Mathieu Deflem Google Scholar | ResearchGate | ORCID
and
April Lee DoveThis is a copy of a paper in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Donatella Della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Also available in PDF format.
Also reprinted in the encyclopedia's second edition, 2023 (Volume 3, pp. 980-983).
Please cite as: Deflem, Mathieu, and April Lee Dove. 2013. "Historical Research and Social Movements." Pp. 560-563 in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, Volume 2, edited by David A. Snow, Donatella Della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
The use of historical research methods in modern sociology has
been largely conditioned by the relative popularity of the specialty area of
(comparative-)historical sociology, despite the relative autonomy of
methodological orientation and substantive research themes. Any discussion of
historical research, whether in the specialty area of social movements research
or in sociology more generally, must therefore proceed from the place of
history in sociology and embark on an always difficult quest, for intellectual
and institutional reasons alike. to delineate the boundaries between the
scholarly tradition of history, on the one hand, and sociology, on the other
(Burke 1980; Tilly 1981).
History and Sociology
The science of sociology has historically emanated from the
European traditions of social philosophy that, during the classical period
built on the ideals of the Enlightenment, relied upon history to move away from
speculative thought towards substantiate normative prescriptions on the basis
of historical accounts of the evolution of social life. Until the late 19th century,
these historically-based social philosophies were typically framed in terms of
an evolutionary framework denoting increasing complexity, linked up to the
growth of industry, individualism, and related manifestations of modernization.
Evolutionism in social philosophy found its sharpest expression in the
historical materialism of Karl Marx.
In classical sociology, evolutionary models stretched the spectrum
of thought from Ferdinand Tönnies to Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Tönnies (1935)
suggested a societal development from small-scale agricultural communities (Gemeinschaft) to the complex industrial
societies of his days (Gesellschaft).
Durkheim (1893) transformed the Marxian sketch of an increasing division of
labor from a narrow economic focus to a more encompassing social development
that was primarily shaped by cultural changes concerning the relation between
individual and society. And Weber (1922) characterized the modern age in terms
of an increasing reliance on purposive-rational models of thought that were
preoccupied with considerations of efficiency.
Despite the centrality of history in classical sociology, modern
sociology was initially not receptive to the use of historical research. Among
the reasons, sociology was understood to be a science of the present, while
history was the study of the past. Sociologists themselves, more importantly,
understood some of the European building blocks of sociology as implying a
static view. The work of Durkheim, most tragically, was misunderstood on the
basis of its orientation towards functional analysis (Tilly 1981), rather than
its more comprehensive attention towards function as well as cause (Durkheim
1895).
Whereas the classics argued implicitly or explicitly that all
sociology is by necessity of a (comparative-)historical nature, it was not
until the growing popularity of Marxist sociology, especially by the generation
of sociologists that came of age during the 1960s, that a (re)turn towards
historical sociology became possible (Adams, Clemens, and Orloff 2005).
Rejecting the evolutionism of old, this second wave of historical sociology
focused on the contradictions of the modern political economy and the
centrality of the state. Ironically, this development overlooked the historical
fact that virtually all of the important classic scholars worked in an
essential (comparative-)historical framework. Yet, whatever its roots, the
development of historical research in sociology has since been subject to
developments not uncharacteristic of other movements.
Historical Methods in
Sociology
From a methodological viewpoint, the
rigid separation of history as idiographic (particularizing) and sociology as
nomothetic (generalizing) disciplines has serious consequences that can be, and
have been, overcome by premising that all topics of inquiry, whether historical
or sociological, can only be presented within analytically relevant models that
posit those topics as relatively unique or, conversely, representative of
broader patterns. The very conception of history as the descriptive analysis of
concrete events is antithetical to sociology as a theoretically driven social
science. The most central insight remains that historical sociology is not a
mere study of the past but an intrinsic part of a sociology of the present: in
order to explain the structures of contemporary societies, one must investigate
their historical origins and development.
Arguably as a result of the march of
survey research and the advance of techniques of statistical data analysis, the
anti-modernization and anti-quantification tendencies of modern (and
contemporary) historical sociology have been methodologically attacked because
of its reliance on the study of a limited number of cases (small-N research)
and the logical limitations associated with comparisons of variables associated
with real-life events. Nevertheless, the methodology of historical sociology
can be systematized in terms of both its strategies and data collection
techniques.
Various strategies can be used in
historical research to link theory and research questions with an appropriate
methodology (Skocpol and Somers 1980). In the parallel investigation of a
particular sociological theory, propositions can be examined in various
historical contexts in order to demonstrate or falsify that various cases are
to be conceived as different modalities of a more general process. By
interpreting contrasting events, alternatively, it is endeavored to analyze
specific historical events in terms of their unique composition and meaning,
such as it is associated with the sociological perspective in the Weberian
tradition of Verstehen
(understanding). By analyzing causalities at the macro level, the Millean
method of difference and of agreement can be relied upon, not as an explanatory
model, but to systematically present cases subject to further exploration.
