10+1学者群殴历史社会学第三波：评《RemakingModernity》
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5)办的专辑，评Adams, Julia, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff. 2005. Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology. Durham and London: Duke University Press.很多第二波人物上场回应，共有10篇。末尾，另列了汤志杰老师文章，其中也有评论。
评论：
Abbott, Andrew. 2006. “A Brief Note on Pasturization.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 343–49. doi:10.1177/0020715206068616.
Charrad, Mounira M. 2006. “Waves of Comparative and Historical Sociology.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 351–58. doi:10.1177/0020715206068617.
Goldstone, Jack A. 2006. “A History and Sociology of Historical Sociology.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 359–69. doi:10.1177/0020715206068618.
Lachmann, Richard. 2006. “Introduction to the Symposium.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 339–41. doi:10.1177/0020715206068615.
Mahoney, James. 2006. “On the Second Wave of Historical Sociology, 1970s–Present.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 371–77. doi:10.1177/0020715206068619.
Riley, Dylan. 2006. “Waves of Historical Sociology.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 379–86. doi:10.1177/0020715206068620.
Roy, William G. 2006. “Remaking Historical Sociology.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 387–93. doi:10.1177/0020715206068621.
Sewell, William H., Jr. 2006. “On Waves of Historical Sociology.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 395–401.
Wingrove, Elizabeth. 2006. “Modern Times.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 403–10. doi:10.1177/0020715206068623.
Zerilli, Linda. 2006. “Truth and the Lure of Method.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 411–18. doi:10.1177/0020715206068624.
回应：
Adams, Julia, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff. 2006. “‘Time and Tide...Rejoinder to Abbott, Charrad, Goldstone, Mahoney, Riley,
Roy, Sewell, Wingrove and Zerilli’” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47 (5): 419–31.
——————————
评论的观点摘录：
1. Abbott的批评：真的有新意吗？快补文献去！
——评George Steinmetz的章节
talks a great deal about the theory of history, but in the last analysis, he seems to me mainly concerned to put new labels on old difficulties rather than to puzzle those difficulties through in some fundamentally new way, although it could just be that I got exasperated while trying to figure out what seemed a rather obscure set of concepts.
——评Kiser and Baer的章节
A similar relabeling strategy, although with a mercifully simpler set of concepts, seemed to me characteristic of the Kiser and Baer piece, which was, however, in my view conspicuous among all these chapters for its ahistoricality.
——评Rogers Brubaker的章节
Rogers Brubaker’s piece reminds us of an important insight about the historicality of social life – that groups are its temporary products not its permanent preconditions – but Brubaker does not advance beyond that insight, which after all is familiar to anybody who has read The Polish Peasant in Europe and America.
——参考文献的问题
This absence of a theorizing of history qua process is also pretty clear in the massive bibliography of (by my estimate) about 2000 items. You will not find there the classics in the analytical philosophy of history – Collingwood, Dray, Gallie, or Danto. You won’t find the formal theory of narrative – Todorov, Barthes, Ricoeur, Chatman, Baumann. You won’t find the processualists in sociology itself – Gumplowicz, Ratzenhofer, Thomas, Park, or even Goffman, who is here only in his culturalist guise..The almost complete absence of American social theory from this volume’s references..Real advance comes not by the formulaic rejection, relabeling, and reinvention of our immediate predecessors.
2. Jack A. Goldstone的批评：三波划分有问题
——第三代没自己的东西
Yet I would have to agree with Abbott that so far the third wave has not developed concepts regarding historical change or causation unknown to or unexplored by the second wave.
——遗漏James Mahoney的方法
One truly striking omission from this volume is the work on comparative-historical method of James Mahoney (1999, 2000; Mahoney and Goertz, 2004) who is perhaps the best sociologist of his generation dissecting and extending this topic.
——waves没logics好
Yet I fear that in this case the notion of ‘waves’ is less useful than it should be. What we really find in the practice and conception of historical sociology is something closer to what the title of the last chapter by Elisabeth Clemens points to: ‘Logics of History: Agency, Multiplicity, and Incoherence in the Explanation of Change.’ What I will argue is that instead of distinct ‘waves,’ we do indeed see different ‘logics’ of history in the development of historical sociology over the last four decades.
——第二波中已经有他们所宣称的第三波的东西了
That, I would have to say, is an excessive simplification. Two second wavers on this panel – Abbott (1983) and Sewell (1980, 1985) – wrestled long and hard with the problems of agency, contingency, particularity, and how to analyze pathdependent processes in history before the third wavers came on the scene
3.James Mahoney的批评：只有两波，不是三波
For all of these reasons, I argue that there were only two waves of historical sociology: one corresponding to the classical work and another to work since approximately the 1970s.
4.William H. Sewell Jr.的批评
—— 没有严格定义第一波与第二波（直至conclusion用style，更合适代替wave，=figurative definition）
The first wave is not defined in any rigorous way by the editors; indeed, it seems to consist of basically all work on historical sociology before 1960.…What seems to me surprisingly under-specified in the editors’ introduction is wave two.
—— 第二波与第三波的分歧更在存在论，相较于方法论与认识论（其实虽然Steinmetz谈了，但不是针对第二与第三波）
It suggests that the shift between wave two and wave three has taken place not so much on the level of methodology or epistemology (although there certainly are changes at this level) as on the level of ontology
—— 按Steinmetz思路，可以说第三代是与新自由主义的共谋
To put it brutally, the third wave seems to be secretly complicit with contemporary neoliberal capitalism.
5. 插播：中研院的汤志杰老师前不久出的会议论文《From Comparison to Reciprocal Comparison and Connected Histories: Searching a Standpoint for Re-cognizing Modernity》，也有评论第三波历史社会学，见他的academia.edu网站，一直往上翻。。
https://sinica.academia.edu/chihchiehtang
————
——————————
历史社会学合辑1
第65期彼得.伯克：比较史学vs.比较社会学=“更谨慎vs.太胆大”？
第63期历史社会学家真的【不引用】一手档案吗？对32本ASA获奖作品的分析
第60期百年《美国社会学学报》,只有54篇“历史”论文？！清单。
第58期Kathleen Thelen and James Mahoney：比较—历史分析的获奖书单（2000-2014）
历史社会学合辑2
第87期当福柯在说dispositif的时候，究竟指的是什么？
第53期Mustafa Emirbayer“比较历史社会学”课堂的五条“军规”
第34期“事件社会学”读本（自编）
社会学的“理论”“本质”专辑
第93期社会学的“理论化”有章法可循吗？（Swedberg2014）
第92期社会学theory是怎么增长与进步的？理论研究纲领的回答
第91期反Abend（2008）：竞争出社会学theory的paradigm
第90期当我们说社会学“理论”时，theory指的应该/是什么？（Abend2008）
美国/德国/阿拉伯社会学：
第68期 【再造祖先】“社会学之父”是14世纪的阿拉伯人Ibn Khaldun？
第67期【德国社会学】“历史风范”是怎么衰落的？内斗、纳粹/流亡与美帝
第66期【美国社会学】的“实证范”真的是天生吗？福特主义的“共谋”
图片来源：《好莱坞结局》，Woody Allen电影