Response to Steinmetz, Riley, and Pedersen

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, e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social science history 2008-12, Vol.32 (4), p.579-593
Main Author: Sewell, William H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Built environments
Dialectic
Dialectics
Grammatical constructions
History
Labour history
Language
Logic
Semiotics
Social Change
Social life
Social science history
Social semiotics
Social structure
Social structures
Social theories
Social theory
Special Section: Logics of History
Structural change
Theoretical Problems
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 Steinmetzfrom wide-ranging and theoretically eclectic perspectives, Dylan Rileyfrom 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.
ISSN:0145-5532
1527-8034
DOI:10.1215/01455532-2008-011