按：这份读本是以斯维尔（Sewell）为中心（因而也就撇掉了人类学上的萨林斯），从攻—守—转来谈2005年后（Logics of Hiostry出版后）的英文学界有关延伸讨论。

第一章  斯维尔旗帜

       第一节  Sewell, William H., Jr."Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology". In the Historic Turn in the Human Sciences.Terrance J. McDonald. ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

      第二节  Sewell, William H., Jr."Political Events as Structural Transformations: Inventing Revolution atthe Bastille." Theory & Society25.6(1996):841-881.

      第三节 Sewell William H., Jr.“A Theory of the Event: Marshall Sahlins’s “Possible

Theory of History” in William H. Sewell,Jr., , Logics of History: Social Theoryand Social Transformation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005),197–224.

      第四节 Sewell William H., Jr. Refiguring the ‘social’ in social science: Aninterpretivist manifesto. In Logics of History: Social Theory and SocialTransformation ” in WilliamH. Sewell, Jr., Logics of History: SocialTheory and Social Transformation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,2005), 318–372.

第一章从Sewell的《Logics of Hisotry》一书中挑了四篇，是参考了Dylan Riley（2008）对该书各章作为论文发表的年序考察，分为The Early Cultural Turn、The High Cultural Turn和The Postcultural Turn三期，但未收录The Early Cultural Turn作品，主要是后来学者参考引用Sewell此书集中在第3、7章和第8 章。并且，循Sewell的概念发展，不得不把最后一章的《Refiguring the ‘social’ in social science》收录进来（例如“资源“的相关概念演变）。

第二章  围剿与反围剿

      第一节 Riley, Dylan. “The Historical Logic of Logics of History: Language and Labor inWilliam H. Sewell Jr.” Social Science History 32, no. 4 (2008): 555–65.

      第二节 Steinmetz, George. “Logics of History as a Framework for an Integrated Social Science.” Social Science History 32, no. 4 (2008):535–554.

      第三节 Pedersen, David. “Keeping It Real:Semiotic Practice and Fateful Temporality in WilliamSewell’s Logics ofHistory.” Social Science History 32,no. 4 (December 2008): 567–577.

      第四节 Sewell, William H. “Response to Steinmetz, Riley, and Pedersen.” Social Science History 32, no. 4 (2008):579–93.

这次围剿与反围剿是SocialScience History办的专门讨论。三篇质量是Riley>Steinmetz>Pedersen。三人提出的问题，以及Sewell的回应，会在下面的各章节的论文中出现有关论点，比如创伤事件（人生记忆）与转型事件的关系、批判实在论与事件理论的关系。Sewell的回应有诚恳也有不想细复之处。

第三章  单挑比划

      第一节 Tang, Chih-Chieh. “Toward a Really Temporalized Theory of Event: A Luhmannian Critiqueand Reconstruction of Sewell’s Logics of History.” Social Science Information 52, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 34–61.

      第二节 Bassett, Keith. “Thinking the Event: Badiou’s Philosophy of the Event and the Example of the Paris Commune.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26, no. 5 (October 1, 2008): 895–910.

      第三节 Moore, Adam. “The Eventfulness of Social Reproduction.” Sociological Theory 29, no. 4 (2011):294–314.

      第四节 Corning, Amy, Vladas Gaidys, and Howard Schuman. “Transformative Events andGenerational Memory: A Case Study Over Time in Lithuania.” Sociological Forum 28, no. 2 (June 1,2013): 373–94.

斯维尔之后，有以巴迪欧（Bassett）、卢曼（汤志杰）加入单挑比划。相较人物单挑，Moore与Corning等人也以主题单挑（如事件作为转型vs. 维持、当代注意vs.世代记忆）的方式与斯维尔对话。

第四章  归顺义军

      第一节 Beck Jr., Robin A. “What I Believe: Structure and the Problem of Macrosociality.” Southeastern Archaeology 33, no. 2(Winter 2014): 208–13.

      第二节 Berezin, Mabel. “Events as Templates of Possibility: An Analytic Typology ofPolitical Facts.” The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology, 2012, 613–635.

      第三节 Pettit, Michael, and Ian Davidson. “Can the History of Psychology Have an Impact?” Theory & Psychology, May 22, 2014.

      第四节 Meyer, Rachel, and Howard Kimeldorf. “Eventful Subjectivity: The Experiential Sources of Solidarity.” Journal of Historical Sociology, 2015.

斯维尔的作品在地理学、考古学、建筑学（未收录于此）、心理学以及社会学的环境社会学（未收录于此）、劳工政治均有影响，本读本选择收录，未必在于这些论文出彩，但有延伸新读，也许是未来的种子。

第五章  另起炉灶

      第一节 Znepolski, Ivailo. “From the Great Event to Incidents–a Reconstruction of the Event Identity of Historical Change.” Divinatio, no. 39–40 (2015): 165–181.

      第二节 Wagner‐Pacifici, Robin. “Theorizing the Restlessness of Events.”American Journal ofSociology 115, no. 5 (2010): 1351–86.

      第三节 Kaiser, Robert. “Reassembling the Event: Estonia’s ‘Bronze Night.’” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30, no. 6 (December 1, 2012): 1046–63.

      第四节 邱德亮，〈事件回歸之後，歷史如何書寫事件 ？〉，《新史學》，    2008，19(3): 1-39.

不同于斯维尔—萨林斯的联盟，一些学者也尝试不加入或另起联盟。保加利亚的Znepolski拆解了event，以重建类型学为突破口重建了新的历史连续与断裂。纽约新学院的Wagner‐Pacifici运用speech act theory，探求一种更具身化的路径，以及地理学的Kaiser引入德勒兹（几无对比，故是另起），改由从空间而非时间入手，均就事件理论本身予以重建。邱德亮则是较综合地谈了事件书写而本“事件”，统观了一些或可再挖掘的哲学资源。（毕竟我也没读过什么德里达什么~只好看邱的综述了~）

附录

Clemens, Elisabeth S. “Toward a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes, and Emergence.” Annual Review of Sociology 33, no. 1(2007): 527–49.

附录收入一篇历史社会学的综述作品。

—————————————待收录————————————

Wagner‐Pacifici的2017年新作：《What Is an Event?》（芝加哥大学出版社）（http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo25581575.html）

                         （Sociological理论大缸第30期）