Ideas in Exile: Refugees from Nazi Germany and the Failure to Transplant Historical Sociology into the United States

Abstract

This paper examines the reasons for the variable incidence and differing forms of historical sociology in several different historical periods, with a focus on Germany and the USA. It examines the flows of social scientists between those two countries due to forced exile from Nazi Germany, the American military occupation after 1945, and the voluntary exchange of scholars. The article focuses on extrascientific determinants such as political support for historical scholarship and macrosocial crisis or stability, as well as determinants that are more proximate or internal to the scientific field, such as the ongoing struggle between different epistemologies and the ability of historical sociology to sequester itself into a protected subfield. Historical sociology was one of the two poles of German sociology before 1933, whereas historical sociology had only a handful of proponents in the USA at that time. After 1933, the majority of German historical sociologists went into exile, most of them to the USA. For reasons explored here, the historical orientation of these exiled intellectuals had little resonance in the USA until the 1970s. Rather than being epistemologically "domesticated" in the 1980s, as Calhoun (1996) argued, historical sociology established itself as a subfield that is large enough to produce an internal polarization between an autonomous pole that relates mainly to history and other external allies and a heteronomous pole that mimics the protocols that dominate the sociological discipline as a whole, including a neopositivist epistemology of "covering laws" and at attraction to rational choice theory and quantitative methods, or qualitative simulacra of multivariate statistical analysis. In Germany, historical sociology failed to survive the Nazi period. Several leading Weimar-era historical sociologists stayed in Germany after 1933 but were unable to reestablish their prominence either because of their Nazi collaboration or because their work was dismissed by a new generation trained during the Nazi period for presentist, policy-oriented, "American-style", or else trained in the USA after the war. The handful of exiled historical sociologists who returned to Germany after 1945 were marginalized, stopped working historically, or moved into other disciplines like Political Science. The explanation of these trends has to be multicausal and conjunctural. The influx of historical sociologists to the USA from Germany was unable to produce a historicization of the discipline until 1970s, when positivist hegemony was challenged for other reasons. The crisis of Fordism undermined the social regularities that had made positivist "constant conjunctions" seem plausible and at the same time rendered historicist ontologies more plausible. The neo-Marxist historical sociology gave rise to a neo-institutionalist countertrend, which was itself eventually countered by a culturalist and conjuncturalist turn (Adams et al. 2005). In Germany, however, the society-wide destabilization of Fordism did not lead ...

Charles Tilly, German Historicism, and the Critical Realist Philosophy of Science

“…22 Manheim was not correct in suggesting that historicism was hegemonic within Weimar-era sociology, but it definitely was the dominant pole in the disciplinary field before 1933 (Aron 1935). Historical sociology's leading position in Weimar sociology was confirmed by Hughes (1977: 293, 325), and is demonstrated in more detail in Steinmetz (2010). On criticism of historicism in Weimar social thought see Myers (2003).…”

“…Although Tilly was by no means the first sociologist to base his work on historical documents, 2 he was the central figure in the (re)introduction of historical sensibilities and methods into American sociology, starting in the 1960s and 1970s. Tilly reinvigorated a historical project inside sociology that had been largely dormant since the 1930s, when an entire generation of several dozen émigré historical sociologists from Germany failed to transfer their epistemological program into the American sociological discipline (Steinmetz 2008(Steinmetz , 2010. Beginning with his Ph.D. dissertation in 1958 (Tilly 1958), Tilly's work was based heavily on archival documents and primary printed sources (Tilly and Stave 1998: 190).…”

Social fields, subfields and social spaces at the scale of empires: explaining the colonial state and colonial sociology

“…A subfield is a differentiation internal to a field (Steinmetz, , ). A subfield shares certain features with its environing field while differing in other ways.…”

Thirty Years of Thesis Eleven: a Survey of the Record and Questions for the Future

“…This signifi ed a non-evolutionary theoretical analysis and interpretation of the unique event, construed as an historical individual (historisches Individuum; see Oakes, 1987;Borch, 1955;Kruse, 1999). Despite the emigration of refugee historical sociologists to the United States after 1933, however, historical sociology only emerged there as a sizable subfi eld during the 1970s (Steinmetz, 2008(Steinmetz, , 2009. After a brief period during the 1970s in which sociologists and historians interacted on more or less equal terms, the sociologists decided they could do without historians except as data-providers.…”