Search

This comment is stimulated by Max Haller's contribution The Challenge for Comparative Sociology in the Transformation of Europe which appeared in the 1990 issue of International Sociology, and takes it as a starting point and as a challenge for some basic reflections on how to approach the emerging European society. This article gives a short abstract of Haller's argument and appreciates its merits and examines some of his propositions. This will allow the author to formulate a significantly different position. The last paragraph draws some conclusions. Although he does not make this point extremely explicit, the intention behind Haller's paper is, in the author's perception, to demonstrate that Europe is an optimal constellation for making international and intercultural comparisons. Thus, the problems he has to solve are what to compare with what, why, and how. But it is clear that in his view Europe forms an entity, with nations as sub-units. The paper's argument starts with crisis phenomena in Europe and continues to describe Europe's striking internal differentiation. The unity and diversity of Europe are seen as optimal preconditions for comparative research, where unity means external delimitation and internal interlinkage, and diversity means internal differentiation.

This article presents a reply to Bernd Hamm's critique of the transformation of Europe as a challenge to comparative sociology. The main thrust of Bernd Hamm's critique is that the article on the transformation of Europe is pursuing a comparative approach resulting only in the empirical description of similarities and differences between nations. Such an approach, accepting nations as the most important and meaningful entities for comparison, tends to confine research to a static and correlational logic. He asserts that it is characterized by a retrospective and conservative bias, not allowing for a true consideration of patterns of interlinkages between the units of observation nor the dynamics of change. While such an approach, according to Hamm, might have some merits, a truly fruitful comparative research within the context of Europe necessitates a significant different position, an evolutionary approach focusing on the changes going on in Europe. Here, the processes of building European institutions are particularly at issue; only by focusing on them can we contribute to the understanding of Europe as it becomes one society, and to learn lessons from such understanding. There are some specific arguments in Hamm's critique on which the author would like to comment briefly. The first concerns arguments about crisis phenomena in Europe in the first part of the paper. A second, quite important, issue raised by Hamm concerns the question whether nation-states are still the most meaningful units of observation in comparative research.