Abstract
The author of 'Logics of History' addresses three critiques (published in the same issue of this journal) that pull at the loose ends of his book, revealing weaknesses and bringing new theoretical resources to problems raised by but not satisfactorily resolved in it. Each critic suggests reformulations of the author's claims about how structures, events, and social transformations should be theorized: George Steinmetz from wide-ranging and theoretically eclectic perspectives, Dylan Riley from a broadly Marxist standpoint, and David Pedersen from a perspective that is predominantly Peircian. While agreeing with aspects of their critiques, the author also reaffirms certain features of his own arguments.