The methods of data collection and
investigation in historical research involve the empirical examination of the
traces the past has left behind in the present, including material artifacts,
written and/or otherwise recorded sources (both primary and secondary), and
oral history. In a most ideal and systematic case, the procedure of historical
inquiry involves at least four stages. First, relevant sources have to be
identified, found, and selected. Special problems are thereby posed in terms of
availability, when materials are lost, and access, when available sources
cannot be accessed because of physical or social obstacles (e.g., classified
government documents). Second, on the basis of formal and substantive criteria
related to research needs, sources are registered and classified in preparation
of further analysis. Third, the collected sources are subjected to critique and
confrontation to determine their authenticity and accuracy in portraying social
events. Fourth, as indicated by the variety of strategies that exists in
historical sociology, analysis can proceed in multiple directions, involving
qualitative or quantitative methods, interpretive or explanatory perspectives,
in a structured or unstructured framework with deductive (theory-testing) or
inductive (theory-construction) objectives.
Historical Research on Social Movements
The very term ‘movement’ presumes the relevance of history,
involving change and/or continuity. It would therefore alone seem indispensable
for sociologists of social movements to engage in historical research. Yet, as
one manifestation of the relative specialization of historical sociology, the
modern sociology of social movements is also subject to the trends that have
shaped the discipline in general, leading to much research on what movements
are and do, rather than where they come from and what they have done.
Nonetheless, it is also true that historical research has been put to good use
in the study of social movements (Clemens and Hughes 2002; Marx and McAdam
1994).
A useful distinction can be made between the internal and the
external history of social movements. An examination of the internal history of
a social movement concerns the development over time of the movement itself. At
least two components are thereby important to consider. First, with respect to
movement institutionalization and planning, social movements can be
distinguished from more informal manifestations of collective behavior by a
variety of formal characters such as the formulation of membership criteria and
the routinization of activities. With respect to movement emergence, a focus on
internal history includes questions concerning members, activities, and
outcomes. Second, as distinct from more ephemeral episodes of collective
behavior, social movements are also more structured to enable a more prolonged,
ideally permanent existence as an established and recognized entity. Relevant
questions pertain to movement maturation, transformation, and possible
dissolution. Attention can go to both relatively short intervals of time (e.g.,
weekend versus working days) and longer periods of historical time (e.g.,
before, during, and after a period of war).
The external history of social movements refers to the surrounding
societal conditions in which they formed and transformed. In this respect,
minimal attention should go to the economic, political, cultural, and normative
contexts in which social movements emerged and have evolved. It can be safely
assumed that those contexts are important in accounting for questions of
movement formation and transformation, although it should also be addressed if
and how movements in turn have affected their surrounding environments. It is
also important to recognize that aspects of a movement’s internal and external
history may be mutually influential.
The data sources to be investigated to answer relevant questions
of movement history can be derived from organizations as well as individuals.
Organizations can provide useful data because social movements exhibit at least
some degree of institutionalization and invoke responses from other
organizations, such as countermovements, media, and government agencies.
Individual-level data can come from members of a movement and its various
proponents and opponents.
Summary
The main limitation of historical research, most obviously, is
that the past can be revealed only inasmuch as, and in the manner in which, it
is still present today, thus posing important problems of validity.
Sociologists interested primarily in the testing of their theories, rather than
in the analysis of important social events, will therefore favor other
methodologies whereby data can be generated. Alternatively, the unobtrusive nature
of historical research may be seen as the main advantage of the methodology, as
the research enterprise itself cannot affect its subject matter.
However, apart from questions of methodological rigor, the
relevance of historical research to our knowledge of social events is easily
demonstrated. Suppose that at a given moment in time a particular social
community exhibits a particular level of commitment from its members in the
cause advocated by a social movement. What can be known about such a commitment
without knowledge of its development over time is severely limited, as its
level may have decreased sharply or, on the contrary, increased dramatically
from before, with all kinds of variations in between. Only historical research
can unravel such sociological questions that ponder on the conditions of
society as emanating from a historical process of change and continuity.
References and Selected Readings
- Adams, J., Clemens, E.S. & Orloff, A. (2005) Introduction. In Adams, J., Clemens, E.S. & Orloff, A. (eds.) Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1-72.
- Bonnell, V.E. (1980) The uses of theory, concepts and comparison in historical sociology. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22, 156-173.
- Burke, P. (1980) Sociology and History. London: George Allen & Unwin.
- Clemens, E.S. & Hughes, M.D. (2002) Recovering past protest: historical research on social movements. In Klandermans, B. & Staggenborg, S. (eds.) Methods of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 201-230.
- Durkheim, Emile. ([1893] 1984). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.
- Durkheim, Emile. ([1895] 1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.
- Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. (1991) The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology 97(1), 1-30.
- Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) (2003) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Marx, G.T. & McAdam, D. (1994) Collective Behavior and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Pitt, D.C. (1972) Using Historical Sources in Anthropology and Sociology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Quadagno, J. & Knapp, S.J. (1992) Have historical sociologists forsaken theory? Sociological Methods & Research 20, 481-507.
- Skocpol, T. & Somers, M. 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22, 174-197.
- Skocpol, T. (ed.) (1985) Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Tilly, C. (1981) As Sociology Meets History. New York: Academic Press.
- Tönnies, F. ([1935] 1940) Fundamental Concepts of Sociology (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). New York: American Book Company.
- Weber, M. ([1922] 1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
