No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reply to Professor Katznelson
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Extract
Professor Katznelson's essay deserves a lengthy reply, but space limitations require me to keep my response brief. I strongly disagree with the way that he has characterized the thrust of my essay, the point of my other work, and the implications of recent work by other urban historians. But rather than hash over these misinterpretations, I will focus instead on the issue between us that I think has the most relevance for future work on the role of urban politics in American political development: the utility of a focus on the urban political machine.
- Type
- Forum
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989
References
1. Assuming that the reader is familiar with the preceding essays, I do not cite here works that have already been discussed there unless my reference to them is specific.
2. Frisch, Michael, “Urban Political Images in Search of a Historical Context,” in Rodwin, Lloyd and Hollister, Robert M., eds., Cities of the Mind: Images and Themes of the City in the Social Sciences (New York: Plenum Press, 1984), 197–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3. Tilly, Charles, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in Tilly, , ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 3–83Google Scholar.
4. Hofstadter, Richard, The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), xvGoogle Scholar.
5. Brown, M. Craig and Halaby, Charles N., “Machine Politics in America, 1870–1945,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7 (1987): 587–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. For a useful introduction to some of the issues raised by recent literary criticism, see Said, Edward, “Criticism between Culture and System,” in Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic (London: Faber & Faber, 1984), 178–225Google Scholar.