Notes and References Chapter 1 1. Saint -Simon refers to posItive philosophy, negative principles and positive work at least as early as his Introduction aux travaux scientifiques du xixe siecle, 2 vols, 1807-8; see pp. 97 and 103 of the extracts translated by the editor in K. Taylor (1975). 2. An exception is Halfpenny (1982). See also Cohen (1980). There are well-considered, if undifferentiated, accounts of positivism in the 'Introduction' to Giddens (ed.) (1974); and in Keat & Urry (1975) and Benton (1977). 3. Habermas (1963-71) ch. 7. This chapter was first published in German in 1963. 4. It is particularly regrettable that limitations of space preclude discussion of positivism in the Marxist tradition. For a start on this topic, see Jordan (1967) and Wellmer (1969). Chapter 2 1. E. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (French edn, 1895; English edn, 1982) passim. This English edition by S. Lukes, translated by W. D. Hills, provides a superior translation to the 1938 edition by G. E. G. Catlin, translated by S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller. As the 1938 edition is so well known, however, comparative page references to it will be given. 2. There is no complete translation of the Cours. I always quote from H. Martineau (ed.), The Positive Philosophy of August Comte, 2 vols (1853). Martineau 'freely translated and condensed' the original and there can be no doubt that M. Clarke's translation for S. Andreski (ed.), The Essential Comte (1974) is superior. Unfortunately, it does not include all the passages I wish to quote and so, rather than confuse by using two translations of the same work, I have always gone back to Martineau. Where possible I also give a cross reference to Andreski. This quotation, for example, is from vol. 2, p. 97; cf. p. 180. Comte, incidentally, approved of Martineau's condensation and had it retranslated into French. The condensation is mainly of Comte's exposition of the natural sciences, and comparison of Martineau's and Clarke's translations of passages quoted here reveals no significant differences of sense. It is also worth noting that Comte wrote to J. S. Mill that 'all the principal conceptions' of the Positive Philosophy are 184 Notes and References to be found in A Discourse on the Positive Spirit (French edn, 1844); see p. iv of E. S. Beesly's Translator's Preface' to the English edn (1903). 3. Marcuse has contrasted Comte and Hegel on this question. See Marcuse (1941, rev. 1954) pt. II, ch. II. 4. The collections of Saint-Simon's writing edited by Markham (1952) and Taylor (1975) have interesting introductions. In addition, see Manuel (1956), and (1962) chs 3 and 4. Durkheim (1895-6) is a classic; and Kumar (1978) ch. 1, is a good recent discussion. 5. Saint-Simon's political parable appeared in L'Organisateur (1819). It is translated in both Markham (1952) pp. 72-5, and Taylor (1975) pp. 194-7. As early as 1802-3, in his Letters from an Inhabitant of Geneva to his Contemporaries, Saint-Simon had presented a 'dream' in which 'All men will work' (Taylor, 1975, p. 80). 6. There is an extract from Saint-Simon's 'Sketch of the New Political System', published in L'Organisateur (1819), in Taylor (1975) pp. 198-206. 7. See Durkheim (1895-6) ch. 11, and Manuel (1956; 1962). Bazard, Enfantin and others formalised Saint-Simonian teaching in a series of public lectures in 1828-9 entitled The Doctrine of Saint-Simon: an Exposition; First Year, 1828-1829. Also, see Lichtheim (1968) ch. 3. 8. Durkheim (1895-6) ch. 6. On Comte, also see Aron (1967) vol. 1, pt. 2; Manuel (1962) ch. 6; the editors' introductions to Andreski (1974) and Thompson (1976); and Evans-Pritchard (1970). 9. Comte's 'Plan of the Scientific Operations Necessary for Reorganizing Society' was first published in 1822, and then republished in 1824 with the additional title of 'System of Positive Polity'. For the row over publication, see Manuel (1962) pp. 251-60. 10. On the positivist movement, see Simon (1963) and Charlton (1959; 1963). 11. There is an enormous literature of Durkheim - some of it of very high quality. Lukes (1973) is without doubt the premier commentary, but LaCapra (1972) and Wallwork (1972) are also recommended. Giddens (1978) and Tiryakin (1978) offer excellent introductions. 12. It should always be borne in mind that the text of the lectures has been reconstructed from students' notes. 13. There is an intriguing point of contrast with Spencer here. Spencer argued that each cause has a multiplicity of effects and each effect a multiplicity of causes (cf. Abrams, 1968, pp. 6~76). As a consequence it is futile to try to anticipate the consequences of even the best planned concerted action because even the simplest act will produce more unanticipated than intended results. Spencer's minimisation of the practical value of social science for positive public or concerted action could not have been congenial to Durkheim, but one can only speculate whether rebuttal of Spencer was one of the factors which moved Durkheim to insist that every effect has but a single cause. 