Daniel Fairbrother

This paper argues for a new version of holism about historiography. The argument starts with an analogy with Aristotle’s conceptions of soul and character. The aim is to overcome the central problem critics have identified in Ankersmit’s holism about historical representations: it is not clear how a posited holistic entity can make a difference to a work of history. The solution offered in this paper is that there are two – modally distinct – dimensions of content in works of history. One comprises its explicit content as given in its statements. This corresponds to actuality, action, and narrative in Aristotle. The other is where we find a holistic entity: a work of history’s representation of a historical situation. This is analysed here as a unified range of possibilities for action generated by the interrelated complex of factors introduced by the work’s explicit contents. This corresponds to potentiality, soul, and character in Aristotle. The theory is further developed in relation to two examples, one idealized, the other an example of real historiography. By distinguishing between actuality and possibility as dimensions of a historical representation, the holistic entity is enabled to be implicit while having real importance in relation to the content of historiography.

This thesis develops a reading of Montaillou, un village occitan de 1294 à 1324 by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie in parallel with a theory of possibilities in history. It is argued that possibilities are fundamentally involved in the semantics of sociological concepts, in the nature of historical judgements, and in the way actions feature in historiography. The thesis addresses a variety of literature in historiography, sociological theory, the philosophy of social science, and the philosophy of history. The thesis is split into a Preface and 5 parts containing between them 24 chapters of varying lengths. The Preface defines the topic in relation to the work of Max Weber. Part 1 is the Introduction, and approaches the topic of possibilities in history through classical texts in sociology and the philosophy of history. Part 2 is an extended commentary on Montaillou and raises puzzles about how it works as a text. Part 3 analyses sociological concepts and historical judgements in terms of possibilities. Part 4 analyses action in history in terms of possibilities. Part 5 brings the theoretical apparatus developed in parts 3 and 4 back to Montaillou to offer commentaries which solve the puzzles raised in part 2. The strategy of the thesis is to grasp the role of possibilities in history by giving equal weight to theoretical analysis and historiographical commentary.

Here I discuss the philosophical contributions to Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms, a collection of essays edited by Pierre Demeulenaere. I begin by introducing the idea of a social mechanism and showing that it has already had an impact within empirical analytical sociology. I then discuss some examples of the philosophical work offered in Demeulenaere’s collection in support of this analytical “movement” in the social sciences. I argue that some of these examples demonstrate thin scholarship and only a veneer of philosophical argument, but that Jon Elster’s contribution fuses impressively philosophical analysis and social science. I conclude by suggesting that analytical sociologists should focus on producing sociological explanations not philosophical theories.