A new sociology of nationalism: The sociology of property and nation

In this essay, I will reflect upon what has been sociology's contribution to understanding the emergence and development of nationalism and how sociology can contribute to understanding nationalism's present and future through a property rights perspective. The essay will discuss, in particular, how historical sociological analysis of property rights and property rights regimes may be central to understanding nationalism past and future. After a general and brief discussion on the current, so‐called return of nationalism, the essay starts with discussion of some late enlightenment proto‐sociologists, suggesting that these writers actually analysed some crucial early dynamics of property and sovereignty which is central to understanding nationalism. The essay then moves on to suggests why a property rights focus might be a useful perspective to understanding nationalism in the 21st century.     

Rural sociology and social change

Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle., A Strategy for Rural Change. New York: Halsted Press, 1975. xv + 525 pp. Tables, figures, references, author and subject indices. $19.50.     

Political sociology and political reality: The concept of democratic consensus

The investigation of consensus was a leading theme in the political sociology of democracy from the early 1950s until the late 1960s. Consensus has since become something of a suspect category of social inquiry. The consensus literature (V. O. Key, R. Dahl, H. Eckstein, S. M. Upset, G. A. Almond) has been charged by the ‘post‐behaviouralists’ as conservative politics disguised as impartial social science. This paper investigates the possibility of restoring consensus as a research category through an examination of its original use by John Stuart Mill. The link between Mill and contemporary political sociology is Edward Shils, who is here identified as one of the guiding spirits of the consensus literature. The paper compares consensus as treated in Mill's explicitly political science with Shils’ implicitly political science. The ‘post‐behaviouralists’ sought the recovery of the political as the leading theme of social inquiry. This is exactly as Mill originally intended. The consensus literature, however, took its bearing from Shils’ restatement of Mill, in which the political categories are submerged according to the demands of a novel and apolitical science of politics. The recovery of democratic consensus as a research category would greatly benefit from the substitution of Mill's original project in place of Shils's much weaker, if more influential, restatement of it.     

环境史：历史、理论和方法

环境和生态危机是当今世界最引人关注的突出问题之一。它不但促成了席卷全球的环保运动，还引起哲学、经济学、政治学、法学，社会学、人类学、伦理学等学科的广泛兴趣，历史学也不例外。环境史的形成和发展已成为国际史学界70年代以来最引人关注的新领域之一。我国早已把环境保护定为基本国策。其他学科研究环境问题的成果层出不穷，历史学的反应却相当迟缓。本文将从全球视野对环境史的兴起、发展、理论、方法及其存在的问题进行初步的分析。     

AHS Classics: Rural History and Environmental History

Studying rural history and environmental history in Australian Historical Studies reveals a shared effort to challenge the colonial narrative of the settlement of rural Australia that continues to hold sway in popular representations of the national past. Rather than finding distinct spheres of urban and rural Australia, it reveals instead the processes by which these areas have been mutually constitutive, whether through cultural representations, economic exchanges, or the application of science and technology. Rather than confirming the dichotomy of nature and culture of the city and the bush, it highlights instead the wider cultural and ecological implications of settler Australians’ diverse engagements with an ancient and Aboriginal land. By transcending disciplinary and spatial boundaries, rural and environmental historians reveal the complexities of colonisation and the networks of exchange that have shaped Australians and their environments since 1788. In their hands, history becomes an important form of knowledge for making sense of rural and environmental change in the twenty-first century.     

人文的和整体的历史：西方经济—社会史初论

经济一社会史的英原是“Economic and Social History”,所以准确的翻译应是“经济与社会史”或“经济—社会史”。经济—社会史研究在欧美各国历史学界和高校经历了几十年不同程度的发展,至今仍方兴未艾。现在,我们愿借此机会对经济-社会史的来源、发展现状和基本特征做一概要性的述评,以进一步推动和开拓我国的历史学研究领域。     

国史中的社会史：内容和框架结构

社会史本当是国史研究的一个重要内容,但目前对中国当代社会史的研究还基本是一片空白。社会工作的蓬勃发展需要对建国以来的社会发展历程和社会建设进行全面系统的研究,于是中国当代社会史的研究和学科构建成为急需开展的课题。目前的中心任务是要构建一个比较成熟的中国当代社会史学科体系,先分门别类地研究专题史,然后在这个基础上综合研究总体史。而方志界已经在社会史研究和记述方面积累了一些经验,很值得国史研究借鉴。     

Advances and impasses in Fred Halliday's international historical sociology: a critical appraisal

How did Fred Halliday recast International Relations (IR) theory as international historical sociology? This article explores Halliday's intellectual trajectory across this terrain and suggests that the notion of ‘capitalist modernity’, derived from an amalgamation of neo‐Marxian and neo‐Weberian historical sociology, functioned as the strategic master‐category, which anchored his thought on International Relations throughout his work. This category was successively reconceived and complemented to generate four, partly contradictory, analytical frameworks at a lower level of abstraction: ‘global conjunctural analysis’; a neo‐Weberian ‘sociology of the inter‐state system’; ‘international society as homogeneity’ and ‘uneven and combined development’. The article identifies the advances and impasses in each intellectual move and exemplifies the limits of Halliday's approach in relation to his analysis of revolutions. It suggests that while Halliday was instrumental in reconnecting IR with historical sociology, providing crucial openings and correctives to mainstream IR theory, his theoretical emphases remained ultimately too syncretistic and additive to shift the debate on firmer ground. While this can be read as a failure, there is also evidence to understand this anti‐formalism as a deliberate intellectual choice. The article concludes by suggesting that the very term international historical sociology, predicated on a distinct modernist vocabulary, may itself preclude a full historicization of categories of analysis, restricting its use as a general framework for capturing the historicity and sociality of geopolitical practices across time and space.