What is the history of sociology good for?

In 1990, already in its very first issue, Replika called for a reconsideration of the crucial uestions of Hungarian sociology by sparking off a debate about social structure. In the following years, the field of social mobility and the investigations of poverty came to be reinterpreted. Another dispute that stretched across several Replika issues tried to clarify the “cognitive chance” of Central-European social science. A number of papers appeared in Replika about the professionalization of sociology and about the nature of the specificities of measurement in social sciences.
The present issue joins in with a thematic section on the history of sociology in Hungary. It starts with József Saád’s article, “History of Hungarian Sociology: The History of What?” which ignited a lively discussion. Saád claims that a contiguous and coherent historical elaboration of the theme in the title is still missing, owing primarily to the ambiguity of the subject. It is not quite clear the history of what is at issue: 1. an analysis of social thinking in terms of the sociology of knowledge and/or history, 2. the review of sociological thinking in terms of the history of ideas, 3. the historical elaboration of social and/or sociological theories, or 4. the elaboration of sociology as a discipline in terms of the
history/sociology of science.
In his contribution, titled “What’s a History Good for?”, Dénes Némedi argues that an emerging interest in the classic authors reveals an identity crisis within national sociological traditions. Whenever a clearly defined subject-matter and a set of uniform methods, which can be adopted by the majority of the sociological community, is lacking, scholars turn towards the past to achieve professional security. In this regard — paradoxical as it may appear — the researcher of Hungarian sociological history fares better than his colleagues absorbed in a study of the history of German, French (or Anglo-Saxon) sociology with their sacred traditions, since not being obliged to reinterpret the sacred tradition, s/he might stand a good chance of carrying out a real historical analysis of scientific institutions and ideas.
In his “History and Identity”, László Kupa differentiates three kinds of sociological history: histories of ideas, of institutions, and of science. In his view, works lacking originality must also be considered as components of “normal” scientific activity. Consequently, a study of the history of Hungarian sociology in the last century ought not to be restricted to a reinterpretation of celebrated authors but should also cover the work of “second line” thinkers.
In his polemic piece, “Sociological History: The History of Sociology,” Endre Nagy discusses the problems of the historiography of sociology from a “post-positivist” position, relying on J. C. Alexander. He rejects the views which, thinking in terms of the dichotomy of theory vs. empirical research, reckon with sociology proper from the appearance of empirical experience, dating the beginnings of the discipline in Hungary to the 1840s. In the theoretical debates of Replika the author seems to discern signs of a post-positivitistic turn in which “the ‘trumpets of interpretative sociology’ may rock the walls of Jerico of positivist empiricism”.