Fractured weber: A critique of parsons' interpetation

The authors argue that Parsons, through commitment to his “convergence thesis” and to his structural-functionalism coupled with his biological evolutionism, misrepresents Weber. Parsons arbitrarily applies to the Weberian tradition his own criteria biased against history. His general theoretical focus inclines toward the tradition of the functionalist Durkheim and that of the evolutionist Spencer. The authors contend that the later metamorphosis of Parsons' general theory of action into a theory of social systems has resulted in an abstract conception of social reality that is incongrous with Weber's view. The source of the Parsonian bias is further traced in his psychologization of Weber. Finally, it is asserted that Parsons represents a case of a-historicism incompatible with the Weberian tradition, with the consequence that the important contributions of Weber's historical sociology for the understanding of social change in the modern world are lost.     

Patriarchalism in imperial China and Western Europe

Conclusion My analysis suggests that Weber's typology of domination - the cluster of patriarchalism, charisma, and law - does not fit Chinese history as it does European history. The typology has particular relevance in Europe because Weber purposefully developed types of domination that reflected and synthesized essential elements of Western historical experience: the struggles between kings and nobles, between popes and priests, between leaders and followers of all types. Deeply aware of the patterns of Western history, Weber understood that his concepts of analysis constituted historical summaries, not simply ideas and abstract beliefs but distillations of patterns of actions and of the justifications supporting and channeling those patterns. Although Weber fashioned these ideal types from his knowledge of Western history, he wanted to make them genuinely trans-epochal and transcultural so that he could test, through comparative mental experiment and imaginative extrapolation, causal explanations about the course of Western history. That the generations of students of Western society continue to learn from and struggle with Weber's concepts and historical theories demonstrates that Weber was hugely successful in his work.But are Weber's typologies as useful in the analysis of non-Western societies as they are in that of Europe? I have only dealt with Chinese society, but for this society my analysis suggests that the answer to this question is no. As Weber defined them, patriarchalism, charisma, and law do not apply to China in the way that they apply to Europe. They do not represent summaries of Chinese history; they do not distill the debates and struggles of two millenia; they do not tap those shared understandings that informed Chinese patterns of action. And because they do not gain an equivalent grasp of Chinese as they do of Western history, they are less useful and often very misleading when one uses them to analyze and explain the course of Chinese history. If those concepts do not get at the same reality in China, what is the logical status of the conclusions drawn from using them to analyze China? As I have attempted to show in this paper, they can be used to indicate through comparison what configurations are absent from China. But they are less useful in developing a genuine understanding of Chinese history. Therefore, to understand China, and perhaps most non-Western societies, Weber's typology of domination and particularly his analysis of traditional domination, should not be used directly as a summary of an underlying reality. Weber's warning about the perniciousness of Marxian concepts and theories when they are thought of as empirically valid or real effective forces should be applied with particular vigor to Weber's own concepts and theories when applied to non-Western societies. But, by equal measure, if one assumes that Weber's typology of domination misrepresents non-Western societies in some regard, it still provides an example of the sort of conceptual framework needed to analyze the historical development of state structures in any society. Weber championed comparative research, because he believed without comparisons it was impossible to examine rigorously the course of history and to develop theories of historical change. Weber rightly believed that comparisons were only possible with generalized historical concepts. But to Weber, historical research does not lead to better or more general sociological theories. Instead, sociology, as Weber put it to a noted historian, can perform ... very modest preparatory work to an adequate historical analysis. Concepts must lead the way to historical explanations and not the reverse. Similarly, Weber's analysis of the West provides the preparatory work for a better understanding of non-Western society. In this sense Weber's concepts are indispensable for the analysis of non-Western society, not because they are the last word, but because, along with other products of Western sociology, they are the first word, words that are used only to have their meanings altered by subsequent research.

