Specific Generalities: Historical vs. Sociological Generalization

What counts as a “general” story? What determines what findings are bigger or more important than others?

I think historical research and sociological research tend to answer this question in two very different ways. For sociologists, a general story, claim, finding, whatnot is generalizable to different cases and contexts. Structural holes shape competition in inter-firm networks, but they also shape competition in interpersonal networks. And so on. Because of this, any case can be interesting if it serves as a model for other similar cases might work.

In history, or at least my outsider impression of it, an important story is one that is empirically “big.” If a claim characterizes a long period of time or covers an event that touches a lot of people, then it’s a big, important, general claim. This doesn’t mean that you can’t study a small event – a single protest, a single court case, whatever – but you make claims about its importance by arguing that the small event characterizes a big system or process. What you don’t claim, or at least don’t always claim, is that your small event is a case of a whole class of phenomena.

So, for example, I think of my own work on the history of national income statistics as being a “big story” because national income statistics are a worldwide phenomenon and they shape our understanding of the economy as a whole, and thus they are a small part of a massive story. But what can be harder for me is to treat the history of national income statistics as a case of something else – for example, pitching my story as a case of how ideas and knowledge practices shape politics, comparable to Somers and Block’s work on Malthus and so on. In sum, two different approaches, two different kinds of generality.

Comments are closed.