教學目標：
長期以來歷史學與社會學之間的曖昧，難以有明確的學術領域。省思其中的矛盾與進行所謂「知識領域保衛戰」的過程中，是否可以從其中找尋兩者結合的可能，以及彼此所獨有的觀點。不僅是社會學與歷史學的對話，同時也是對於知識的跨展。歷史學廣義的作為一個理解人類活動過程的知識訓練，歷史事實的挖掘與客觀的歷史事實的追求成為普遍的價值，問說「什麼是歷史？」其實某種程度也是在回應「什麼是真實？」如何「再現過去」的要求。對於過去的樣貌，兩個學門的研究立場與途徑，在1960年代開展了激烈的辯論，一方面歷史學者認為兩者在方法論上有著不同的認識，同時對於什麼樣的資料可以「代表」過去，也不斷與過往的檔案、文件的真實性進行長期的鬥爭。
而就社會學的立場與發問的角度，主要是從現今的社會型態，思考過去人類的歷史活動變遷，並以什麼樣的力量來推動？古典社會學的立論，長期以來對於諸多歷史變遷的課題有著莫大的興趣。對於社會學家而言，長期關懷於「社會是如何生成」這個命題。其研究的課題，雖說在概念上有著不同的切入，從馬克思的階級、韋伯的理性化到涂爾幹的集體意識，仍圍繞在對於當代社會中「現代性」這樣特質的好奇上。
因此從兩者發問的取逕，大致上可以理解彼此的核心關懷是有所差異。一個是在從過去的歷史活動中的疑點，為現在的社會尋找更準確的認識。而社會學反其道從現在的社會狀態，去質問歷史是如何的堆積出現在的樣貌。但就知識論的角度，兩者其實正是相輔相成的建構出人類如何依據過去的活動經驗，為未來找尋更適當的出路。面對社會學對於社會結構與行動者間的探討，歷史學在「從過去到現在」的因果態度，也提出了反轉的可能性：是否我們可以面對現今的疑問，從過去找尋線索，對過去進行了解。因此在問題的發問上，就不再僅限於靜態性的結構性問題，而賦予更多從問題的角度，以及在個人經驗的過程中，如何面對歷史變遷提出反省與檢討。透過這樣的對話，也使兩者的結合與對話更為可能且必須。
Charles Tilly在一篇演講稿中提到「未來的歷史學」與「過去的社會學」的期待，的確很能契合歷史社會學的態度。「 從長程來看，我期盼能找到一帖萬應靈藥：既能使歷史社會學的專業性消融，又能令它的前提，特別是其歷史意識，貫穿社會學的全部。……最後，一個奠基在歷史學基礎上的社會學，將遠比現在更具知識力量。」
歷史社會學強調對社會現象的研究必須考量歷史的面向及因素，社會現象本質上就是歷史過程中社會互動的結果。從1960年代以後對於美國社會學界以結構功能論與抽象的量化研究法佔主流地位進行深刻的反省與批判。尤其對於Parsons所主導的結構功能論的理論體系，去除了歷史的向度，將社會的形構是作為一種靜態的系統提出批判。社會學家如C.W. Mills、Skocpol等主張返回歷史的向度上，並以Weber與Marx的思想為主軸，對於當時的主流社會學進行挑戰。因此從跨學科交流所產生的影響來看，當時在歷史學界也正興起一股「何謂歷史？」的論戰，對於歷史學內部的狹隘，多有所不滿。而在法國年鑒學派以及社會史與新文化史等等新興研究課題不斷的出現後，除了對於歷史學本身的傳統有所應響外，也對社會學的歷史轉向有推波助瀾之效，並在方法跟主題上豐富了社會學家的歷史想像。
此處可舉一個例子：Charlers Tilly。Tilly關注在長期的社會結構轉變的背景下，歐洲的集體行動是如何被激發出來的研究課題上，我們可以從他晚年的著作《社會運動1768-2004》一書中可以看到他所思考的一種集體性的行動，在西方的政治制度形塑的過程中，具有什麼樣的影響，也因此Tilly的集體行動理論引入了社會學諸多概念，例如Weber的理性化、行動理論、Durkheim的集體意識、以及社會學諸多概念如結構、組織、階級等等。他關注人們共同行動中所追求共享利益的途徑是如何建立出來。雖然普通大眾有其創造性、自身的組織能力以及他們捍衛自身利益的能力。但在在特殊的時空中，實施了哪些具體的轉化措施來影響社會變遷的過程。Tilly強調行動者的重要性，人要如何通過一致的行動來形成整體。他賦予集體行動者更多積極、創造性的背景，並從政治與社會運動的角度，對於集體行動進行更連續性的歷史耙梳。
他認為社會變遷與現代化在形式上和政治衝突上並不一致，快速的城市化和工業化降低了衝突的程度。而群體資源的移轉時（例如手工藝轉至機械生產時），會與城市化與工業化產生對立。工業資本主義的出現，改變了認同與權力競爭者的利益，也改變了他們集體行動形式。集體衝突發生的頻率與後果取決於國家的運作，現代化改變了集體行動與暴力形式，而其中權力與政治過程是佔據了首要的位置。

