Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:30:06.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to William A. Green's “The Perils of Comparative History”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

O. Nigel Bolland
O. Nigel Bolland*
Affiliation:
Colgate University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The preceding article by William A. Green does not make clear the basis upon which he criticizes my October 1981 comparison of Belize and the British sugar colonies. He begins by saying that the “phenomena compared must possess important and comprehensive unities of character” and writes later that “it is the presence of similar people performing similar functions under similar circumstances that renders comparative analysis valuable. These identities did not prevail between Belize and the British sugar colonies.” Belize, he writes, had a “unique system of domination” (his emphasis). Is the problem, then, that there are no “unities of character,” that “identities did not prevail,” or that Belize was “unique”? Every case is unique, surely, yet comparisons are made in social, as in natural, science between selected common factors which appear under similar, but not identical, conditions. There exists a range between John Stuart Mill's formulae called The Method of Agreement, in which one compares two situations which differ in every respect save one, and The Method of Difference, in which one compares two situations which are alike except in one respect, but Green seems to think only the latter is acceptable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 120 - 125
Copyright
Copyright   Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Andreski, Stanislav, The Uses of Comparative Sociology (Berkeley, 1969), 67.Google Scholar

2 Mintz, Sidney, “Labor and Sugar in Puerto Rico and in Jamaica, 1800–1850”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1:3 (1959), 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Letter to Governor Dalling, 3 September 1779, CO 137/75, Colonial Office Records, Public Record Office, London. (Hereafter cited as CO.)

4 White, Robert to Evan Napean, 18 September 1788, CO 123/6.Google Scholar

5 Montresor, H. T. to Governor, SirCoote, Eyre, 22 October 1806, CO 123/17.Google Scholar

6 Henderson, Captain G., An Account of the British Settlement of Honduras. … (London, 1809), 42.Google Scholar

7 Magistrates, meeting, 4 April 1803, MMA2, General Registry, Belize City. (Hereafter cited as GRB.)Google Scholar

8 Meeting, 30 June 1810, MMB, GRB.

9 Superintendant Codd to Wilmot, R., 23 Feb. 1823, CO 123/34.Google Scholar

10 Bolland, O. Nigel, The Formation of a Colonial Society: Belize, from Conquest to Crown Colony (Baltimore, 1977), chs 4–6.Google Scholar

11 Report of the “Commissioners of Inquiry into the Administration of Criminal and Civil Justice … on the Settlement of Honduras”, p. 9, 24 February 1829, CO 318/77.

12 Bolland, O. Nigel, “Systems of Domination after Slavery: The Control of Land and Labor in the British West Indies after 1838”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 23:4 (1981), 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Beckford, George L., Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World (New York, 1972), 96.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 86.

15 Ibid., 96.

16 Bolland, , Formation of a Colonial Society, 156.Google Scholar

17 See Roberts, David, Paternalism in Early Victorian England (New Brunswick, 1979), 236–38.Google Scholar

18 Bolland, , “Systems of Domination”, 600, 614.Google Scholar

19 Andreski, , Uses of Comparative Sociology, 66.Google Scholar