The Great Gap or Long Divergence, and Asian Revisionism in Historical Sociology
Volume 24, Issue 3, Autumn 2023, Pages 31-52
https://doi.org/10.22034/jsi.2024.562069.1623
Reza Azimi
Abstract One of the basic concerns in historical sociology is how the West developed with an emphasis on Britain. Despite the current belief that the time for such discussions has passed, this question is still one of the most basic and lively questions in various debates in historical sociology. Although Orientalism influences the current literature in this field, but it is totally different from what has been popularized under the title of Orientalism in Iran. This article aims to introduce one of the most controversial theories in the last two decades, which has simultaneously affected the fields of economic history and historical sociology. First, it is tried to explain the theoretical foundations of the Asian revisionism (California School) and its relationship with the theory of the great Divergence, then the empirical studies that have been carried out in the last two decades in this field are examined, and finally, some of the most important criticisms of the above theory are reviewed. Also, in a critical discussion, we examine the relationship of this current of thought in historical sociology with Foucault's view that dominates some works of historical sociology in Iran.
Weber’s comparative -Historical sociology, general theory and some consideration on orientalist discourse in Iran
Volume 20, Issue 2, Summer 2019, Pages 76-99
https://doi.org/10.22034/jsi.2020.43313
Reza Azimi
Abstract Max Weber is one of the most important founders of historical sociology. Not only, he emphasized the historical study of social problems, but also he seriously pursued a comparative approach. He developed his work with a focus on capitalism and an emphasis on the process of rationalization. The main point here is that weber sought to reconcile the interpretation with explanation, and specificity with general issues. For him, objectivity in the social sciences was important. In this article, we did three jobs. First, we discussed his efforts to describe, explain, and generalize a phenomenon in historical sociology by examining his methodological works. Second, we examined the main difference between Weber’s point of view and the oriental discourse. Finally, we argued that in order to avoid reducing the Western modernity to construction, one should use Weber’s ideal type - contrary to the theory of discourse.