---

     

The Quaker Ethic and the Fixed Price Policy: Max Weber and Beyond*

Max Weber undertook his research on the Quakers and their fixed price policy as part of his attempt to understand the role of the Puritan sects in the rise of early modern capitalism. Although his comments on the group were sympathetic and penetrating, they suffered from inattention to the historical context. He failed to see, for instance, that the Quakers’economic policies in large part reflected their resentful frustration over the Puritans’failure to institute popular political, economic, and religious proposals. This paper corrects Weber's portrait of the Quakers and their unique fixed price policy by paying close attention to the social climate in which they formulated this economic innovation. In doing so the research establishes an important relationship between religious doctrines and social frustrations that Weber himself did not see, but that existed in Nietzsche's theory of “resentment,” and in Eduard Bernstein's analysis of the earliest Quakers.     

A Critique of Occidental Geist: Embedded Historical Culturalism in the Works of Hegel, Weber and Huntington

Abstract  The comparative studies of world religions have been a distinctive part of Western thought. Hegel's contribution to the philosophy of history is most clearly seen where he introduces a theory of historical development based on the secularisation of Christian cosmology. With Hegel, the Spirit ( Geist ), previously theologically understood, gradually becomes the embodiment of historical development. In the Hegelian vocabulary, the phenomenology of religion is formulated along with the theory of historical progress. In this article, I will argue that the question of historical development has been continuously elaborated in a culturalist fashion in works of Friedrich Hegel, Max Weber and Samuel Huntington as those scholars, through different intellectual traditions, essentialises the spiritual backgrounds of world religions and ties the phenomenology of religion with the philosophy of history in their historical analyses. This paper will argue that these scholars, by relying on the idealised images of religions and particularly of the Occidental Spirit, subtly elaborate the historical culturalist notion of development within Western thought. By arguing for an inherent link between religion and development, these scholars implicitly institutionalize a Eurocentric understanding of Western Christianity and the Occidental path of development within mainstream social theory. Be they philosophical (Hegel), sociological ( Weber ) or political (Huntington), the historical culturalism of these approaches shape our understanding of historical change, and ironically, instead of countering the excesses of crude materialism, they lead social theory into a form of Eurocentic historical culturalism.     

Faith, Reason, and Charisma: Rudolf Sohm, Max Weber, and the Theology of Grace

Charismatic authority has been central to twentieth-century politics and theory, yet confusion about charisma is rife. Max Weber's classic texts on this subject have been a major source of insight, yet key features of his analysis remain obscure–so much so that many scholars who call themselves Weber's disciples defend views opposed to his. For Weber, charisma is a social status; for many "Weberians," charisma is a personal quality. For Weber, charisma is a quicksilver, unstable form of authority; for his errant followers, it is an existential limit to democracy. One reason for this contradiction is that, influenced by the theologian Rudolf Sohm, Weber used the vocabulary of the theology of grace. Many readers, unfamiliar with the nature of Weber's debt to theology, have thought that Weber, like Rudolf Sohm, viewed charisma as a divinely given personal quality. In fact, however, Max Weber's sociology of charisma is radically opposed to Sohm's theology.     

The Legacy of Max Weber: A Non-Metaphysical Politics

Science, said Weber, cannot provide truth (only knowledge) and it cannot validate values (only help to achieve them) since reason, fact, and value are separate and unconnectable realms. In taking this position, Weber sought to remove social science from the metaphysical tradition of the West (in which it is still mired). For Weber, man creates his own meanings in a meaningless universe, a possibly moral creature with neither natural nor supernatural absolutes to guide him. This perspective gave Weber a unique detachment against all views of society, whether Traditional, Marxian, or his own preference, liberal, a detachment which contains unparalleled benefits for the student of contemporary society and its politics.     

