{"title":"“历史、法律和制度的事务”:威廉·格雷厄姆·萨姆纳的历史方法和个人的责任","authors":"Simon Gilhooley","doi":"10.1086/716686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"William Graham Sumner is popularly thought of as the Progressive Era’s strongest champion of the unencumbered individual, following Richard Hofstadter’s identification of Sumner as “one of America’s preeminent and influential social Darwinists.” Sumner scholars have increasingly pushed back against this characterization, pointing to the roles of cooperation and the “law of sympathy” within Sumner’s writings. However, the revision of Sumner has remained focused on the texts that Hofstadter identified as Sumner’s “political” writings. This article argues that such a focus would have confused Sumner, who saw the study of politics as intimately tied to the study of history. Reconstructing Sumner’s political thought by contextualizing his “political” writings in his understanding of historical development and his extended historical accounts, the article argues that Sumner understood civil liberty not as an abstract concept but as an empirical fact that emerged from the interplay of historical forces.","PeriodicalId":41928,"journal":{"name":"American Political Thought","volume":"10 1","pages":"577 - 600"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“An Affair of History, Law, and Institutions”: William Graham Sumner’s Historical Method and the Responsibility of the Individual\",\"authors\":\"Simon Gilhooley\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/716686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"William Graham Sumner is popularly thought of as the Progressive Era’s strongest champion of the unencumbered individual, following Richard Hofstadter’s identification of Sumner as “one of America’s preeminent and influential social Darwinists.” Sumner scholars have increasingly pushed back against this characterization, pointing to the roles of cooperation and the “law of sympathy” within Sumner’s writings. However, the revision of Sumner has remained focused on the texts that Hofstadter identified as Sumner’s “political” writings. This article argues that such a focus would have confused Sumner, who saw the study of politics as intimately tied to the study of history. Reconstructing Sumner’s political thought by contextualizing his “political” writings in his understanding of historical development and his extended historical accounts, the article argues that Sumner understood civil liberty not as an abstract concept but as an empirical fact that emerged from the interplay of historical forces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Political Thought\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"577 - 600\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Political Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/716686\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
继理查德·霍夫施塔特(Richard Hofstadter)将萨姆纳认定为“美国杰出且有影响力的社会达尔文主义者之一”之后,威廉·格雷厄姆·萨姆纳(William Graham Sumner)被普遍认为是进步时代最有力的无障碍个人拥护者,指出了合作的作用和萨姆纳作品中的“同情法则”。然而,对萨姆纳的修订仍然集中在霍夫施塔特认定为萨姆纳“政治”著作的文本上。这篇文章认为,这样的关注会让萨姆纳感到困惑,他认为政治研究与历史研究密切相关。本文通过将萨姆纳的“政治”著作置于其对历史发展的理解和扩展的历史叙述的语境中,重建了萨姆纳的政治思想,认为萨姆纳将公民自由理解为一个经验事实,而不是一个抽象的概念。
“An Affair of History, Law, and Institutions”: William Graham Sumner’s Historical Method and the Responsibility of the Individual
William Graham Sumner is popularly thought of as the Progressive Era’s strongest champion of the unencumbered individual, following Richard Hofstadter’s identification of Sumner as “one of America’s preeminent and influential social Darwinists.” Sumner scholars have increasingly pushed back against this characterization, pointing to the roles of cooperation and the “law of sympathy” within Sumner’s writings. However, the revision of Sumner has remained focused on the texts that Hofstadter identified as Sumner’s “political” writings. This article argues that such a focus would have confused Sumner, who saw the study of politics as intimately tied to the study of history. Reconstructing Sumner’s political thought by contextualizing his “political” writings in his understanding of historical development and his extended historical accounts, the article argues that Sumner understood civil liberty not as an abstract concept but as an empirical fact that emerged from the interplay of historical forces.