why is history, as a discipline, relatively theory averse compared to other disciplines

it seems like the aversion is worst in Anglophone historiography, so I'm tempted to blame the English

a few notes:

-all disciplines study specifics to some degree, so history is too specific for theory doesn't make much sense to me
-theory as dogmatic seems more a reading on how people see theory as having been used than it does about theory, which is just a guide

-"historians do theorize!" I agree in two senses. Yes, historiography contains a fair amount of theory, but it's still often less than other disciplines, as far as I can tell. And yes, being anti-theory is in and of itself a form of theory, even if its practitioners don't see it

-"the turn happened a couple of decades ago, in the 80s and 90s" that does seem to be a big part of it, to our detriment, imho

I think part of my different view here than many is that my training in Marxist historiography in Cuba schooled me in an approach to history that simply saw it as one more social science among many. Though I agree that history is in many ways more humanities than "science"

I think we've lost something by taking the solid premise that dogmatic universal theories are bad and then overcorrecting to the point that there's less interest in creating broader frameworks that would be helpful for historical analysis. my two cents anyway

I feel like I walked into a trap of my own making by framing this tweet the original way and have learned my lesson.

There is no true absence of theory like there's no true absence of bias. you already have implicit theories of society in your mind.

studying theory helps you critically think about those implicit theories of society.

lack of theory of how the state, economy, social networks, etc., doesn't mean true lack of theory; it means you're less aware of your own inherent theories