ABSTRACT
It is easy enough to nod agreement at E. H. Carr's remark that 'the more sociological history becomes, and the more historical sociology becomes, the better for both'.l But in truth, unhappily, the mutuallyenriching dialogue between history and sociology that Carr calls for has barely begun; so far, communication between the two disciplines has largely been in the form of a monologue, with history on the receiving end. Sociologists and social anthropologists have been eager to suggest how their brethren in the most traditional and least theoretical of the social sciences might broaden their horizons and deepen their insights into man's behaviour in the past. It is clear, from a number of recent books and articles, that this advice has not gone entirely unheard.2 What seems to have been neglected, however, is that if historians have much to learn from their colleagues in sociology, the converse of this proposition is also true. Carr's remark cuts both ways. Sociological work based on erroneous historical assumptions can be as superficial as sociologically primitive history, and it is no less common.3 Close scrutiny of an influential specimen of contemporary social research which is particularly vulnerable to this charge may help to clarify why an accurate sense of historical perspective is indispensable to students of modern society.