14. The dispute in the German speaking world between the historical Notes and References 185 economists, especially Schmoller, and the neo-classical economists, led by Menger, is discussed in Ch. 3, pp. 58-64. It came to a head in 1883. Durkheim spent the 1885-6 academic year in Germany. See Durkheim (1887). 15. For an excellent discussion of the connections between Durkheim's sociology and political issues, see Giddens (1971). 16. See Gouldner's 'Introduction' to the English edn of Durkheim (1895-6), and Durkheim (1898-1900; 1902). 17. The Vienna Circle is discussed in Ch. 4, pp. 109-16. Something of its influence in America is mentioned in Ch. 5, pp. 139-45. Chapter 3 1. On the economists' Methodenstreit, see Schum peter (1954) pt 4, chs 2 and 4; Bi:ihm-Bawerk (1890a and b); and Gide & Rist (1909). It should be remembered that Bi:ihm-Bawerk was a pupil of Menger and that Schumpeter was also a product of the Austrian school; Gide and Rist are more sympathetic to the historical school (as was their compatriot, Durkheim, which they themselves note). 2. On the Verein, also see Mayer (1944) esp. ch. 2. and the references below in n. 16, p. 186. 3. Geisteswissenschaften is notoriously difficult to translate. It originated in the German translation (1863) of 'moral sciences' in Mill (1843). As Geist, i.e. mind or spirit, is peculiarly a human faculty I prefer 'human sciences'. I never use 'cultural sciences' because that is better reserved for Kulturwissenschaften, a term deliberately adopted by Rickert in distinction from Geisteswissenschaften. 4. Students with no knowledge of German might like to note the following. German writers in the hermeneutic tradition often use the verb verstehen and its derivatives. English language commentators on these writers sometimes leave these words in German. This makes both the words and their referents seem quite unnecessarily mysterious. The German for 'to understand' is verstehen: the infinitive can also be used as a verbal noun - thus Verstehen (all nouns in German are capitalised) means 'understanding'; similarly the present participle can also be used as a verbal adjective - thus verstehende Soziologie literally means 'understanding sociology', but is less awkwardly translated as 'interpretative (or in the, for once, more elegant American, 'interpretive') sociology'. This does raise the problem, however, of the difference, if any, in Weber and others, between verstehende Soziologie and deutende Soziologie; deuten means 'to interpret' or 'to construe'. The problem is discussed below, p.85. 5. On Dilthey, see Platinga, (1980); and Rickman (1979). 6. The term Wirklichkeitswissenschaft is first used in Simmel (1892). 7. Weber, of course, used early editions of Die Grenzen, not late editions of Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft. I have therefore paid 186 Notes and References close attention to two commentators who discuss Weber in relation to Die Grenzen. See Bruun (1972) esp. ch. 2; and Burger (1976) esp. pt. 1. 8. In addition to Bruun (1972) and Burger (1976), Cahnman (1964) and Goodman (1975) are helpful on the provenance of Weber's methodology. 9. Weber, Economy and Society (1922) vol. I, p. 4. Part I was (re)drafted for publication by Weber himself between 1918 and 1920; part II was written between 1910 and 1918 but Weber still had not revised it (except for the chapter on bureaucracy) at the time of his death in 1920. The first German edition, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922), was quickly super­ seded by the revised second edition (1925) edited by Marianne Weber and used by many translators (including Parsons). The fourth, revised, edition (1956) was edited by J. Winckelmann and is the basis of the English edition; a fifth , revised, edition was published by the same editor and firm in 1976. The first complete translation (3 vols, 1968), was edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich and introduced by G. Roth. It is made up of earlier partial translations, corrected and revised where necessary in relation to the fourth German edition. The 1978 publication used here is a two-volume corrected reissue. 10. Compare Weber, ' "Objectivity" in Social Science and Social Policy' (1904) ch. 2. The first part of this essay was agreed with E. Jaffe and W. Sombart; the second was Weber's responsibility alone. It appeared in the first number of the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik to follow the takeover of the editorship by the three men. 11. See Oberschall (1965) pp. 94-9, on Levinstein. For the Verein survey, see Weber (1908); Oberschall (1965) ch.