Zur Lage Der Soziologie

Home , Economy and Society, Lujo Brentano

Zur Lage der Soziologie

Max Weber: A Bibliographical Essay*

GuentherlRoth DepartmenYof Sociology, University of Washington, Seattle

Max Weber: ein bibliographischer Bericht

Inhalt: Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die Rezeption der Soziologie MAX WEBERS in der seit 1960 erschie nenen Literatur. Angesichts der Breite und Spezialisierung dieser Literatur werden sechs Bereiche der WEBER-Rezep- tion unterschieden und nacheinander behandelt: (1) WEBERS vergleichende Studien und historische Typologien, (2) seine methodologischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Beiträge, (3) seine Stellung als Theoretiker des „bürokrati schen Zeitalters“, (4) seine allgemeinpolitischen und hochschulpolitischen Auffassungen, (5) die marxistische Aus einandersetzung mit WEBER sowie Vergleiche zwischen dem Weberschen und dem Marxschen Ansatz und schließlich (6 ) die Biographie MAX WEBERS im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Geistesgeschichte.

Abstract: The article attempts an overview of the reception of MAX WEBERS’s sociology in the literature published since 1960. Considering the wide scope and specialization of this literature, six dimensions in the WEBER-reception are dis tinguished and taken up in turn: ( 1) WEBER’s comparative studies and historical typologies; (2) his basic methodolo gical and epistemological contributions; (3) his place among theorists of “the bureaucratic age” ; (4) his general and his academic politics; (5) the Marxist struggle against WEBER, but also scholarly comparisons of WEBER and MARX; and finally (6 ) WEBER’s biography in the context of the intellectual history of his and our time.

