Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:58:16.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Editor's Introduction to 40th Anniversary Issue: History and the Social Sciences: Past Imperfect; Future Promising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

Extract

It has been almost 40 years since Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie published an English translation of his (at the time) deeply unsettling essay, “Motionless History,” in the second issue of Social Science History (SSH, Winter 1977). For many historians, whose livelihoods depended on narrating the “march of history,” his claim that long periods of history were characterized by a distinct absence of change—his example was Europe from late antiquity up to the early eighteenth century—was nothing short of heretical. The newly established SSH was, however, an entirely logical place from which to launch this fusillade against the disciplinary norms of the Anglo-American historical profession, as the journal was the product of a contra-establishment project, the Social Science History Association (SSHA). Founded in 1974 and hosting its first annual conference in Philadelphia in the fall of 1976, the SSHA emerged out of the more general social and political ferment of that period. Its organizers had the specific intention to disrupt (to use our word and not theirs) what they thought were the rigid practices and limited vision of the then American Historical Association. In so doing they hoped to make space for a new kind of historical enquiry that had much to learn from the social sciences, and hoped to teach them something in return. They were joined in that enthusiastic moment by historically minded rebels from the American Sociological Association, as well as small numbers of anthropologists, demographers, economists, geographers, and political scientists who were all eager to incorporate both historical context and a theoretical appreciation of contingency into their work. In the intervening years since that hopeful beginning, many have argued that the anticipated interdisciplinary exchange failed in one way or another. But let me not get ahead of myself.

Type
Special Issue Introduction
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2016 

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

Abbott, Andrew (1991) “History and Sociology: The Lost Synthesis.” Social Science History 15 (2): 201–38.Google Scholar
Beach, William W. (1980) “A Second Look: ‘The Agenda for “Social Science History.’Social Science History 4 (3): 357–64.Google Scholar
Benson, Lee (1978) “Changing Social Science to Change the World: A Discussion Paper.” Social Science History 2 (4): 427–41.Google Scholar
Bogue, Allan G. (1987) “Great Expectations and Secular Depreciation: The First Ten Years of the Social Science History Association.” Social Science History 11 (3): 329–42.Google Scholar
Hays, Samuel (1976) “Letter.” Historical Methods Newsletter 10 (1): 39–42.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. Morgan (1977) “The Agenda for ‘Social Science History.’Social Science History 1 (3): 383–91.Google Scholar
Laslett, Barbara (1992) “Gender In/and Social Science History.” Social Science History 16 (2): 177–95.Google Scholar
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel (1977) “Motionless History.” Social Science History 1 (2): 115–36.Google Scholar
Monkkonen, Eric H. (1994) “Lessons of Social Science History.” Social Science History 18 (2): 161–68.Google Scholar