Processes of social flourishing and their liminal collapse: elements to a genealogy of globalization

This article aims at exploring a long‐term historical perspective on which contemporary globalization can be more meaningfully situated. A central problem with established approaches to globalization is that they are even more presentist than the literature on modernization was. Presentism not only means the ignoring of history, but also the unreflective application to history of concepts taken from the study of the modern world. In contrast, it is argued that contemporary globalization is not a unique development, but rather is a concrete case of a historical type. Taking as its point of departure the spirit, rather than the word, of Max Weber, this article extends the scope of sociological investigation into archaeological evidence. Having a genealogical design and introducing the concept of ‘liminality’, the article approaches the modern process of globalization through reconstructing the internal dynamics of another type of historical change called ‘social flourishing’. Taking up the Weberian approach continued by Eisenstadt in his writings on ‘axial age’, it moves away from situations of crisis as reference point, shifting attention to periods of revival by introducing the term ‘epiphany’. Through the case of early Mesopotamia, it shows how social flourishing can be transmogrified into globalizing growth, gaining a new perspective concerning the kind of ‘animating spirit’ that might have driven the shift from Renaissance to Reformation, the rise of modern colonialism, or contemporary globalization. More generally, it will retrieve the long‐term historical background of the axial age and demonstrate the usefulness and importance of archaeological evidence for sociology.     

On the Centrality of Action: Social Science,Historical Logics,and Max Weber's Legacy

This article draws attention to the fundamental centrality of “action” – i.e. symbolically constituted behavior – for the historical and social sciences. The work of Max Weber and contemporary American historian and theorist William H. Sewell, Jr. are examined, so as to shed light on the debate concerning social science's central subject matter as well as on the implications of this work for sociological and historical theory. The examination of Sewell's view leverages the importance of the concept of action underlying Weber's concept of “social action.” Weber's position on action and social action is of great interest not only to general theory but also to the field of cultural sociology, which has neglected to develop systematically upon the theoretical purchase Weber offers to it.     

How to fight the ‘Methodenstreit’? Veblen and Weber on economics,psychology and action

There have been comparative discussions about Thorstein Veblen and Max Weber before, but not quite from the most appropriate viewpoint. The present paper treats them as theorists of action, in social and economic analysis, and this perspective yields some interesting new findings. Both theorists are to be taken as participants in the great Methodenstreit in economics, 100 years ago, and it is Veblen who suggests a more radical solution to this dispute, he suggests its final abolishment. The main difference between Veblen and Weber is in their respective appreciations of the role of psychology in social analysis. Weber does not think it important, but in so thinking he misses the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology that Veblen endorses. Accordingly, both of these classical thinkers are to be considered as theorists of action, but so that it is Veblen who proffers a more general theory.     

Weber,Simmel, and the sociology of culture

Max Weber and Georg Simmel began their long and important association not later than the mid-1890s. Both emerged from the upper middle class intellectual life of Berlin, but with different starting points: Protestant political and moralistic culture for Weber; the Jewish experience and the new aesthetic culture of modernism for Simmel. Despite such a contrast, Weber and Simmel were drawn together essentially because of a shared interest in problems of modern culture. The historical evidence shows that this interest developed around an assessment of Nietzsche's significance and a critique of ‘psychologism’. The German Sociological Society both helped to establish in 1909 then became a notable, if brief, episode in the attempt to clarify the tasks of sociology as a ‘science of culture’. Their relationship (and Marianne Weber's) to the debate over the prospects for a unique ‘female culture’ illustrates a neglected aspect of the cultural problem. Notwithstanding their different sociologies, Weber and Simmel can be seen as raising a similar question about the ‘fate’ of our culture, and it is this question that continues to make their work significant.     

Is a Critical Sociology Possible: Alvin Gouldner and the “Dark Side of the Dialectic”*

Alvin Gouldner's oeuvre is examined in terms of its confrontation with and critical appropriation of both empirical social research and Marxism. Traversing an enormous range of diverse topics-the sociology of knowledge; industrial sociology; problems of bureaucracy and democracy; studies in leadership; the role of intellectuals and ideologies; sociolinguistics; functionalism, Marxism, Stalinism, and anarchism; and studies of Plato, Saint-Simon, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Parsons-Gouldner's work retains a basic thematic focus. This work is neither a harmonious synthesis of these various topics nor does it remain totally consistent with any topic taken individually. Nonetheless there is a thematic continuity underlying the creative tensions and contradictions in his work. This continuity is identified as the classical political and historical mission of social theory; namely, the Enlightenment quest for rational discourse and the establishment of the social conditions for a truly humane society.     

Theoretical Implications of Regional Effects

Local economic institutions (systems of property rights and rules of land use) influenced the course of economic change in European history, as well as state formation and religious change. In this paper, I outline the theoretical implications of these regional effects. None of our existing macrolevel theories and explanations of the "rise of the West" can adequately incorporate them, so I present an alternative theory, based on rational choice premises. Yet the existence of these regional effects also highlights the deficiencies of a rational choice theoretical approach. First, the approach is unable to explain historical contexts, institutional legacies, or the effects of timing, which were vital for outcomes of social change but that lie outside the model itself. Second, although it can be very useful, the model of the actor motivated by material self-interest often proved inadequate in historical situations. Solutions are suggested.     

WEBER AND INTERPRETIVE SOCIOLOGY IN AMERICA

This article examines the role of Weber's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie in the construction of an American variant of interpretive sociology during the first half of the twentieth century. It thereby illustrates the connections between intellectual appropriation and the academic institutionalization of competing sociological schools. After reviewing Weber's general reception in American sociology, it focuses on the respective relevance of Weber for symbolic interaction, which developed out of the Chicago School; Parsonian action theory; and the phenomenological social theory of Alfred Schutz. Three conclusions emerge. First, the symbolic interactionists and their predecessors operated with the implicit assumption that they did not need Weber. Second, Weber was not only intellectually valuable to Parsons, but also useful in his quest for intellectual hegemony. Finally, Schutz, in offering a third, alternative and competing interpretation of Weber, served to complicate this struggle between the two American sociological schools.     

Interpretive Historical Sociology: discordances of Weber, Dilthey and others

Abstract Relations of several notions of historical understanding to issues of explanation, historical complexity, practical and moral reason, and the differentiation of historical and natural science are discussed. Examination of the historical context of the German Methodenstreit exhibits similarities with current disjunctions within historical sociology and allows specification of crucial questions about its methods and cognitive goals. Max Weber and Wilhelm Dilthey are discussed as proponents of radically opposed methodological positions. Claims about Weber's reliance on Dilthey are dispelled as it is shown that Weber neither developed nor practiced a 'method' of verstehen , while Weber's congruence with Heinrich Rickert is upheld. Oppositions within historiography (Droysen vs.Buckle) and economics (Schmoller vs. Menger) are analyzed as prefigurations of the Weber-Dilthey rivalry. Finally, contemporary historical strategies are summarized with reference to pertinent issues extracted from earlier debates.     

Historical Knowledge of Oppression and Racial Attitudes of Social Work Students

Racism has a long history in the United States. For generations, people of color have been systematically oppressed, whereas White people have benefitted from unearned privilege. Despite major advances in civil rights, the ongoing presence and legacy of racism and White privilege result in pervasive inequities. Social work education prepares graduates to advocate for racial justice. The present study describes the historical knowledge of oppression that students (N=305) possess at the beginning of their MSW education and examines the relationship between this knowledge and the endorsement of a color-blind ideology. Students with more historical knowledge reported fewer color-blind beliefs; millennial generation students reported fewer color-blind beliefs than older students. Implications are discussed for race-conscious and competency-based social work education.     

The Critical Theorist's Labour: Empirical or Philosophical Historiography for International Relations?

Abstract

Robert Cox developed a potent approach to studying world orders that is premised on the capacities of a special intellectual, the critical theorist, to discern social structures and the possibilities for their radical change in the future. While acknowledging the ethical appeal of adopting this intellectual persona, in this paper we are concerned with the style of historiography that it requires. In particular, we argue that the imperative to discover and foster the beginnings of social change leads to a version of philosophical history that will likely produce systematic anachronism. This is not uncommon in the discipline of International Relations, but in the case of Cox it stands in tension with some of his avowed intellectual sources, especially the work of Giambattista Vico, and with the aim of providing critical historical perspective on the present. We argue that Vico stands as an example of an alternative historical-empirical line of research that would better serve Coxian ambitions.     

Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment

In this article, we assess how the concept of cultural capital has been imported into the English language, focusing on educational research. We argue that a dominant interpretation of cultural capital has coalesced with two central premises. First, cultural capital denotes knowledge of or facility with “highbrow” aesthetic culture. Secondly, cultural capital is analytically and causally distinct from other important forms of knowledge or competence (termed “technical skills,” “human capital,” etc.). We then review Bourdieu’s educational writings to demonstrate that neither of these premises is essential to his understanding of cultural capital. In the third section, we discuss a set of English-language studies that draw on the concept of cultural capital, but eschew the dominant interpretation. These serve as the point of departure for an alternative definition. Our definition emphasizes Bourdieu’s reference to the capacity of a social class to “impose” advantageous standards of evaluation on the educational institution. We discuss the empirical requirements that adherence to such a definition entails for researchers, and provide a brief illustration of the intersection of institutionalized evaluative standards and the educational practices of families belonging to different social classes. Using ethnographic data from a study of social class differences in family-school relationships, we show how an African-American middle-class family exhibits cultural capital in a way that an African-American family below the poverty level does not.     

Understanding the Impact of Using Oral Histories in the Classroom

Oral histories are a powerful pedagogical tool in developing historical understanding and important learning skills simultaneously. Teachers use firsthand accounts of historical time periods and/or events to help develop students' sense of history. In addition to gaining historical understanding, students are able to bring history alive by capturing personal stories and connecting with individuals to better understand their experiences and point of view. The purpose of this interpretive case study was to explore in depth how classroom teachers can develop knowledge of the social studies by engaging students in collecting oral histories of local residents. In addition, this case study explores how these strategies impact students' perception of learning social studies and their historical understanding.     

Property,wealth, and social change: Piketty as a social science engineer

This paper applauds the vision and originality of Piketty's Capital and Ideology. We draw attention to the distinctive methodological perspective which he adopts, which we liken to call “social science engineering.” This allows a problem oriented perspective on long‐term global social change which sidesteps siloed disciplinary debates in social science and history about the meaning of modernity, the rise of capitalism, the formation of social groups, and the primacy of nations. We bring out how his theory of property permits him to take forward his overarching insight that economic growth leads to wealth accumulation. This, therefore, challenges long standing sociological perspectives by insisting that modernity is a conservative, rather than a revolutionary and transformative process. We build on this essential contribution by noting some areas where his work can push forward even further, notably that his focus on shifting relativities obscures qualitative historical changes, and more particularly means his analysis of the 20th century is not as provocative as that of the 19th century.     

Max weber's vision of economic sociology

Max Weber's economic sociology is usually associated with The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–1905), but in this paper I show that what Weber himself called his “Wirtschaftssoziologie”, or economic sociology, looked quite different and was something that he developed during the last year of his life, 1919–1920. I present and outline Weber's (later) economic sociology and pay particular attention to his ideas of “economic (social) action” and of the three different forms of capitalism (rational capitalism, political capitalism and traditional capitalism). I also show that to Weber, economic sociology was part of a more general science of economics that he often referred to as “social economics” (“Sozialökonomik”). The paper ends with a comparison between the paradigm of economic sociology, which can be found in the work of Max Weber, and the paradigm of what is known as New Economic Sociology.