**4. Contemporary historical comparative sociology**

In the development of contemporary historical comparative sociology a significant role is accorded to the left-oriented Barrington Moore (1913 - 2005), who worked as an expert on modern Russian history at Harvard University. Moore is the author of *The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy* [1967 (1966)], in which he presents analysis based on loose comparisons of historical events in England, the United States, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and China across the centuries. Moore focuses his attention primarily on the nature of violent clashes through which the formation of national states took place. The main actors in these conflicts are considered to form the bourgeoisie, especially the peasant classes and groups of landowners.

culture is a result of conflicts from the past, shaped by the elites who have alternated

Another credit for the approximation of sociology and history can be given to researchers starting from Parsons' structural functionalism. In 1957 [1969] Robert Neelly Bellah published a book called *Tokugawa Religion*, attempting to reveal the Japanese equivalent of the Protestant Ethic. Neil Smelser in his book *Social Change in the Industrial Revolution* [1959] focused on the problem of social change based on the example of the development of cotton industry during the English industrial revolution. Interest in the historical perspective can also be found in the writing of Seymour Martin Lipset (*The First New Nation* [1963]). In the 60's Talcott Parsons developed the theory of social evolution based on the concept of the increasing adaptive capacity of the system through functional differentiation, in publications such as *Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective* [1971a (1966)]) and *The* 

Only in the mid-1970s was wide recognition garnered by the two-volume work *Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation* [1976], created by Norbert Elias in the period before the World War II. The author presents the findings of his "psychogenetic" and "sociogenetic" investigation which resulted in two related theories: the theory of civilization, covering historical changes in personality and behaviour (Part 1), and the theory of state formation (Part 2). Subsequently others of Elias' books were pubished [1983, 2006], including a rich secondary

From the perspective of historical sociology, Elias' approaches are said to be complemented by the studies of Michel Foucault focused on historical changes of power and knowledge and the relationship between them [1999, 2000]. The "German Foucault" is sometimes said to be historian Reinhart Koselleck, who deals with the history of concepts - *Begriffsgeschichte* [2006] and who as editor oversaw the creation of the monumental eight-volume work *Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe* [1972-1997]. British historian Peter Burke [1989, 2007] meanwhile, operates on the border between the history of culture and sociology of knowledge. We may also assign many of the works of Ernest Gellner to this field, especially those focused on issues of nationalism [1993, 2002] and general questions of the structure of human history (*Plough, Sword and Book* [2001]). Books by these authors have an interdisciplinary character and show how- by simply stepping over narrow disciplinary boundaries – we can obtain fresh knowledge. Such interdisciplinary approaches are now becoming a hallmark of

In the development of contemporary historical comparative sociology a significant role is accorded to the left-oriented Barrington Moore (1913 - 2005), who worked as an expert on modern Russian history at Harvard University. Moore is the author of *The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy* [1967 (1966)], in which he presents analysis based on loose comparisons of historical events in England, the United States, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and China across the centuries. Moore focuses his attention primarily on the nature of violent clashes through which the formation of national states took place. The main actors in these conflicts are considered to form the bourgeoisie, especially the peasant classes and

leadership.

literature.

*System of Modern Societies* [1971b].

contemporary historical sociology.

groups of landowners.

**4. Contemporary historical comparative sociology** 

In his analysis Moore distinguished three historical paths leading to modern society. The first is bourgeois revolution (the case of England, France, the United States), the second is conservative revolution (Prussia, Japan), the third peasant revolution (Russia, China). Moore points out that the course and outcome of these revolutions anticipates the further development of these countries, heading either towards democracy (revolution in England in the 17th century, the French Revolution in 1789 and the American Civil War from 1860 to 1866), or to fascism (revolution "from above" in Germany and Japan); or to a communist dictatorship ("peasant" revolutions in Russia in 1917 and in China in 1948-1949). Although Barrington Moore was a type of scholar-solitaire, who participated little in academic life, his works became a very important source of inspiration for the next generation of researchers. Notable among Moore's students are Ch. Tilly and T. Skocpol, representing the so-called "new historical sociology" [Spohn 2005].

