Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T11:49:32.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Poverty of (Monocausal) Theory: A Comment on Charles Tilly's Durable Inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2000

Barbara Laslett
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Durable Inequality is a very ambitious work of social theory by one of our foremost sociologists. In many ways, it builds upon the grand master theorists of the nineteenth century through a language of the present. It is like the more structuralist versions of Marx. For Marx, however, class relations and class inequality have different dynamics and different characteristics, depending on historically variable modes of production. For Tilly, inequality refers to relations between paired and unequal categories that have differential access to value- producing resources. And for Tilly, again in contrast to Marx, categorical inequality is perpetuated—is durable—in large measure because of various specified organizational properties and dynamics. There are no contradictions for Tilly, no dynamics of change that are internal to his model or vary by the specific historical conditions that one is attempting to analyze. This is, indeed, surprising for a scholar so identified with historical sociology. In Tilly's formulation, the characteristics and dynamics through which categorical inequality creates durable inequality appears transhistorical. It is not inequality under capitalism that seems to be Tilly's focus, but, rather, a universal theory of inequality across time.

Type
CSSH Discussion
Copyright
© 2000 Society for Comparative Study of Society and History