Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:42:56.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Steinmetz, Riley, and Pedersen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

William H. Sewell Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses three critiques that pull at the loose ends of Logics of History, revealing weaknesses and bringing new theoretical resources to problems raised by but not satisfactorily resolved in the book. Each critic suggests reformulations of my claims about how structures, events, and social transformations should be theorized: George Steinmetz from wide-ranging and theoretically eclectic perspectives, Dylan Riley from a broadly Marxist standpoint, and David Pedersen from a perspective that is predominantly Peircian. While agreeing with aspects of their critiques, I also reaffirm certain features of my own arguments.

Type
Special Section: Logics of History
Information
Social Science History , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , winter 2008 , pp. 579 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2008 

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

Althusser, Louis (1986) For Marx, trans. Brewster, Ben. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Althusser, Louis, and Balibar, Etienne (1979) Reading Capital, trans. Brewster, Ben. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. New York: Humanities.Google Scholar
Daniel, E. Valentine (1984) Fluid Signs: Being a Person the Tamil Way. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1971) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, trans. Shapiro, Jeremy J.. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society; vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1989) Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger, Thomas with Lawrence, Frederick. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1970) Essais de linguistique générale. 2 vols. Paris: Points-Seuil.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1949) Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe (1992) “Political theory and historical analysis,” in Calhoun, Craig (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 164–77.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe (1993) Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, Marshall (1981) Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sahlins, Marshall (1985) Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1959) Course in General Linguistics, ed. Bally, Charles and Sechenhaye, Albert with Reidinger, Albert, trans. Baskin, Wade. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Sewell, William H. Jr. (1980) Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sewell, William H. Jr. (2005) Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Study of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar