<p>What is the place of cyclical theories of historical change within sociology? This question has been made urgent by the rise of cliodynamics, a new “science of history” that has achieved prominence in recent years, most notably with its theories of cyclical political conflict. This article positions cliodynamics in relation to sociology’s historical imagination, with special reference to existing theories of cyclical historical change. The argument developed here is that sociology’s relationship to history is more complicated than often assumed, and that we need a more systematic account of cyclical thinking in sociological theory. There have been two divergent and competing approaches to cyclical history in sociological theory: one a fatalist vision based on a cynical reading of human nature, the other an optimistic and rationalist approach which pursues historical knowledge for technocratic ends. This political difference has prevented cyclical analysis from developing into a strong and coherent tradition within sociology.</p>