我没有找到 Kosminsky's approach，虽然“ Evgeny Kosminsky and other Marxist historians claimed the epidemic was merely an ancillary factor contributing to a general agrarian crisis stemming primarily from the inevitable decay of European feudalism” 但是这句话有K但是这只是K和M的观点，所以答案不再这里。后面出来一个“ In arguing that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, the Marxist asserted that the Black Death was a relatively insignificant factor. ” 这句话是M的观点，所以我没能力联想到K身上。。。。。求助思维方式。

请张慧雯老师回答，我的定位点： In arguing that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, the Marxist asserted that the Black Death was a relatively insignificant factor. 原文用了relatively insignificant，但是e用了best最高级，为什么还是正确的呢？会不会过于绝对化

我没有找到 Kosminsky's approach，虽然“ Evgeny Kosminsky and other Marxist historians claimed the epidemic was merely an ancillary factor contributing to a general agrarian crisis stemming primarily from the inevitable decay of European feudalism” 但是这句话有K但是这只是K和M的观点，所以答案不再这里。后面出来一个“ In arguing that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, the Marxist asserted that the Black Death was a relatively insignificant factor. ” 这句话是M的观点，所以我没能力联想到K身上。。。。。求助思维方式。

In explaining the foundations of the discipline known as historical sociology—the examination of history using the methods of sociology—historical sociologist Philip Abrams argues that, while people are made by society as much as society is made by people, sociologists' approach to the subject is usually to focus on only one of these forms of influence to the exclusion of the other. Abrams insists on the necessity for sociologists to move beyond these one-sided approaches to understand society as an entity constructed by individuals who are at the same time constructed by their society. Abrams refers to this continuous process as "structuring." Abrams also sees history as the result of structuring. People, both individually and as members of collectives, make history. But our making of history is itself formed and informed not only by the historical conditions we inherit from the past, but also by the prior formation of our own identities and capacities, which are shaped by what Abrams calls "contingencies"—social phenomena over which we have varying degrees of control. Contingencies include such things as the social conditions under which we come of age, the condition of our household's economy, the ideologies available to help us make sense of our situation, and accidental circumstances. The ways in which contingencies affect our individual or group identities create a structure of forces within which we are able to act, and that partially determines the sorts of actions we are able to perform. In Abrams's analysis, historical structuring, like social structuring, is manifold and unremitting. To understand it, historical sociologists must extract from it certain significant episodes, or events, that their methodology can then analyze and interpret. According to Abrams, these events are points at which action and contingency meet, points that represent a cross section of the specific social and individual forces in play at a given time. At such moments, individuals stand forth as agents of history not simply because they possess a unique ability to act, but also because in them we see the force of the specific social conditions that allowed their actions to come forth. Individuals can "make their mark" on history, yet in individuals one also finds the convergence of wider social forces. In order to capture the various facets of this mutual interaction, Abrams recommends a fourfold structure to which he believes the investigations of historical sociologists should conform: first, description of the event itself; second, discussion of the social context that helped bring the event about and gave it significance; third, summary of the life history of the individual agent in the event; and fourth, analysis of the consequences of the event both for history and for the individual. 想请张惠雯老师帮忙解答！ 阅读过程如下: 第一段： 历史社会学家PA认为社会学家研究the subject(指代上面的历史社会学)仅仅关注... 后面读不太懂，但是知道逻辑方向肯定是研究方法不对，后面一句也得到了证实。 A坚持认为社会学家必须越过这些片面的方法将社会理解成整体。说明社会学家与PA的观点相反。 PA指道这个持续的过程就是structuring 第一段没有什么能够跳的地方，但是总的就介绍了什么是structuring 第二段： 段间关系：仍然在围绕着structuring在谈 段落主旨：A认为历史来自于structuring。后 阅读过程:人创造历史。历史被形成不仅由....而且由... 在说历史的形成，说明全是细节。 偶然性事件包括，视角更加细化。什么方式创造了一个架构，还是细节。 第三段： 段间关系：还是在说A的分析研究，第二段说P对历史的观点，第三段开始说P对历史structuring的观点。 段落主旨：理不清 阅读过程：第三段越往后读，越理不清文章想说什么，就在说历史学家应该怎样才能理解这个historical structuring 但是此时跟整篇文章之间的关系我实在弄不明白。 阅读难处： 1 句子表达很抽象全是抽象词汇，很难弄懂句子究竟表达的什么意思 2文章逻辑结构似乎很松散，很难抓住要点 希望老师帮忙理一下这篇文章的主旨，文章整体想表达什么没有读出来，只知道说了一个PA提出了一个社会学研究的方法structuring，以及P对历史的观点，来自于structuring，P对历史structuring的观点，和P提出的一些理解历史structuring的建议。 文章的逻辑结构有点难理解

RC