No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
I wish to thank Steven Hahn for helping me to think more critically about some of my own ideas and those of others. The substantive questions that he raises will be subject matter for vital ongoing inquiry and thinking among interested scholars for some time to come. He has also raised some very important questions of method that provide the occasion to extend the discussion, briefly, in ways that readers may find of interest, as I do. In what follows, I confine myself to some of the questions of method.
1. “Periodization and Historiography: The United States Considered as a Developing Country,” in my forthcoming book, The United States as a Developing Country: Studies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920s (New York: Cambridge University Press).
2. Likewise, the work of such colleagues of Hahn as are included as authors in The Countryside in the Age of Capitalist Transformation, note 3 of Hahn's essay, above. One small notation here for the record: I do not believe that the “supremacy of society over the state” explains “the eventual triumph of New Deal liberalism,” or for that matter of “corporate liberalism” more broadly; only that it is an essential component of such liberalism, and that both the component and the liberalism need to be further explained by continued study.