Heading this rate and give us an idea of how to see things that the science or field of study is able to stand on its own and free, and continue to develop in a situation commence the process of its own establishment in a context and environment to exist. What's more important here is not only a matter of general acceptance, but the purpose of docking have any knowledge that the meeting dealt with the context.
From the circumstances of birth sebegini usually something in the theory of history of science, not solely depend on the environment and social development faced by forming a theory, but also caused by the tendency of the basic interests and attitudes that are owned by someone forming theory. Group to develop this view, and they tend to keep on the theory itself. Interests and their tendency then characterize the nature and flow of the theory itself.
Social nature, the value of systematic, logic, and no effort has been made pengukuhan discipline study the history of the meeting have any connection with the community, whether as actors or objects in the study examined in this study. Sometimes we can see the action is full of human values and the distinction is also a reaction to them is not the same every time. The nature of this is mentioned not only covers certain things only in value but also the time when the historical process that takes place and a sound position kaedah in ruangnya.
Views with the idea of a wider Peter Burke's history helps explain [to the century-18-20] when the theory of social science and history and began to form into two forms of knowledge and a rival meeting. Forming theory wide awake contradictory attitudes towards one another, while that on the one "theory of history and social problems experienced setbacks in the study. Then, Comte together economists and some experts raised the theory of modern sociology to the social critical sociology.
Pertindihan the summit between theory and social history began to appear when the concept of evolution and sociology developed under the influence of social engineers such as Comte and Spencer. Gerhard Hauck explains the evolution of the concept of linkage Comte and Spencer with the approach through the development of the historical society as a gesselschaft. Comte go from concept ideas about the study of society. Comte later typology of the developed to the two large flow by Hauck. First theologisches stadium, as one of the abstract nature of the so human, and metaphysiches stadium as one abstraks history of humanity. Meanwhile, Spencer, who object to giving too approach sciences in sosiologinya value, developed in the flow so that differed from Comte. He saw clearly the function of human beings in their environment. Here, the situation is quite clear that since the era of Comte and Spencer, social theories can not run away with the history of dikaikan. He is an wissenschaftlichen rationalität, which is also reflective.
In other areas, notably the theory of politics, there was a situation of a strict approach to history and the distinctive value in social work, such as those generated by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt [The Political Systems of Empires - 1963], or Seymor M. Lipset [The First Nation - 1963], Charles Tilly [The Vendée - 1964], Barrington Moore [Social Origins of Dictatoriship and Democrary - 1966], Eric Wolf [peasant Wars - 1969], even in works such as the anthropology of Clifford Geertz and Marshal Sahlins also have historical value. The historian, like Ranke and Francis Bacon, also began to reduce the study of social history and form of the study in the political history, with more in-depth view of the importance of peri search the main source of data for each shift or the distinction in the community.
The views sebegini Burke as one of the typology characterize distinction between theory and social history during the period-specific. Burke mengkiritik historian and pengkaji sociology because the distinction existed. For him, both the science, and the approach of this study together with the move to take the community as objeknya. Burke see approach as the history and social science that is almost two, but often have a view of distinction.
The difference this happens because of the fahaman realize that criticism in this field between the two and among historians and experts in the field of social studies. Here, quite clearly, especially in Britain, why sociology historians often criticize.
They are involved in the study of history often have a specialization in the background, and social. Historians often mengganggap social group of experts as they like to use the jargon of coarse and abstract and dilitupi with scientific terms. Some historians reject social experts because they viewed as the scientific sense in the abstract.
The views of the theory of history, can be seen, the views and attitude distinction before going for each move in the stream itself, with the theory and try to build an intellectual hegemony. On one day, the flow theory terperap in the vacuum cleaner, a flow theory will appear and how to dominate thinking on the things of time. This became an important sign that then can be seen through the development of various branches in the new theory in the field of sociology. For example, the occurrence of the terma-terma post / post as referring to the current development of the conventional theory.
Burke never raised the issue "What's the theory for social historians, and vice versa what's the history of social thinker?" This issue is not always ask for one answer, but we ask that this issue kaedah and the relationships so that we can associate the important issues in the development of social value and history itself.
In a long time we can see both the scope of science that is seen almost no one in the science of each. This matter is considered not only in terms of the contradictory attitudes in the use of the approach, but also to rein in the methodology itself. The situation on this one cause when things go down that approach.
