Reviewedby Linda B.Ferreri Case WesternReserve University

Arthur Stinchcombe’s expressed purpose for writing this book was to demonstrate that “one uses history to develop theory” and to outline a general methodology to be used in achieving this. He casts doubts on the logical positivist ideas of research and uses the works of Trotsky and deTocqueville to show that the difference be¬tween them “makes hardly any difference to any important question of sociological theory.”

The methodology he suggests is in the nature of a logical analogy. To simplify tremendously, analogies of historical instances are selected. Then a three step process is used to reduce the analogy “to its scientifically relevant predicates” in order to develop “causu-ally interesting sentences.” The three comparisons are an ideal sequence comparison, a comparative history of roles and a com¬parison of functional equivalents. Stinchcombe uses these steps to analyzeNeilSmelser’sSocial Change intheIndustrial Revolution andReinhardBendix’sWork and Authority in Industry.

There appear to be several problems with the methodology and the perspective advanced by Stinchcombe. One such problem is apparent in his analysis of the works of Trotsky and deTocqueville. He finds a number of important parallels between the analyses of the two men. Trotsky, in describing the Russian Revolution, and deTocqueville, in describing the French Revolution, each cites such factors as ineffective authority, increasing injustices, dual powers, and the use of symbols as factors that were present prior to the revolution. Stinchcombe sees these as analogies that can be used to infer “the nature of the causal process.” His methodology, how¬ever, has no means of weighting the importance of these factors. No two historical incidents can be found to have exactly the same preconditions in exactly the same strength. Similarly, conditions that may have little or no importance in one situation may be of overriding importance in another. For example, religious differences played an essential role in the Irish Rebellion but almost no part in the American Revolution. The use of this system of parallels would apparently accord no importance to religious conflicts since they are not present in both situations.

Another problem with this methodology is that Stinchcombe’s analysis is limited to disruptive periods. His discussion of Smelser’s arguments about social change among workers in the Industrial Revolution is extremely compelling and interesting. His comparison of the roles of male workers before and after industrialization, for instance, is enlightening although he places more emphasis on social factors than may be justified. However, it appears doubtful that such a comparative process would be equally profitable in periods in which more subtle changes were taking place.

This book has some interesting points to make about theoretical methods in social history and is very thought-provoking. It might best be read by those who are familiar with the four works specifi¬cally analyzed by the author although he does quote them frequently enough to invoke the flavor of their arguments.

The methodology may have shortcomings and it certainly does not appear to be as generalizable as Stinchcombe implies but it is a fresh possible approach within its limitations.