Much scholarship and partisanship continue to the relations between ideologies and social revolve around the works and impact of MAX structures, and as a methodologist concerned WEBER and KARL MARX. In recent years the with the relations of methods, values and facts, level of DÜRKHEIM scholarship has improved, WEBER must remain controversial in the battles, and there is a steady stream of studies on indivi inside and outside the academy, about the pur dual writers and various isms in the history of pose and consequences of social knowledge for modern social thought. However, nothing compa polity and society — empirical study is never an res to the sheer magnitude of the concern with innocent or neutral undertaking. MARX and WEBER. This is not at all surprising in MARX’s case, since political ideologies linked In would like to distinguish three stages or phases with his name legitimate the governments of a in the American and English WEBER reception. large part of the globe and since in many other During the first stage The Protestant Ethic and countries variants of Marxism are kept alive by the Spirit o f Capitalism (1904/5), in TALCOTT radicalism — by the ineradicable revolutionary PARSONS’ translation of 1930 (WEBER 1958), sentiments of alienated intellectuals - in the face became widely assigned reading on American of persistent inequalities and inequities. WEBER campuses, but without reference to WEBER’s however, never created an ism in politics or scho comparative studies of the world religions. With larship, not even the political decisionism or the the growing interest in large-scale organization methodological individualism that have sometimes and stratification in the wake of the Second been attributed to him. What, then, maintains so World War WEBER’s notions of bureaucracy and much interest in WEBER’s work? Primarily its of class and status were widely diffused, but intrinsic scholarly superiority, as a comparative without their systematic location in his typolo approach to macrosociological investigation, over gies. GERTH and MILLS’ 1946 selections from reductionist Marxism and ahistorical structural WEBER (WEBER 1946), contrasting bureaucra functionalism. However, there are also political cy and charisma, became very influential in shap and epistemological reasons for WEBER’s conti ing an image of WEBER’s work, and PARSONS’ nued importance: As a researcher probing into translation of the difficult-to-read categories of Part I of Economy and Society (published under the misleading title The Theory o f Social and * Revised version of an introduction to a re-issue of R. BENDIX, Max Weber. Berkeley: University of Economic Organization in 1947) made available California Press, 1977. By permission. that segment in splended isolation from the main 92 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 91 -1 1 8 body (WEBER 1947). Moreover, PARSONS’ distinction from WEBER’s acute sense for the “creative misinterpretation” of WEBER in The ambiguities and paradoxes of western rationa Structure o f Social Action (PARSONS 1937) and lism. subsequent writings as one of his forerunners and a systems theorist manque received much atten Both BENDIX and PARSONS shared prominent tion after 1950 with the ascendancy of his struc ly in the second stage of the WEBER reception, tural functionalism1. which was reached reciprocally with the revival of comparative studies in the fifties. Whereas In 1960 REINHARD BENDIX countered this many development studies followed a “Weberian- Parsonian interpretation by putting before the Parsonian” approach emphasizing the predomi reader the historical substance of WEBER’s com nance of values in social systems old and new, parative sociology of politics, law and religion BENDIX’s intellectual portrait showed the reader on the level of its own intentions (BENDIX the intricate ways in which WEBER related ideas I960)2. PARSONS had at first treated WEBER and material and ideal interests. Moreover, BEN as one predecessor among others of his own DIX facilitated the study of development issues theory of voluntarist social action and later by clearly relating The Protestant Ethic to WE juxtaposed to him his own social systems analy BER’s studies on the world religions, and by em sis, which provided a framework for studying the bedding bureaucracy and charisma in their pro relations of social actors irrespective of time and per typological matrix within the Sociology of place. From his systems perspective WEBER’s de Domination in Economy and Society. He also finitions of various kinds of social action and his edited, with a group of students, the first reader historical typologies appeared atomistic. Yet WE in comparative political sociology, State and So BER too presented, in the first chapter of Econo ciety (BENDIX et al. 1968), which was based on my and Society, a general, “ahistorical” sociolo a Weberian conception of historical sociology in gy of the social group, which moved logically contrast to the functionalist approach with its from individual social action through various evolutionary overtones3. forms of social relationships to the concerted actions in the organization ( Verband) with its le The third stage of dealing with WEBER began gitimate domination. For WEBER these definitions with the centenary commemoration of his birth provided the basis for an historical typology at the Heidelberg meetings of the German Socio within which the distinctive and historically uni logical Association in 19644. The event turned que course of western rationalism could be stu out to be the beginning of the great onslaught on died. By contrast, PARSONS came to relate his WEBER as arch representative of liberal or bour systems approach to a neo-evolutionism that per geois social science, an onslaught carried forth ceived the “progress” from tradition to moderni by a new political generation without any memo ty as a process of almost unilinear structural dif ries of the Second World War and hence without ferentiation and value transformation - in sharp any personal yardsticks for comparing the pre sent with the past.

