Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T18:06:07.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French Colonial Sociology and the Struggle for Scientific Autonomy - George Steinmetz, The Colonial Origins of Modern Social Thought (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2023, 576 p.).

Review products

George Steinmetz, The Colonial Origins of Modern Social Thought (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2023, 576 p.).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024

Mathieu Hikaru Desan
Mathieu Hikaru Desan*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder. Email: Mathieu.Desan@colorado.edu.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , December 2023 , pp. 419 - 424
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Archives européennes de Sociologie/European Journal of Sociology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Steinmetz, George, 2005, “Scientific Authority and the Transition to Post-Fordism: The Plausibility of Positivism in U.S. Sociology since 1945,” in Steinmetz, G., ed, The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences. Positivism and its Epistemological Others (Durham, Duke University Press: 275–323)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Connell, Raewyn 1997, “Why is Classical Theory Classical?” American Journal of Sociology, 102 (6): 1511–1557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Steinmetz, George, 2018, “Scientific Autonomy, Academic Freedom, and Social Research in the United States,” Critical Historical Studies, 5 (2): 281–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.