社会学の論文の一部です。訳出お願いいたします。
引用元はJohn H. GoldthorpeのThe uses of history in sociologyの一部です。
全体的にうまく訳せないので、よろしくお願いします。
To take up again the question of the uses of history in sociology may well appear regressive. For to do so implies, of course, making a distinction between history and sociology which would now be widely regarded as untenable. Thus, for example, Philip Abrams, in his highly influential book, Historical Sociology, has advanced the argument that since ‘history and sociology are and always have been the same thing’, any discussion of the relationship of one to the other must be misguided; and Abrams in turn quotes Giddens to the effect that ‘There simply are no logical or even methodological distinctions between the social sciences and history -appropriately conceived’.’
As Abrams is indeed aware, the position he adopts is in sharp contrast with that which would have been most common among sociologists two decades or so previously. At this earlier time, sociologists were for the most part anxious to differentiate their concerns from those of historians. For example, much use was made of the distinction between ‘idiographic’ and ‘nomothetic’ disciplines. History was idiographic: historians sought to particularise through the description of singular, unique phenomena. Sociology was nomothetic: sociologists sought to generalize through formulating theories that applied to categories of phenomena.’ However, all this was in the period before the British sociological community (anticipating Sir Keith Joseph) lost its nerve over the idea of ‘social science’- before, that is, the so-called ‘reaction against positivism’ of the late 1960s and 1970s created a new mood in which political radicalism went together with intellectual conservatism.
My first contribution to the debate on ‘history and sociology’ dates back to this prelapsarian time, and was in fact a critique of the idiographic-nomothetic distinction.” My remarks were not especially well received by either historians or sociologists, and this present contribution may, I fear, prove similarly uncongenial. For what I would now think important is that attempts, such as that of Abrams and Giddens, to present history and sociology as being one and indistinguishable should be strongly resisted.”
To avoid, if possible, being misunderstood, let me stress that I do not seek here to reestablish the idiographic-nomothetic distinction, or at least not as one of principle.
＃ I do not believe, for example, that sociologists can ever hope to produce theories that are of an entirely transhistorical kind; nor that historians can ever hope to produce descriptions that are free of general ideas about social action, process and structure. However, good grounds do still remain for refusing to accept the position that any distinction drawn between history and sociology must be meaningless.
この文の that are以下の ”of ”の使い方もご指導のほどよろしくお願いします。
＃ I do not believe, for example, that sociologists can ever hope to produce theories that are of an entirely transhistorical kind：
お礼
ありがとうございました。