In The Structures of History Christopher Lloyd questions whether narration on its own can provide a real understanding of history, and addresses in philosophical and practical terms the fundamental problems of whether it is possible to know and to explain the history of human societies, and if so how these tasks might be approached. The book revolves around an inquiry into the general nature of historical structures, how these have been studied by historians, anthropologists, sociologists and philosophers, and how they (...) relate to events, actions and beliefs. The author draws upon a wide range of reference in the philosophy of history and science, and in the writings of historians and social scientists during the last two centuries. The thrust of his account is against the relativism of such as Rorty, Foucault and Derrida, and for the complex socio-historical realism exemplified in the writings of Geertz, Gellner, Ladurie and Mann. Christopher Lloyd concludes that an objective understanding of the past is not an impossible ambition, and he provides a searching analysis of the framework and methods necessary to its realization. (shrink)

The late Maurice Mandelbaum was one of the most consistent and determined defenders of philosophical and social realism and of what he called "methodological institutionalism." This can be seen as containing a theory of human agency and a theory of how the social world comes to be institutionally structured, or what can be called a "structurist" theory. Mandelbaurn has argued for the irreducibility of social concepts and the necessity of scientific social laws for social and historical explanation. Purpose and Necessity (...) in Social Theory and the totality of Mandelbaum's work support the contention that in the task of developing substantive social explanations three basic issues are equally important: the problem of social reality and truth, the problem of social causation, and the problem of social change. Mandelbaum's concepts of behavior and institutions - their relative autonomy, symbiosis, and historicity -together provide the basis for a sociological structurism. Moreover, he provides powerful philosophical support from within the analytical tradition for a social theory that rejects atomism and empiricism and embraces the historical nature of society as both a real structure and an ongoing structuring process. (shrink)

There should not be a material/mental methodological division in the frameworks used by social historians, but rather, a structure/action heuristic division. A survey of methodological approaches to social history becomes possible after clearing confusion between philosophical questions, methodological questions, and theories, as well as presenting a preliminary discussion of philosophical issues pertaining to the study of social history. The five general categories of approaches according to their philosophical foundations are: the empiricist and individualist, the systemic- functionalist, the interpretist, the structuralist (...) and poststructuralist, and relational structurist. All those approaches that adopt methodological structurism are able to overcome fundamental epistemological problems in explaining social history; and so they are able to support a sufficiently powerful methodology for studying how action and structure causally interrelate over time. Social history gains an increasing degree of plausibility and can be labelled "scientific" when it is based on a realist ontology of structures and a commitment to discovering the complex, multileveled, structural reality of the world. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The Concept of “Schools” Main Schools of Historiography Towards a Theory of the History of Historiography Bibliography.