Theda Skocpol (\*1947), American political scientist and sociologist, published her most famous work *States and Social Revolutions* in 1979. She understands social revolution as a rapid basic transformation of society and class structure, accompanied by and largely carried out through a class revolt from below [Skocpol 1979: 33]. She claims that revolution arose as an unintended result of multiple conflicts shaped by a complex of socio-economic and international conditions. In her work, Skocpol focuses on three specific cases: the French Revolution in 1789; the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Chinese Revolution in 1949, whose completion was preceded by a long civil war. Despite the considerable diversity of these revolutions, according to the author they had features in common. Revolutions occur in countries that are disadvantaged in some way, whose ruling structure is internally inconsistent and fails to respond effectively to existing challenges.

All three countries, Skocpol argues, were characterized by the backwardness of the agrarian sector, coupled with the inability to move to more productive farming. In all three cases there was widespread rebellion in the lower classes, especially among the peasantry. Furthermore the old regime had to face sudden changes in neighbouring states that wielded greater economic and military power and all three countries went through a series of military defeats shortly before their revolutions. Skocpol attributed great significance to mutual relations between states, and international conditions, thus drifting from the ideas about the process of revolutions formulated by her teacher Barrington Moore, while also contributing to the further development of historical comparative sociology (see also [Skocpol 1985]).

The most prominent of Moore's pupils was Charles Tilly (1929-2008), in whose literary inheritance one can find more than 50 books. Tilly was expert in three related areas. He was engaged in the analysis of social movements, protests and violent behaviour (the lion's share of his works), he developed a theory of historical sociology and was also the author of comparative historical overviews. At the very beginning of his professional career was publication of the book *Vendée* [1973 (1964)], which dealt with the rebellion in West France seaside area in 1793, interpreted as a desperate and doomed attempt by a broad rural strata to defeat an urban revolution. Tilly, like Moore and Skocpol, spoke to the problems of revolutions [1978]. For Tilly, collective forced action results from a combination of four factors, including common group interests, an organization with specific organizational structure, mobilization of group resources and opportunity associated with specific situational constellations ripe for exploitation.

History and Sociology: What is Historical Sociology? 413

by a number of authors (among others, Skocpol) and since the 1990's it has been considered

An important chapter of contemporary historical sociology is so-called comparative civilizational analysis, whose main representative is Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt (1923-2000) Other authors include Jaroslav Krejci [2002], who focused on the long-term development of civilizations, taking inspiration from the works of British historian Arnold J. Toynbee. Jóhann Páll Árnason [2003, 2005] has been engaged in the relationship between the

Eisenstadt's sociological work is notable for its synthesizing and interdisciplinary character. Eisenstadt was initially influenced by the structural functionalism of Talcott Parsons. The major work of his creative period is the book *The Political System of Empires* (1963 [1963]), in which he deals with large pre-industrial societies, particularly those described as "historical bureaucratic empires". In the next phase of his research, Eisenstadt diverted from structural functionalism and the starting point of his thinking became the term *axial age (Achsenzeit),* borrowed from the German philosopher Karl Jaspers. The axial age means the period from 8th century BC to the 2nd century BC, in which new revolutionary thought appeared: Plato's philosophy in the West and the prophets of Israel, which were followed by Christianity, Zoroastrianism in Persia, Buddhism in India and Confucianism and Taoism in China. For Eisenstadt this is the starting point for a reassessment of the question of the economic ethics of world religions dealt with by Max Weber. The axial age allows Eisenstadt to carry out a systematic comparative analysis of the potential for change of various civilizations [1986, 1987, 1992a, b, c, d] and at the same time opens the way to the development of the concept of

The concept of multiple modernities contrasts totalitarian notions with the widespread conception that modernization can have only one single (western) form. From this perspective Eisenstadt intervened in the discussions which took place around Fukuyama's *The End of History and the Last Man* [2006 (1992)], and Huntington's book *Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order* [1996]. He criticized Fukuyama's naivism by saying that Fukuyama associates modernization with Westernization, and also Huntington's

Eisenstadt believes that Western patterns of modernity do not present a single "authentic" modernity, though they play the role of historical precedent and continue to be the essential reference point for others. He is of the opinion that in today's world we find manifestations of miscellaneous, mutually competing modernization orientation patterns, which come in