1 On PARSONS’ WEBER interpretation, see also J. It is important to understand that the three COHEN, L. HAZELRIGG, W. POPE (1975a) , and stages are not exclusive sequences: The Prote the subsequent exchange: PARSONS (1975) and COHEN, HAZELRIGG, POPE (1975b). On the stant Ethic is still frequently interpreted in isola first stage of the WEBER reception, see ROTH and tion; the selections from the very popular GERTH BENDIX (1959). On the notion of “creative misin and MILLS edition are still widely used as the terpretation”, see my essay on “Value-Neutrality major reading assignment on WEBER; the defini in Germany and the United States”, in BENDIX and ROTH, 1971: 35, and on its effects in the con text of the gradual WEBER reception, see also H. STUART HUGHES, 1975: 31ff. 3 For the contrast between Weberian historical socio logy and structural functionalism in State and Society 2 For overviews and expositions of WEBER’s work see RANDALL COLLINS (1968). as a whole since 1960, see RAYMOND ARON (1967); LEWIS A. COSER (1971); JULIAN FREUND 4 See OTTO STAMMER (1971), especially HERBERT (1969) . There are two readers: DENNIS WRONG MARCUSE, “Industrialization and Capitalism”, pp. (1970) ; DIRK KÄSLER (1972). 133-151 in this volume. Zur Lage der Soziologie 93 tions from Part I of Economy and Society are scholarly citations still refer to the various frag still ritually quoted out of theoretical and histo mentary selections rather than to the complete rical context. However, the comparative approach edition.) My introduction to Economy and So is now well-established, although funding for for ciety (see WEBER 1968: xvii-civ) was written eign area studies has declined severely. Finally, po with a view toward supplementing BENDIX’s litical critiques of WEBER’s work from the Right book by giving particular attention to those and Left date back to the nineteen thirties, quite studies omitted there, especially the early inqui apart from the heated scholarly controversies ries into ancient and medieval capitalism, and by about The Protestant Ethic and issues of Wert reconstructing chronologically the long gestation freiheit in which WEBER was embroiled for of WEBER’s conceptuatization of Economy and many years5. Society.WEBER’s comparative studies on the world religions have been available in English What has been the progress of WEBER scholar since the nineteen fifties, but they are in need ship since 1960? BENDIX’s intellectual portrait of critical edition both in the original and in of WEBER was written in a situation in which translation8. “as a comprehensive whole his work remains re latively unknown” (BENDIX 1960: xix)6. For In spite of the political polemics which have sur this reason much of the book is a careful exposi rounded WEBER in the controversies about the tion of his comparative studies, especially in Eco nature and course of contemporary social science nomy and Society. This magnum opus did not since the mid-sixties, and partly in response to become available in a complete English edition them, many valuable studies have been done until 1968, and then only in an expensive hard since, and there is no sign of any letup. The li cover edition that effectively reduced student terature in which WEBER is a major reference access and precluded class-room use (WEBER has grbwn. so large that the individual reader can 1968)7. (Eight years later about half of all no longer keep track of it, but I shall attempt a broad overview9 *. There tends to be a split in the WEBER literature between his historical sociolo 5 See my chapters “Political Critiques” and “Value- gy and his methodological and programmatic Neutrality in Germany and the United States” in writings, even among the political critics. This di BENDIX and ROTH (1971). chotomy has created two WEBER images, but it 6 As FRIEDRICH H. TENBRUCK recently put it in is also true that much of the literature is highly a spirited critique of the WEBER reception, which specialized within and outside this distinction. has been no less fragmented in Germany than in the Given the wide scope of WEBER’s work, it is in United States, albeit for different reasons: “For de evitable that many publications stress one aspect cades we were faced with attempts at grasping this or that aspect of WEBER’s writings. His work as a to the exclusion or neglect of another ; given the whole became visible for the first time when Rein realities of the scholarly division of labor, of hard Bendix presented us with his intellectual por which WEBER was extremely conscious, it takes trait, in which he sketched the main ideas that per different kinds of expertise to be competent in meate Weber’s work” (TENBRUCK 1975:663). For a similar formulation, see JOHANNES WEISS (1975: 12). Society, was published posthumously in a rather in adequate fashion in spite of MARIANNE WEBER’s 7 This edition is based on the fourth German edition valiant efforts. A German editorial group is present edited by JOHANNES WINCKELMANN, Wirt ly planning a complete edition of WEBER’s works. schaft und Gesellschaft (WEBER 1956). The fifth edition, with almost 300 pages of annotations by 8 The three volumes of the sociology of religion, Ge WINCKELMANN, was published in 1976. However, sammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (WEBER a critical edition of all of WEBER’s work is called 1920), have been republished unchanged several times. for, similar to the MARX/ENGELS edition. Yet Only The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit o f Capi the situation is complicated by the fact that because talism has been edited by JOHANNES WINCKEL of the Nazi regime and the Second World War the MANN, together with the critiques and anti-criti greater part of WEBER’s original manuscripts and ques. See WEBER (1972/73). much of his voluminous correspondence with many scholars and political men seem to have been lost 9 For a lengthy selected bibliography see CONSTANS or widely scattered. The absence of the original SEYFARTH et al. (1976). For the latest bibliography manuscripts is particularly irksome because much of of WEBER’s own writings, see DIRK KÄSER WEBER’s work, especially the bulk of Economy and (1975). 