本文回顧了「歷史社會學」在1980年代由Theda Skocpol等先驅者引領 的「歷史轉向」風潮，以及在這個發展裡，包括它與穆勒比較法和比較社 會學的結合，其中所涉及的一些重要方法論爭議。透過1990年代批評者的 種種質疑，以及歷史社會學者的多方向辯護，將有助於我們省思歷史社會 學的侷限，並探索可能的化解途徑。歷史社會學躋身為社會學學門旁支或 次領域的「方法化」過程，反映了歷史社會學仍處於灰色地帶，這不僅是 由於它在社會學理論與歷史材料之間，存在著模糊難分的關係，同時也是 由於它與戰後初期渴望回歸古典社會學傳統的批判精神漸行漸遠，而這正 是晚近歷史社會學者意識到的「馴化」危機。本文討論了數波歷史社會學 的方法論爭議，藉由剖析這些一來一往的攻防論辯，期盼可以為歷史社會 學在相關知識體系中的位置，及其可能遭遇的難題，提供一個有所助益的 參考架構。

This article reviews the process whereby Theda Skocpol and other pioneers of the “historical turn” in the 1980s, by employing J. S. Mill’s methods and other comparative research designs, have led a generation of sociologists to claim legitimacy for historical sociology and how they have been involved within the so-called “methodological debates” with mainstream sociologists in the 1990s. The debates show more than confirming the already confirmed. The warnings proposed by critics help sociologists rethink and deal with the possible limits of historical sociology. Historical sociology is viewed as a gray area not only because of its obscure relations both to sociological theories and historical data, but also because of its being “domesticated” as a methodologicallyoriented subfield in the discipline rather than maintaining its critical spirit and its longing for reviving the classical tradition since the early postwar period. This article discusses several waves of the methodological debates over historical sociology. By analyzing these debates, it aims to provide us a useful frame of reference to define historical sociology among relevant academic disciplines and to overcome the challenges we are going to face with.