A Systematic View on the Use of History for Current Debates in Sociology, and on the Potential and Problems of a Historical Epistemology of Sociology

Abstract

For various reasons, among them changes in the global higher education regime and competitive knowledge claims from other disciplines, the field of the history of sociology (HoS) has experienced an increased pressure to justify its own existence during the last decade. Positing that the best approach to justify the existence of a thing is to show its usefulness, the article discusses four types of claims to usefulness made by historians of sociology. The history of sociology can be said to be relevant in (I) shaping and maintaining the discipline’s identity; (II) in providing a rich fund of teaching future sociologists; (III) in informing current research and theorizing; and (IV) in reflecting more broadly on the cultural status of sociology in modern societies. The article then assesses the potential and problems of aspiring a historical epistemology of sociology, a proposal made recently especially in German and Anglophone contexts to link the history of science with its philosophy in the sense described as type III. It concludes that selected principles or ideas of historical epistemology can be very fruitfully applied in HoS. However, the project of transferring the whole program of historical epistemology into HoS is bound to fail. Nonetheless, there is plenty of reason to continue conceiving of HoS as an integral part of sociology.

Dialogues between Sociology and History

“…However, why is this relationship between Sociology and History not more fruitful? The establishment and institutionalisation of scientific disciplines was, and is, a social process characterised by ambivalence and indeterminacy in the (re)formulation of their identity (Charry Joya, 2017;Dayé , 2018;Serpa, Ferreira, & Santos, 2017;Herná ndez Cordero, 2013;Gould, 2019;Steinmetz, 2017). Among the reasons for the separation between these two academic fields, factors such as scientific differences (epistemological and methodological) but also political factors, professional identity, the social space sought, the increase and maintenance of their autonomy, and institutionalisation of the two scientific disciplines were relevant (Kirschner, 2014;Javeau, 1998;Charry Joya, 2017;Torres, 2012;Castillo Alonso, 2018), although an imperialist perspective on one of these disciplines over the other is no longer advocated (Zubirí a, 2015).…”

Sociology and History: Contained Dialogues

“…However, what is the reason why this relationship between Sociology and History is not more fruitful? The constitution and institutionalization of scientific disciplines was, and is, a social process marked by ambivalence and indeterminacy in the (re)formulation of the respective identity (Charry Joya, 2017;Dayé, 2018;Serpa, Ferreira, & Santos, 2017;Hernández Cordero, 2013;Gould, 2019;Steinmetz, 2017). Of the reasons for the separation between these two academic fields, factors such as scientific differences (epistemological and methodological) but also political factors, professional identity, the social space sought, the increase and maintenance of their autonomy, and the institutionalisation of the two scientific disciplines were relevant (Kirschner, 2014;Javeau, 1998;Charry Joya, 2017;Torres, 2012;Castillo Alonso, 2018), although an imperialist perspective of one of these disciplines over the other was no longer defended (Zubiría, 2015).…”

Two decades of European criminology: Exploring the conferences of the European Society of Criminology through topic modelling

“…We argue that it is vital to understand how European criminology has developed over time. Not only does engaging with how a discipline evolves allow us to identify, shape and maintain its identity but it is also instructive for training and teaching the discipline to future generations as well as informing current disciplinary practice (Dayé, 2018). Furthermore, it allows us to reflect on the discipline’s status in contemporary society.…”