The Contribution of Elias to the Debate on State Formation in Historical Sociology

Bibliographic Data

ID20054540
AuthorsRoland Axtmann (corresponding author)
Year2000
Pages105-118
Publication date2000-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeCHAPTER
VenueZivilisationstheorie in der Bilanz (SOURCE_BOOK)
PublisherVS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1007/978-3-663-11910-4_5
OpenAlexW104713150
ISBN9783663119104
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited16

In the last two decades or so, historical sociology has experienced a dramatic revival.1 Much of the attention in this revival has been focused on the 'classical' concern with the structure and the dynamics of political authority. How adequately to conceptualize and analyse the modern state and its formation has become one of the key questions in historical sociology. At issue is the charting and explanation of the transformation of the multiplicity of overlapping and divided authority structures of the medieval polity into the 'modern' arrangement of political institutions within a clearly demarcated (sovereign) territory that is characterized, on the one hand, by the monopoly of the legitimate use of force in the hands of the state and its staff, and, on the other, by the homogenization of the subjects of whom each has the same rights and duties. A renewed interest in Max Weber's macro-sociology coincided with the 'historical turn' in sociology and, indeed, it was Weber's institutional approach to politics that has inspired major practioners of historical sociology such as Anthony Giddens and Michael Mann, Charles Tilly and Theda Skocpol, Reinhard Bendix and Randall Collins, or Ernest Gellner and John Hall

Epistemology · Historical sociology · Monopoly · Political science · Political sociology · Politics · Polity · Social science · Sociology · Sociology of law · Sovereignty · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Law · Philosophy · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Sociology and Norbert Elias

Tools

Open DOILibgen