144
PARTISAN REVIEW
which, like laws in the natural sciences, hold regardless of time or
place. Conceived of in such a way, sociology has no particular use
for history. Historical materials might provide some of the materials
or evidence against which sociological generalizations could be
tested. But, by and large, most sociologists who accepted this erst–
while orthodox model of their object had little interest in, or knowl–
edge of, the writings of historians. From their side, many historians
were either actively hostile to the pretensions of sociology, or at least
saw little relevance in sociological work to their own concerns. These
respective but complementary views of sociology and history have by
no means disappeared altogether today. However, the general cli–
mate of opinion has shifted dramatically within both disciplines. So–
ciology, in common with the social sciences in general, has been rent
by methodological controversies. The outcome of these is still in
some degree uncertain, but the result has certainly been to place seri–
ously in question the idea that sociology should be modelled closely
on the natural sciences and to open up the possibility of a
rapproche–
ment
with history. At the same time, the study of history has been
substantially influenced by the importation of sociological concepts
and techniques. The "new history" which Stone has contributed to in
substantial fashion in previous works, and which is the object of his
concern in the essays collected together in
The Past and the Present,
has
been shaped through this encounter between history and the social
sCiences.
Stone distinguishes various characteristics which separate the
"new history" from the genres of historical work that preceded it.
Whereas most history was once written in the narrative form, the
tendency in recent years has been to proceed in a more analytical
vein . The style of historical work, or a good deal of it, has thus
changed considerably. Moreover, the "new historians" have been
less prone to ask, in the traditional manner, how things happened as
they did than to seek to discover why they happened at all. These are
changes in method and outlook. Just as important has been a pro–
nounced alteration in the objects of study as such. Historians have
moved away from confining themselves to the scrutiny of the activi–
ties of small elite groups, the powerful, the wealthy, the creators. of
high culture; they have concentrated instead upon the hitherto
anonymous masses, the common people, and the range of institu–
tions in civil society. France - where histury and sociology have long
retained a closer contact than elsewhere - has been one of the main
points of origin of these developments. There the "new history" is not