Teaching objectives:
There has been a long-standing ambiguity between history and sociology, making it difficult to have a clear academic field. In the process of reflecting on the contradictions and engaging in the so-called "defense of the knowledge field", whether we can find the possibility of combining the two and the unique perspectives of each other. It is not only a dialogue between sociology and history, but also a cross-development of knowledge. History is broadly regarded as a knowledge training for understanding the process of human activities. The excavation of historical facts and the pursuit of objective historical facts have become universal values. Asking "What is history?" In fact, to a certain extent, it is also responding to the requirement of "What is reality?" and how to "reproduce the past." Regarding the appearance of the past, the research stances and approaches of the two disciplines launched a fierce debate in the 1960s. On the one hand, historians believed that the two had different understandings of methodology. At the same time, they also continued to have a long-term struggle with the authenticity of past archives and documents over what kind of data can "represent" the past.
From the perspective of sociology and questioning, we mainly think about the changes in human historical activities in the past from the perspective of today's social structure, and what kind of power drove them? Classical sociology has long been interested in many topics of historical change. For sociologists, they have long been concerned with the proposition "how society is created." Although the topics of his research have different conceptual approaches, from Marx's class, Weber's rationalization to Durkheim's collective consciousness, they still revolve around the curiosity about the characteristics of "modernity" in contemporary society.
Therefore, from the two approaches to asking questions, we can generally understand that their core concerns are somewhat different. One is to look for a more accurate understanding of current society from doubtful points in past historical activities. Sociology, on the other hand, looks at the current social status and asks how history has accumulated to present what it is today. But from an epistemological perspective, the two actually complement each other in constructing how human beings can find a more appropriate way out for the future based on past experience. In the face of sociology's discussion of social structure and actors, history's causal attitude of "from the past to the present" also raises the possibility of reversal: Can we face today's questions, find clues from the past, and understand the past? Therefore, when asking questions, it is no longer limited to static structural issues, but more introspection and review are given from the perspective of problems and how to face historical changes in the process of personal experience. Through such dialogue, the combination and dialogue between the two become more possible and necessary.
Charles Tilly mentioned in a speech that the expectations of "history of the future" and "sociology of the past" are indeed very consistent with the attitude of historical sociology. "In the long run, I hope to find a panacea that can not only dissolve the professionalism of historical sociology, but also make its premises, especially its historical consciousness, run through the entirety of sociology. ... In the end, a sociology based on history will be far more intellectually powerful than it is now."
Historical sociology emphasizes that the study of social phenomena must consider historical aspects and factors. Social phenomena are essentially the results of social interaction in the historical process. Since the 1960s, there has been a profound introspection and criticism of the dominant position of structural functionalism and abstract quantitative research methods in American sociology. In particular, the theoretical system of structural functionalism led by Parsons removes the historical dimension and criticizes the social structure as a static system. Sociologists such as C.W. Mills and Skocpol advocated returning to the historical dimension and using the ideas of Weber and Marx as the main axis to challenge the mainstream sociology at that time. Therefore, judging from the impact of interdisciplinary exchanges, a debate on "What is history?" was also emerging in the history academic circle at that time, and many were dissatisfied with the narrowness within history. The emergence of new research topics such as the French Annales School and social history and new cultural history not only responded to the tradition of history itself, but also contributed to the historical turn of sociology and enriched the historical imagination of sociologists in terms of methods and themes.
Here is an example: Charles Tilly. Tilly focuses on the research topic of how European collective action was stimulated in the context of long-term social structural changes. We can see from his later work "Social Movements 1768-2004" that he thought about a kind of collective action in Western politics. What kind of influence does it have in the process of shaping the governance system? Therefore, Tilly's collective action theory introduces many sociological concepts, such as Weber's rationalization, action theory, Durkheim's collective consciousness, and many sociological concepts such as structure, organization, class, etc. He focuses on how pathways for shared interests are established when people act together. Although the general public has its creativity, its own organizational skills and their ability to defend their own interests. But in a special time and space, what specific transformation measures have been implemented to affect the process of social change. Tilly emphasizes the importance of actors and how people can form a whole through consistent actions. He gives collective actors a more positive and creative background, and provides a more continuous history of collective action from the perspective of politics and social movements.
He believed that social change and modernization were inconsistent in form and political conflict, and that rapid urbanization and industrialization reduced the degree of conflict. The transfer of group resources (for example, when handicrafts are transferred to mechanical production) will conflict with urbanization and industrialization. The emergence of industrial capitalism has changed the interests of competitors for identity and power, as well as their forms of collective action. The frequency and consequences of collective conflicts depend on the functioning of the state. Modernization has changed the forms of collective action and violence, among which power and political processes occupy a primary position.

1、 概述馬克斯、涂爾幹、韋伯、芝加哥社會學派、傅柯、卜爾迪、哈伯瑪斯等的歷史社會學。
2、 探討歷史和社會學共同關注的課題，包括社會移動、社會衝突、社會變遷、集體行為、「交流理性」、「相互結構」、個人和共同體的主體性。

1. Overview the historical sociology of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Chicago School of Sociology, Foucault, Bourdi, Habermas, etc.
2. Explore topics of common concern to history and sociology, including social mobility, social conflict, social change, collective behavior, "communicative rationality", "mutual structure", and the subjectivity of individuals and communities.

社會理論與歷史學
Alex Callinicos 2007《創造歷史：社會理論中的行動、結構與變遷》，萬毓澤譯，台北：群學。
Arpad Szakolczai 2008《反思性歷史社會學》，凌鵬等譯，上海：上海人民出版。
Barrington Moore 1992《民主與獨裁的起源》，台北：遠流
Charles Tilly 1990“Coercion, Capital, and European States AD 990-1992” Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Social Theory and History
Alex Callinicos 2007 "Making History: Action, Structure and Change in Social Theory", translated by Wan Yuze, Taipei: Qunxue.
Arpad Szakolczai 2008 "Reflexive Historical Sociology", translated by Ling Peng et al., Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Barrington Moore 1992 "The Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship", Taipei: Yuanliu
Charles Tilly 1990 "Coercion, Capital, and European States AD 990-1992" Oxford: Blackwell Publishers