Prevailing contemporary historical sociology outlines big, ambitious projects of an interdisciplinary nature (Skocpol, Tilly, Mann, Wallerstein, Eisenstadt), oriented towards large-scale comparative analysis pursuing global perspectives over long time intervals. The entire field, however, is certainly not exhausted by these projects. There are also a number of specific research areas [Bühl 2003, Delanty 2003, Schützeichel 2004, Šubrt 2007], including for instance the problems of collective mentalities, habits and emotions, social memory, historical consciousness and cultural trauma. Historical sociology today is a diverse discipline that makes an effort to elaborate general theory, has a number of special theories, ranges in specialized directions and develops research on the empirical level as well. This

in contemporary theories of globalization.

development of civilization and modernization.

multiple modernities [2000, 2003, 2006a, b, 2007].

essentialism that sees civilizations as primordially given entities.

connection with the cultures of the axial and also non-axial civilizations.

Tilly's works of a synthetic nature include *Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons* [1984] aimed at assessing major events in the field of comparative historical sociology, and especially the work *Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990-1990* [1995] in which the author asks how the formation of modern states and economies in Europe took place from the early Middle Ages. Unlike authors expressing Marxist positions (Perry Anderson [1979], Immanuel Wallerstein [1974, 1980, 1989]), who unilaterally emphasize the importance of economic processes, Tilly sees a second and major factor in the field of the formation and concentration of military power.

Besides Skocpol and Tilly the third key person in the so-called new historical sociology is Michael Mann (\* 1942), author of the monumental two-volume work *The Sources of Social Power* [1986, 1993] focused on the development in the area of social power and power configurations, who in the year [2005] published the work *The Dark Side of Democracy* dedicated to the issue of genocide. Mann [1986, 1993] sees social power as created by four basic sources. These are called the IEMP model: Ideological, Economic, Military, and Political power. Political and military power can be summarized under the concept of geopolitical power.

Mann follows the development of social power, thus defined, from the time of Mesopotamia (i.e. 5000 BC) to the beginning of international capitalism in north-western Europe in the 17th and 18th century. He notes in different historical contexts various combinations of distinct types of power. According to Mann, two types of power configuration have recurred in the course of history . One is empires with a dominant position of military power - empires of domination (an example is the Roman Empire); the second is civilizations with multiple power players (multi-power-actor-civilization), acting not only in military and political, but also in economic and ideological fields (the city states of ancient Greece, for example).

While empires based on the dominant position of military power tended to crumble and decentralize, civilizations with multiple power players evolved towards greater centralization. Arising from multiple historical circumstances, in Mann's view there was a gradual shift of the centre of power North-West from Mesopotamia and Egypt, across Greece and Rome to Western Europe, which in the 18th century became closely linked by four institutional orders: capitalist economy, industrialism, the nation state and multinational geopolitical diplomatic civilization [1986:471], and thanks to this became a form of civilization with multiple power players.

Another large synthetic historical-sociological concept is world system theory, which was formulated outside the field of the so-called new historical sociology. Analysis of the world system, whose main representative is Immanuel Wallerstein (\* 1930), developed primarily from two sources of inspiration; one is neo-Marxism with its theory of dependence (dependency theory), originating with Wallerstein, and the other is the conception of historical science, originating with Fernand Braudel .

Wallerstein [1974, 1980, 1989] characterizes the world system as a territorial system interconnected by economic ties. This system, marked by inequality and exploitation, links on the basis of economic exchange - the rich, developed countries of the so called *core,* with the poor, undeveloped periphery and semi-periphery countries. The author analyzes how this system developed in cyclic phases from the 15th century to the present, as periods of growth alternated with periods of depression. Wallerstein's concept was critically discussed

Tilly's works of a synthetic nature include *Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons* [1984] aimed at assessing major events in the field of comparative historical sociology, and especially the work *Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990-1990* [1995] in which the author asks how the formation of modern states and economies in Europe took place from the early Middle Ages. Unlike authors expressing Marxist positions (Perry Anderson [1979], Immanuel Wallerstein [1974, 1980, 1989]), who unilaterally emphasize the importance of economic processes, Tilly sees a second and major factor in the field of the formation and