Slowdown in the theory of history is associated more with the scientists kelembapan give an answer to the issues that the community developed quickly. Bryan S. Turner view of this trend as an effect of formalization kebarangkalian public to a form of operation and that more research empirikal. Jonathan Turner also view the situation sebegini need a power greater than the establishment of the theory.
Peter Burke show one of the good enough for describing the relationship between theory and the theory of social history. Some of the classic works such as Montesquieu [Spirits of the Law-1748] has participated in giving effect to the work of Moser History of Osnabrück, a local history of the paper based on the original document, is the classic example of a theoretical contribution to the field of social history. This also works Gibbon Decline and fall of the Roman Empire - 1776-88, which then form the fundamental basis epistemology-political history; a paper that later became the basic consideration in the analysis Leopold von Ranke, historian late 19th century. He introduced the use of documents rasmi as a source of history, and back up the political history of a particular view.
Criticism of the experts behind the sociology of historians have added to tensions in this debate. Comte and Spencer, as presented Burke, a cynical view of historians as "the details that do not need to be in serious." This is a criticism methodology. Likely to interest historians of knowledge has brought them to easily see the techniques of collecting data from the sources of the past, and generally the story and documents rasmi flow Ranke, one need not be too difficult methodology as the sociology.
Criticism is made many social thinkers theory research directly, and began to leave history. This is one interesting development in social theory, a methodology to the movement to shift-shifting in the community, and the important things that apply to the community. Can be seen that the theory of social thinkers began to baharu movement. For a long time they lived in remote areas, and conduct a study of social comprehensive enough. Historical documents, such as notes chaplain, first get less attention goongan social thinker. On the information of direct observation in an environment in which votes masyarakatlah data as appropriate.
From there we can understand that the social experts and historians to keep the sources of their grasp and describe the objects they study. But what is the need to explain the methodology of determining its own.
Gerald J. Schnepp, and Burke, see the distinction between attitudes in social experts and historians occurred in a difficult space between them is completed. Follow Schnepp, spaces that can not be solved that includes terminology, clarify the meaning of "theory, sociology and the relationship between the theory with the research. Burke address space that is difficult to be as Model Kaedah and concepts basis.
Burke explains that the distinction between the methodology and the theory of social historians lies in the first distinction views on kaedah comparison. Durkheim ideas usually become a guide in comparative sociology. Social trust is not only the community as something wujudnya facts, but always to analyze the factors that form the basis of a social fact. Society is not static, but dynamic. Dinamiknya public earlier in a different environment with other environments, and also between a period with the other. Comparative sociology expert task is to analyze why the differences occur in the process of shaping the society.
With the basis of that, their historians have failed because the only notice things that are not unique recurring. A preparation that chronicles the history melabelkan then present it as a historical narrative is not. Burke gives the example of the criticism Weber Georg Von Below, on the history of the city, stressed the importance to know the other cities, such as the ancient cities in China, as part of the perspective to establish the circumstances of the city in the Middle century. Comparison of the importance of providing social history. But also the need to approach diakronik, to complete the chronicle in the history of research.
Next historians make quantitative approach as the only way that praktikal get in and collect data. But he has a weakness in the approach itself. The thinker criticism against the theory of social trends in this regard is their only historians consider the numbers as it describes a situation that in a certain period. A tendency to see things that is unique, without menyedari that there were changes among the large numbers themselves. Criticism against this trend also comes from the religious sociology, especially the index to determine how the power of the religious.
Schnepp, expand the research and interests related to the theory. For when the social thinkers choose to do research, it was established by the understanding of the importance of the study empirikal interest. Vincent Young and Kimball equally agree that, for the sociology, the theory is important for an adequate research, and then handled by the results of research by the designer as a result of systematic empirikal in the framework of the theory. Thus the six Schnepp have important things to understand how a meeting empirikal establish the theory, first through the assessment of new theory, the concept of clarification, the strength of decline in several aspects of the theory, design theory, the formation of a new, severe doubt in the theory and finally enter the new theory .
Other aspect is to give attention to the social model in the community. Historians and social thinkers together the path of a certain period. For example, when the system merkantilisme dominant economic system. Historians do not like to consider merkantilisme as a model of social, rather memandangnya as an event in history that have shown certain things occur. For social thinker, merkantilisme is a social model that clearly shows the distinction with the base model of the old one around. As well as capitalism, or the revolution. All that happened in history, not only as a single event but a process of showing a clear social.
