Abstract
“Time” and “temporality” are difficult and central notions for historical scholarship. They exist in many varieties, which renders generalizations challenging. An interesting attempt has been made by US-scholar William H. Sewell in his Logics of History. Social Theory and Social Transformation (2005). He qualifies historical temporality as fateful, contingent, complex, eventful, and heterogeneous. It is rare for a historian to be so explicit. Sewell was inspired by discussions with sociologists and anthropologists during his transition from social to cultural history in the 1980 and 1990s. This article examines the question whether and how the change of the intellectual environment impacted the theoretical outcome. Are Sewell’s attributes to historical temporality plausible for historical scholarship in general, or do they reflect the boundary work of a particular group?
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference22 articles.
1. Time Matters. On Theory and Method;Abbott,2001
2. What is History?;Carr,1964
3. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists
4. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten;Koselleck,1979
5. Zeit und Zeitperzeption. Historische Beiträge zur Interdisziplinären Debatte;Mathieu,2020
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献