues that both history and sociology examine human
society wholly or in terms of interconnectedness of (all) social phenom-
ena and processes; the difference between them is in generalisation – so-
ciology is marked with this, while history is not and is focused on the
particular, individual and unique (Čarni, 2012, pp. 28–29; Šubrt, 2012, p.
404; Zwitter, 1937, p. 499). Hence, Durkheim is also very much alike in his
thoughts when claiming that ‘sociology and history are destined to merge
into a common discipline where the elements of both become combined
and unified’ (Steinmetz, 2011, p. 45); this is also claimed by Zwitter (1937,
pp. 501–503), who says that Durkheim wishes to sociologise history. The
introduction of quantitative techniques to historiography¹⁹ has actually
brought sociology and history closer together – see Kiser and Hechter
(1998, p. 786).
On the global level, recruitment to historical sociology corresponds
to the beginning of the development of memory studies – see Confino
(1997, p. 1395), Olick and Robbins (1998, pp. 107–108) and Timmins (2013).
¹⁸ As well as in the works of Marx, Durkheim, de Tocqueville, Homans, Merton, Bellah,
Lipset, Tilly, Banks, Eisenstadt, Bendix, Moore, and Smelser (Calhoun, 1996, p. 305); see
also Smith (2011), Šubrt (2012), and Šubrt and Cassling (2001).
¹⁹ More can be found in Anderson (2007, pp. 254–256), where all from the simplest descrip-
tive to the more complex bivariate and multivariate techniques of statistics, borrowed
heavily from sociology, political science, demography and economics, are identified as
suitable tools necessary for quantitative analysis. Some thoughts can be found also in
Zwitter (1937, p. 504).
23
planation, between the occurrence of events and the definition of causes’
are examples of the fundamental problems of social theory (Ascione &
Chambers, 2016, p. 302). Zwitter (1937, p. 507) and Smith (2011, pp. 12–
13) criticised sociologists on the grounds that their theories do not rely
enough on the knowledge of historical sources and their ability to criti-
cally evaluate them. Some sociologists and historians insisted that social
relationships must be understood historically, in action (Abrams, 1980,
p. 6). The temporal component is recognised in social analyses, as can
be seen from publications of some recognised sociologists like Weber or
Giddens (p. 13),¹⁸ which has enabled the development of historical soci-
ology.
An interesting perspective is that of Giddens, who sees ‘no logical or
even methodological distinctions between the social sciences and history,’
although this is not generally accepted (Abrams, 1980, p. 14; Steinmetz,
2011, p. 46; Šubrt, 2012, p. 403). Similar views can be found in Čarni (2012,
pp. 27–28), who argues that both history and sociology examine human
society wholly or in terms of interconnectedness of (all) social phenom-
ena and processes; the difference between them is in generalisation – so-
ciology is marked with this, while history is not and is focused on the
particular, individual and unique (Čarni, 2012, pp. 28–29; Šubrt, 2012, p.
404; Zwitter, 1937, p. 499). Hence, Durkheim is also very much alike in his
thoughts when claiming that ‘sociology and history are destined to merge
into a common discipline where the elements of both become combined
and unified’ (Steinmetz, 2011, p. 45); this is also claimed by Zwitter (1937,
pp. 501–503), who says that Durkheim wishes to sociologise history. The
introduction of quantitative techniques to historiography¹⁹ has actually
brought sociology and history closer together – see Kiser and Hechter
(1998, p. 786).
On the global level, recruitment to historical sociology corresponds
to the beginning of the development of memory studies – see Confino
(1997, p. 1395), Olick and Robbins (1998, pp. 107–108) and Timmins (2013).
¹⁸ As well as in the works of Marx, Durkheim, de Tocqueville, Homans, Merton, Bellah,
Lipset, Tilly, Banks, Eisenstadt, Bendix, Moore, and Smelser (Calhoun, 1996, p. 305); see
also Smith (2011), Šubrt (2012), and Šubrt and Cassling (2001).
¹⁹ More can be found in Anderson (2007, pp. 254–256), where all from the simplest descrip-
tive to the more complex bivariate and multivariate techniques of statistics, borrowed
heavily from sociology, political science, demography and economics, are identified as
suitable tools necessary for quantitative analysis. Some thoughts can be found also in
Zwitter (1937, p. 504).
23
