The Social Science Turn in Mid-20th Century American Historiography: Methods, Debates, and Legacy

The historiography of the 1950s and 1960s was profoundly shaped by the methodologies and theories of newly fashionable social sciences, including psychology, sociology, and economics. This interdisciplinary shift fortified a consensus history perspective that played down sharp class divisions and emphasized societal integration and functionalism. In the realm of business history, Alfred D. Chandler’s seminal work applied organizational theory to analyze the rise of managerial capitalism and the modern corporation. Concurrently, other scholars employed psychological frameworks to diagnose individual and social maladjustments, framing dissent as irrational anxiety rather than structural conflict.

Prominent historians utilized these tools to reinterpret classic American narratives. Richard Hofstadter applied status anxiety theory in his critique of Populism, challenging the heroic portrayal of agrarians found in the traditions of Charles Beard and Frederick Jackson Turner. Similarly, Oscar Handlin focused on the social and psychological adjustments of immigrants to urban industrial life, a theme later quantified in social mobility studies by his student, Stephan Thernstrom. This focus on individual advancement often replaced class analysis, suggesting the United States was a fluid, open society. Psychology was also used controversially to examine oppression, as seen in Stanley Elkins’ thesis comparing slavery’s psychological impacts to those of Nazi concentration camps.

Parallelly, Lee Benson pioneered "ethnocultural" history, using quantitative methods to argue that religious belief and ethnicity were more decisive than economic class in determining 19th-century voting patterns. This approach directly challenged the Beardian interpretation of political conflict as rooted in economic interests. The persistence of these social science methodologies, even as the New Left history of the 1960s rose with its emphasis on conflict and oppression, can be attributed to disciplinary diversity and sub-field lag. However, by the mid-1970s, the ethnocultural interpretation waned, giving way to a new social and cultural history influenced by quasi-Marxist thought.

A pivotal aspect of this era was the rise of quantitative method, or cliometrics, extending beyond mobility studies into economics and demography. Robert Fogel pioneered counterfactual econometric models, famously arguing in the 1960s that railroads were dispensable to American economic growth, positing canals as a viable alternative. This technical, model-driven approach reached its most controversial application in Fogel’s collaboration with Stanley Engerman, Time on the Cross (1974). They argued not only for slavery’s profitability but also for its brutal economic efficiency, claiming it was superior to free labor in terms of productive capacity.

While earlier scholars had established slavery’s profitability using literary sources, Fogel and Engerman recast the debate through sophisticated economic growth theory and statistical analysis. Their work triggered intense scholarly controversy, criticized for its apparent moral detachment and technical assumptions, yet it underscored the enduring influence of social science models. The 1974 publication date of Time on the Cross highlights the complex overlap between counter-Progressive, social-scientific history and the economic dimensions explored by the New Left. This period ultimately established quantification as a permanent, if contested, tool in the historian’s kit.

The legacy of this social science turn is multifaceted. It professionalized the discipline, introduced rigorous methodological tools, and generated influential reinterpretations of mobility, politics, and economics. However, its consensus-oriented and often individualistic frameworks were ultimately challenged for neglecting systemic power, class consciousness, and cultural identity. The subsequent shift toward social history from the bottom up and the cultural turn of the 1980s arose directly in dialogue with, and in reaction to, the quantitative and behavioral models of the mid-century. Thus, this era represents a crucial transformative phase, where history actively engaged with social science paradigms to produce both enduring insights and provocative debates that reshaped the field's trajectory.