Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sense_of_history's review
The historical sociologist/sociological historian Charles Tilly (1929-2008) published his most important works in the 1970s and 80s, but still counts as a leading academic, especially on the process of state formation. This booklet is a short literature study in which he tries to draw some general lessons from his own work and especially from that of others, when it comes to analyzing and comparing major processes and large structures.
It is essential to note that for Tilly these analyses have to be much more grounded on real historical facts and data: "a plea for historically grounded analyses of large structures and large processes and alternatives to the timeless, placeless models or social organization and social change that came to us with the nineteenth-century heritage". Because indeed, according to Tilly it is mainly the 19th century way of looking at social change that has resulted in completely distorted analyses, also throughout much of the 20th century. In most cases it concerns very bourgeois studies that were drenched in progress and modernization thinking. Typical examples of this are the interpreting of revolutions and revolts as negative phenomena as resulting from too rapid modernization, or the train of thought in 'necessary stages' that all societies have to go through towards true modernity.
Tilly does not stop at this criticism, he also proposes alternatives and defends the comparative analysis method. Comparing is risky, he openly admits. And in his analysis of the work of several of his colleagues, he does not spare his criticism on their faulty methodology. But at the same time he remains optimistic and believes with conviction that comparative analyses can yield very relevant insights, provided the right methodology is used (and he gives very concrete tips for that), and provided - as already indicated - real historical data are used.
And as far as the latter is concerned, Tilly has a justified message to historians: they must not indulge to their fear for the study of large processes and structures and for comparative studies: "if the evils they reject are the search for universal historical laws and histories, the remedy to the evils is not the abandonment of deliberate comparison, but it is rooting in genuine historical structures and processes ". Given some prudence, I could not agree more!
Still, one critical note: Tilly never refers to systems thinking or 2nd order cybernetics, and that is strange. Because this scientific current deals with looking at complex realities, and in my opinion, it could be very relevant in the study of big structures and large processes. Of course, Tilly refers to the World Systems-studies of Wallerstein and Gunder Frank, but these have nothing in common with systems thinking. The only indirect reference I found in this book and that seems to indicate an academic that worked in line of systems thinking is Eric R. Wolf, especially his [b:Europe and the People Without History|40625|Europe and the People Without History|Eric R. Wolf|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388183113l/40625._SY75_.jpg|40210]. To be read, of course.
It is essential to note that for Tilly these analyses have to be much more grounded on real historical facts and data: "a plea for historically grounded analyses of large structures and large processes and alternatives to the timeless, placeless models or social organization and social change that came to us with the nineteenth-century heritage". Because indeed, according to Tilly it is mainly the 19th century way of looking at social change that has resulted in completely distorted analyses, also throughout much of the 20th century. In most cases it concerns very bourgeois studies that were drenched in progress and modernization thinking. Typical examples of this are the interpreting of revolutions and revolts as negative phenomena as resulting from too rapid modernization, or the train of thought in 'necessary stages' that all societies have to go through towards true modernity.
Tilly does not stop at this criticism, he also proposes alternatives and defends the comparative analysis method. Comparing is risky, he openly admits. And in his analysis of the work of several of his colleagues, he does not spare his criticism on their faulty methodology. But at the same time he remains optimistic and believes with conviction that comparative analyses can yield very relevant insights, provided the right methodology is used (and he gives very concrete tips for that), and provided - as already indicated - real historical data are used.
And as far as the latter is concerned, Tilly has a justified message to historians: they must not indulge to their fear for the study of large processes and structures and for comparative studies: "if the evils they reject are the search for universal historical laws and histories, the remedy to the evils is not the abandonment of deliberate comparison, but it is rooting in genuine historical structures and processes ". Given some prudence, I could not agree more!
Still, one critical note: Tilly never refers to systems thinking or 2nd order cybernetics, and that is strange. Because this scientific current deals with looking at complex realities, and in my opinion, it could be very relevant in the study of big structures and large processes. Of course, Tilly refers to the World Systems-studies of Wallerstein and Gunder Frank, but these have nothing in common with systems thinking. The only indirect reference I found in this book and that seems to indicate an academic that worked in line of systems thinking is Eric R. Wolf, especially his [b:Europe and the People Without History|40625|Europe and the People Without History|Eric R. Wolf|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388183113l/40625._SY75_.jpg|40210]. To be read, of course.
marc129's review
3.0
This booklet is now more than 30 years old. And since it is mainly a literature study (a critical discussion of various, earlier publications), it inevitably is somewhat dated. But Charles Tilly is not just anyone (he was a leading historical sociologist, at the end of last century), and the global guidelines he gives remain relevant. In the first place this is the guideline to always refer back to concrete historical data when you talk about major social processes, otherwise you only build castles in the air (as a historian, I like to hear something like that of course). And secondly, he gives a number of very specific methodological guidelines for doing comparative (historical) analysis. Tilly is particularly critical of his colleagues (and himself), but ultimately he remains optimistic: provided the correct methodological approach, historical analyzes of big structures and large processes can certainly provide relevant insights for the present time.
See also my more elaborate review on SenseofHistory: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1100096952
See also my more elaborate review on SenseofHistory: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1100096952