Tilly: Big Structures, Large Processes, And Huge Comparisons ⢠Tilly ...
Tilly: Big Structures, Large Processes, And Huge Comparisons • Tilly says that states are like racketeering operations. You are paying the state to protect you from things that they have created. • War making, state making, protection and extraction are 4 essential things within a state • The state has an interest in making sure that its people are happy as well as healthy in order to ensure that they want to contribute to that society Chapter 4 In chapter four of Charles Tilly’s text; Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, the author says using macro history – the study of big structures and large processes within particular world systems, to compare todays social changes is a better approach than any other. He says on the whole comparative studies of big structures and large processes yield more intellectual return when investigators examine relatively small numbers of instances. This is because big numbers give an illusory sense of security. The student of a structure process has little to no choice but to pay attention to the historical circumstances and particular characteristics of the cases at hand and thus to work harder at meeting commonsense conditions, when dealing with small numbers. Even under capitalism, changes in the organization of production and increases in the level of exploitation common involved coercion; capital dwells on the forcible dispossession of peasants and artisans. Furthermore, Marxist analysis has stressed the coercion employers used in tightening workdiscipline, speeding up production, and reducing the autonomy of skilled workers. Nevertheless, coercion in general has had an uncertain place in Marxist analysis. This means that studies assuming that the time and place in which a structure or process appears to make a difference to its character, that the sequence in which similar events occur has a substantial impact on their outcomes, and that the existing record of past structures and processes is problematic, requiring systematic investigation in its own right instead of lending itself immediately to social scientific synthesis. He discuses Marx and how his theories came by the critiquing of modernization and development, stating that through only the coercion of workers capitalism is able to flourish. The reason he brings attention to Marx is that he considers it genuinely historical pertaining to social sciences is the time and place of a structure of process is integral to its character, the occurrence of similar events have an impact on their outcomes, and that existing record of structures and process of the past is problematic as they require further investigation Furthermore, let us differentiate between the several different ways of comparing big structures and large processes. The two main characteristics we will be exploring are share of all instances, and multiplicity of forms. In share, the statement resulting from a comparison can range from a single instance to all instances. In multiplicity, the statement emerging from a comparison can range from single to multiple. Cross referencing the two, results in wide array possibilities. Individualizing treats each case as unique, taking up one instance at a time and minimizing its common properties with other instances. When individualizing, the point is to contrast specific instances of a given phenomenon as a means of grasping the peculiarities of each case. On the other hand we have universalizing. This aims to establish that every instance of a phenomenon follows essentially the same rule. Next we see variation finding. This is supposed to establish a principle of variation in the character or intensity of a phenomenon by examining systematic differences among instances. Lastly, there is encompassing. This places different instances at various locations within the same system, on the way to explaining their characteristics as a function of their varying relationships to the system as a whole.