Besides Skocpol and Tilly the third key person in the so-called new historical sociology is Michael Mann (\* 1942), author of the monumental two-volume work *The Sources of Social Power* [1986, 1993] focused on the development in the area of social power and power configurations, who in the year [2005] published the work *The Dark Side of Democracy* dedicated to the issue of genocide. Mann [1986, 1993] sees social power as created by four basic sources. These are called the IEMP model: Ideological, Economic, Military, and Political power. Political and military power can be summarized under the concept of

Mann follows the development of social power, thus defined, from the time of Mesopotamia (i.e. 5000 BC) to the beginning of international capitalism in north-western Europe in the 17th and 18th century. He notes in different historical contexts various combinations of distinct types of power. According to Mann, two types of power configuration have recurred in the course of history . One is empires with a dominant position of military power - empires of domination (an example is the Roman Empire); the second is civilizations with multiple power players (multi-power-actor-civilization), acting not only in military and political, but also in economic and ideological fields (the city states of ancient Greece, for example).

While empires based on the dominant position of military power tended to crumble and decentralize, civilizations with multiple power players evolved towards greater centralization. Arising from multiple historical circumstances, in Mann's view there was a gradual shift of the centre of power North-West from Mesopotamia and Egypt, across Greece and Rome to Western Europe, which in the 18th century became closely linked by four institutional orders: capitalist economy, industrialism, the nation state and multinational geopolitical diplomatic civilization [1986:471], and thanks to this became a

Another large synthetic historical-sociological concept is world system theory, which was formulated outside the field of the so-called new historical sociology. Analysis of the world system, whose main representative is Immanuel Wallerstein (\* 1930), developed primarily from two sources of inspiration; one is neo-Marxism with its theory of dependence (dependency theory), originating with Wallerstein, and the other is the conception of

Wallerstein [1974, 1980, 1989] characterizes the world system as a territorial system interconnected by economic ties. This system, marked by inequality and exploitation, links on the basis of economic exchange - the rich, developed countries of the so called *core,* with the poor, undeveloped periphery and semi-periphery countries. The author analyzes how this system developed in cyclic phases from the 15th century to the present, as periods of growth alternated with periods of depression. Wallerstein's concept was critically discussed

concentration of military power.

form of civilization with multiple power players.

historical science, originating with Fernand Braudel .

geopolitical power.

by a number of authors (among others, Skocpol) and since the 1990's it has been considered in contemporary theories of globalization.

An important chapter of contemporary historical sociology is so-called comparative civilizational analysis, whose main representative is Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt (1923-2000) Other authors include Jaroslav Krejci [2002], who focused on the long-term development of civilizations, taking inspiration from the works of British historian Arnold J. Toynbee. Jóhann Páll Árnason [2003, 2005] has been engaged in the relationship between the development of civilization and modernization.

Eisenstadt's sociological work is notable for its synthesizing and interdisciplinary character. Eisenstadt was initially influenced by the structural functionalism of Talcott Parsons. The major work of his creative period is the book *The Political System of Empires* (1963 [1963]), in which he deals with large pre-industrial societies, particularly those described as "historical bureaucratic empires". In the next phase of his research, Eisenstadt diverted from structural functionalism and the starting point of his thinking became the term *axial age (Achsenzeit),* borrowed from the German philosopher Karl Jaspers. The axial age means the period from 8th century BC to the 2nd century BC, in which new revolutionary thought appeared: Plato's philosophy in the West and the prophets of Israel, which were followed by Christianity, Zoroastrianism in Persia, Buddhism in India and Confucianism and Taoism in China. For Eisenstadt this is the starting point for a reassessment of the question of the economic ethics of world religions dealt with by Max Weber. The axial age allows Eisenstadt to carry out a systematic comparative analysis of the potential for change of various civilizations [1986, 1987, 1992a, b, c, d] and at the same time opens the way to the development of the concept of multiple modernities [2000, 2003, 2006a, b, 2007].

The concept of multiple modernities contrasts totalitarian notions with the widespread conception that modernization can have only one single (western) form. From this perspective Eisenstadt intervened in the discussions which took place around Fukuyama's *The End of History and the Last Man* [2006 (1992)], and Huntington's book *Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order* [1996]. He criticized Fukuyama's naivism by saying that Fukuyama associates modernization with Westernization, and also Huntington's essentialism that sees civilizations as primordially given entities.

