The Enduring Dialogue: History and Social Science in the 21st Century

In 2004, historian Peter Mandler questioned why historians preferentially cited Marx or Derrida over contemporary sociologists and psychologists exploring the production of meaning, calling for a reunification of history with social science. Arguably, however, the disciplines have never been closer methodologically. Anthropologist William Reddy notes that recent work in both fields is often indistinguishable, sharing common interests despite persistent institutional boundaries. While explicit collaboration may be rare, methodological differences now cut through rather than between the disciplines, indicating significant convergence.

Some historians continue to reject theory overtly while unknowingly replicating features of grand theory. Norman Davies’s Europe: A History (1996), for instance, narrates the self-realization of European identity through historical "parentheses," echoing modernization frameworks. Conversely, historians like Dror Wahrman apply social science explicitly, using quantitative cultural resonance to identify dominant trends, which he then explains through evolutionary biology—an approach recalling collective psychology and Western exceptionalism. Similarly, the fashionable "political religions" approach to studying dictatorship explicitly updates collective psychology with an implicit modernization narrative.

Among Annales-influenced historians, the cultural turn has shifted the object of study more than underlying theoretical assumptions. Scholars like Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau and Annette Becker analyze the Great War through the lenses of warfare's modernization and soldierly regression, drawing on Marc Bloch’s rumor studies (influenced by collective psychology) and Norbert Elias’s civilizing process. They employ anthropological techniques to reconstruct soldier mentalities but interpret evidence through a Durkheimian-functionalist need for faith, allying detailed micro-history with grand narratives.

While the term modernization has receded, the conceptually similar framework of "globalization" now exerts comparable influence. It is often conceived as an objective, irreversible force driven by functional imperatives, where actors can only respond positively, negatively, or via a "special path." This replicates the classic error of isolating one characteristic as essential and using it as a normative standard, risking the same teleological pitfalls. Simultaneously, Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology has gained prominence, particularly in French historiography and political science, as seen in work on intellectual fields and crises, focusing on competition within the limits of the habitus.

A Foucauldian strand, emphasizing governmentality, continues to influence historical writing. Patrick Joyce elucidates how freedom itself becomes a technique of rule in liberal societies, focusing on micro-techniques of power. Critics argue this constitutes a top-down view where agency is absorbed into structure, and explanations rely on functionalist "necessities" described in the passive voice. Conversely, other scholars successfully combine post-structuralist insights with a robust sense of agency, viewing culture as contradictory scripts used with varying consciousness, as seen in Michel de Certeau’s critique of Bourdieu and in advanced gender history.

Mandler is correct that historians seldom read sociology journals directly. However, interdisciplinary exchange occurs through shared topical interests and a common, contested cultural environment. Scholars often share unacknowledged assumptions with distant colleagues while disagreeing fundamentally with close ones. The future likely holds not a full reunification, but a continued, fertile borrowing of concepts and methods, as both history and social science grapple with legacy paradigms while navigating new theoretical landscapes.

KEY HISTORICAL SOURCES:
- Adams, Julia, Clemens, Elizabeth S., and Orloff, Ann Shola (eds.), Remaking Modernity: Politics, History and Sociology (Durham, NC, 2005).
- Bourdieu, Pierre, Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique (Paris, 1972).
- Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble (New York, 1999).
- Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (London, 1977).

- Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society (Cambridge, 1984).
- Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1986, 1993).
- Scott, James C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven, 1990).
- Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (London, 1963).
- Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System (New York, 1974).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
- Burke, Peter, History and Social Theory (London, 1992).
- Cabrera, Miguel A., Postsocial History: An Introduction (Lexington, 2003).
- Gunn, Simon, ‘From Hegemony to Governmentality: Changing Conceptions of Power in Social History’, Journal of Social History, 39 (2006), 705—20.
- Lorenz, Chris, ‘On the Advantages and Disadvantages of Modernisation Theory for History’, Rethinking History, 10 (2006), 171—200.
- Mah, Harold, ‘Suppressing the Text: The Metaphysics of Ethnographic History in Darnton’s Great Cat Massacre’, History Workshop, 31 (1991), 1—20.