Suchergebnisse

When one is asked to speak on the past, present, and future of social science history, one is less overwhelmed by the size of the task than confused by its indexicality. Whose definition of social science history? Which past? Or, put another way, whose past? Indeed, which and whose present? Moreover, should the task be taken as one of description, prescription, or analysis? Many of us might agree on, say, a descriptive analysis of the past of the Social Science History Association. But about the past of social science history as a general rather than purely associational phenomenon, we might differ considerably. The problem of description versus prescription only increases this obscurity.

Die vorliegende Ansprache des Präsidenten zum jährlichen (achtzehnten) Treffen der Social Science History Association (SSHA) rekapituliert die Geschichte dieser Vereinigung mit folgenden Schlußfolgerungen: (1) Auch Sozialhistoriker können ihre eigene Geschichte prinzipiell nicht voraussagen. Dies zeigt sich z.B. an den kühnen und optimistischen Prognosen in den 70er Jahren zur Entwicklung des eigenen Fachs. (2) Die Entwicklung der Disziplin ist von der Größe und den 'Zufälligkeiten' der jährlichen Treffen entscheidend mitgeprägt. (3) Die Wirkungen sozialgeschichtlicher Forschungen sind eher langfristig und kaum an den eher 'modischen' Schwankungen der Themenwahl und deren öffentlicher Diskussion abzulesen. (pmb)

The author presents and introduces with comments the following article of the known Russian global problems researcher M. Cheshkov. It is assumed that working with ideal theoretical objects is fundamental for a scientific knowledge specificity, that the experience of recent years points to a dramatic connection between the growing interdependence of different regions and spaces in the modern world, and the increasing intensity of local and global antagonisms and passions.

In his presidential address to the American Statistical Association in 1931, William Fielding Ogburn, an American sociologist important particularly in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, took as his theme the difference between statistics and art. His argument, articulated here and in a wide range of writings throughout his career, was that "statistics has been developed to give an exact picture of reality, while the picture that the artist draws is a distortion of reality" (Ogburn 1932: 1). He then went on to express his belief that emotion leads to distortion in our observations. "It is this distorting influence of emotion and wishes," he said, "that is more responsible for bad thinking than any lack of logic" (ibid.: 4). But statistics, he believed, could ameliorate the distorting effects of emotion on our empirical observations. There was a problem, however, because "the artist in us wants understanding rather than statistics. But understanding is hardly knowledge. . . . The tests of knowledge are reliability and accuracy, not understanding" (ibid.: 5).

I am pleased to be able to address this, the eighteenth annual meeting of the Social Science History Association. I have many valued memories of presidential addresses, but my favorite was Jerry Clubb's 1984 talk in the Chinese restaurant in Toronto, where speakers, waiters, and many other patrons all competed in a cacophonic, noisy free-for-all. Jerry did not even try to finish the talk, so we had to wait until it appeared in the journal (Clubb 1986).

This group of essays came out of an attempt to address the "usually unasked," "bound to embarrass" question that Eric Monkkonen raised in his 1994 presidential address to the Social Science History Association. As both the social sciences and history have been reshaped in recent years by intellectual tendencies variously labeled "postmodernism," "poststructuralism," or the "linguistic turn," the never especially clear relationship between the social sciences and history has grown even more muddy. The essays that follow are drawn from two sessions of the 1998 annual program of the Social Science History Association. The sessions brought together scholars from a variety of disciplines and cohorts who held divergent ideas about the links between social science and history and different substantive agendas for explaining historical change. A mix of essays that highlight new methodologies for analyzing the past and pieces that offer explanations or remedies, the articles printed here point to some of the central issues in the debate about what social science history might mean today.