Eisenstadt believes that Western patterns of modernity do not present a single "authentic" modernity, though they play the role of historical precedent and continue to be the essential reference point for others. He is of the opinion that in today's world we find manifestations of miscellaneous, mutually competing modernization orientation patterns, which come in connection with the cultures of the axial and also non-axial civilizations.

Prevailing contemporary historical sociology outlines big, ambitious projects of an interdisciplinary nature (Skocpol, Tilly, Mann, Wallerstein, Eisenstadt), oriented towards large-scale comparative analysis pursuing global perspectives over long time intervals. The entire field, however, is certainly not exhausted by these projects. There are also a number of specific research areas [Bühl 2003, Delanty 2003, Schützeichel 2004, Šubrt 2007], including for instance the problems of collective mentalities, habits and emotions, social memory, historical consciousness and cultural trauma. Historical sociology today is a diverse discipline that makes an effort to elaborate general theory, has a number of special theories, ranges in specialized directions and develops research on the empirical level as well. This

History and Sociology: What is Historical Sociology? 415

Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah 2006b. *Theorie und Moderne: Soziologische Essays.* Wiesbaden: VS

Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah 2007. *Multiple Modernities: der Streit um die Gegenwart.* Berlin:

Elias, Norbert 1976. *Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation: Soziogenetische und psychogenetische* 

Elias, Norbert 1983. *Die höfische Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Sociologie des Königtums und* 

Elias, Norbert 2006. *Spoločnosť indivíduí*. (*Die Gesellschaft der Individuen.*) Bratislava:

Foucault, Michel 1999. *Vůle k vědění: Dějiny sexuality I.* (*Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de* 

Foucault, Michel 2000. *Dohlížet a trestat: Kniha o zrodu vězeňství.* (*Surveiller et punir.*) Praha:

Gellner, Ernest 2001. *Pluh, meč a kniha: Struktura lidských dějin.* (*Plough, Sword, and Book.*)

Gellner, Ernest 2002. *Nacionalismus.* (*Nationalism.*) Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a

Giddens, A. 1988. *Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung*.

Goldthorpe, John H. 1991. "The Uses of History in Sociology: Reflections on Some Recent

Goldthorpe, John H. 1994. "The Use of History in Sociology: A Reply." In: *The British Journal* 

Homans, George C. 1941. *English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century.* New York: Russell &

Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. *Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.* New

Koselleck, Reinhart 2006. *Begriffsgeschichten: Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen* 

Krejčí, Jaroslav 2002. *Postižitelné prudy dějin: Civilizace a sociální formace, struktury a procesy,* 

Lipset, Seymour Martin 1963. *The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and* 

Mann, Michael 1986, 1993. *The Sources of Social Power.* Vol. 1, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge

*Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Band* 

*kultura a politika, revoluce a renesance, náboženství, národy a státy.* Praha: Sociologické

Käsler, Dirk 1976, 1978. *Klassiker der soziologischen Denkens.* Bd. 1, 2. München: C. H. Beck. Koselleck, Reinhart – Bruner, Otto – Conze, Werner (ed.) 1972-1997. *Geschichtliche* 

Tendencies." In: *The British Journal of Sociology.* Vol. 42, pp. 211-230.

Fukuyama, Francis 2006 (1992). *The End of History and the Last Man.* New York: Free Press. Gellner, Arnošt (Ernest) 1993. *Národy a nacionalismus.* (*Nations and nationalism.*) Praha:

*Untersuchungen. Bd. 1., II.* Frankfurt/ am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

*der höfischen Aristokratie.* Frankfurt/main: Suhrkamp.

Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury.

*und sozialen Sprache.* Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

*Comparative Perspective.* New York: Basic Book.

Loužek, M. 2001. *Spor o metodu*. Praha: Karolinum.

Giddens, Anthony 1979. *Central Problems in Social Theory.* London: Macmillan.

Verlag 2006.

Kalligram.

Dauphin.

Hříbal.

kultury.

Russell.

Frankfurt/M.: Campus.

York: Simon and Schuster.

*1-8.* Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.

nakladatelství.

University Press.

*of Sociology.* Vol. 45, 1994, pp. 55-77.

Kulturverl. Kadmos.

*savoir.)* Praha: Hermann a synové.

suggests that sociology and history have not separated completely, and that on the contrary that the volume of the recently initiated dialogue between the two branches will develop and intensify further.