In other words meaning, Schnepp, and Burke agree that this distinction exists because of aspects of the terminology or concepts of principle. The historians are not put in terms of social interests, the states parties as a social thinker, which is easy to use jargo-scientific jargon. They see the social historians use the terms mentioned in the abstract and scientific framework.
The difference in attitude is beginning to the end of the century-19 and early 20th centuries. Ritzer explains that these things happen in the wave of changes in various communities. Since 18-century, social theory has been developed and then to sneak in cabangan-free branch of science. In the 19th century, the freedom of every branch of science has been increasing.
Around 20th century valid baharu development in social theory and history. The development of the votes through the liquidity that exists in the relationship between historians and experts sociology. This applies kesedaran through the resurrection of the relationship between kebergantungan a discipline with one another discipline. Interest to the social sciences made the study of history attract attention. Particularly when the beginning of kesedaran little importance to the historical narrative, which also has links on how to take advantage of oral traditions, myths include people as sources of local history. A process of change began to occur in the study of history, when the approach was about diakronik approach chronicles. In the history when it began as a process that took part along with changes in the social community.
Kesannya, what is referred to as the events in the study of history is no longer sufficient if only from the perspective that only. There are certain limitations in the approach baharu history, when the then extant groups analytical nature of the problem with asking about the factors that cause the events. Among historians began when aware that this discipline is important, the steadfast discipline to explain things and events are more correctly the history of the discipline combined with discipline-related discipline that assessment peristiwan is more dynamic. When this approach to social science is the best way to solve the impasse in the analysis of long history.
Simple argument that is used to represent the future of social theory and history remain significant when we see the facts about the dynamism community. Kediinamikan people in each period has been the theory of the substantive change or teruji in a long process. In addition, the dynamism has become a source of information that history been an academic or who live in the memory-memory society itself.
Development in the community gave birth to the theory of social approach and assess the history of the community itself. History and theory of social facts are generated through the social meetings in the community. He acted explain and analyze the facts are clear, as a social fact. In the meeting that, forming a theory dealing with the initial steps of the theory, and he considered the views of the theory builder. Of the initial steps and then collected and illustrated clearly. Through this picture will be an incarnation of terhasil contains criticism and systematic assessment to establish or develop the theory.
May be some work history as one picture to the development and changes in society. Or vice versa works also use social historiografi approach as in the perspective of making the analysis on the dynamism in the society.
Ritzer describes as an example of socialism and the appearance he menyifatkan it is part of the initial development of the sociology ranking, while Marx, Weber and Durkheim dynamism to the business community that reinforces their view on one of the age and place. So also with the occurrence of the idea of feminism as a reaction to the ability of women. Among the feminism, there be a protest, discuss about scientific matters relating to discrimination and distinction. Feminism and then became a stream in the sociology of the day's growing.
Likewise with the idea poststrukturalisme and postmodernisme who became a reaction against empirikal scientific and social changes in the facts themselves. In the contemporary situation, old theories are not able to survive in discussing things baharu. For the postmodern movement seen as a movement beyond the borders of social theory and fact.
Leads together is important to be able to solve the space in the distinction between theory and social thinker and historian leads this aspect should not contain the policy, and scientific concepts.
This means we need a history of sociology as a possibility to be able to solve the space that distinction earlier. Gerald J. Schnepp, reminds us of the weaknesses in the history of sociology itself, only when we give attention to the nature of the foundation only. A person involved in the historical sociology need to have mastery in assessing and comparing the segments or the empirikal in history and in addition is able to build on criticism andaian-andaian teoritikal particular.
History should be the approach to the social sciences together with the history of the methodology itself. History and the need to accept or absorb the views discipline-discipline others, provided that he can form a study of the history of the original, and authoritative. Here, history is not merely a simple narration, but history is a study that provide critical criticism to foster community development itself. Through the development of history sebegini we will be able to carry out a study of history a more comprehensive and high value. History of the view that the necessary political priority is quite narrow, because history is not only about the problem but the idea of political history that covers everything.
In one corner of the other, the history of sociology should be able to give more space and freedom to use our resources and data prior to this meeting closed. One is the use of oral narration as part of the local community. All sources of social history should be used as a support for the same picture to give details about the community, including the matter of dimensions, ideology, symbols, ways, actions, views the world, religion, language, politics and economy.