94 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 9 1 -1 1 8 one area or another. As a rough classification, I and by TERRY LOVELL (1973) in his compari would like to distinguish, and take up in turn, son of WEBER and LUCIEN GOLDMANN11. six dimensions in the literature: (1) the compa rative studies and historical typologies; (2) basic However, while WEBER’s political and religious methodological and epistemological contributions, typological analyses are now better understood, including the availability of WEBER’s own writ the practiced methodology embodied in his com ings in English, (3) his place among theorists of parative studies still requires more attention that “the bureaucratic age”, (4) his general and his it has received, especially compared to his criti academic politics, (5) the Marxist struggle against cal methodological writings. Only a few writers, WEBER, but also scholarly comparisons of WE notably JOHN REX (1971) and STEPHEN BER and MARX, and finally (6) WEBER’s bio WARNER (1972), have dealt with WEBER’s graphy in the context of the intellectual history actual strategy of research, which involves the of his and our time. elaboration of socio-historical models (“ideal ty pes”) and of historical theories proper12. Failure (1) Compared to 1960, there is today a much to look closely at WEBER’s research strategy has greater awareness of the whole of WEBER’s So led (or misled) much of the development literatu ciology of Domination and Religion. In the litera re of the past 25 years to search in a one-sided ture on state-and-nation-building and on econo fashion for functional equivalents to the Protes mic and social development, there has been an tant ethic. Yet neither in The Protestant Ethic increasing realization that the applicability of and the Spirit o f Capitalism nor in the compara models of western modernization and bureaucra tive studies did WEBER consider any one reli tization is analytically and practically very limited. gious factor as crucial or decisive for the rise or Here it has been helpful that to the dichotomy or absence of various forms of capitalism; instead, dialectic of bureaucracy and charisma, which is in his comparative studies he tried to lay the ba only one part of WEBER’s vision of rationaliza sis for establishing the mix of “material” and tion, have been added his notions of patrimonial “ideal” factors accounting for the uniqueness of forms of government. S. N. EISENSTADT, for Occidental history. instance, observed in 1973 that “perhaps one of the most important - albeit somewhat recent — (2) What BENDIX did for WEBER’s empirical developments in this context was the growth of studies, HANS HENRIK BRUUN (1972) has the ‘patrimonialism’ concept to describe the po done in the meantime for his methodological litical regimes of several new states.” (EISEN- statements — a lucid and cohesive exposition and STADT and ROKKAN 1973 ;Vol. I,4 )10. In the analysis rather than intellectual history or politi realm of religion an exemplary Weberian ap cal critique. BRUUN once more makes it clear - proach, without undue literal dependency, was and it still seems to be worth repeating — that taken in the brilliant study by CLIFFORD the principle of freedom from value judgment GEERTZ (1968), Islam Observed, comparing In was rooted not in a relativistic or nihilist attitude donesia and Morocco; and notable critiques of but in the logical consideration that values are some of the difficulties of WEBER’s Sociology of undemonstrable by scientific methods and in the Religion have been presented by BY RAN S. conviction that “values and science are two TURNER (1974), again in the Islamic context, closed spheres containing the key to each other” (p. 290). 10 In Vol. II of EISENSTADT and ROKKAN (1973) the notion of patrimonialism is given explicit treatment Two other epistemological and methodological in the essays by SIMON SCHWARTZMANN on re investigations in English are noteworthy: W.G. gional contrasts in Brazil and by STUART GELLAR on West Africa. For an application of the concept of patrimonialism to Nepal, past and present, see ER 11 For a follow-up on The Protestant Ethic, see CON- NEST GELLNER (1975); for a detailed analysis of STANS SEYFARTH and WALTER M. SPRON- WEBER’s views on patrimonialism in the Arab con DEL (1973). Insufficient attention is still paid to text, see BRYAN S. TURNER (1974); for a refor WEBER’s study of ancient Judaism; exceptions are mulation of patrimonial rulership in the context of FREDDY RAPHAEL (1970), and PETER L. BER WEBER’s typology, see my essay on “Personal Ru GER (1963). lership, Patrimonialism and Empire-Building”, Chap ter VIII of BENDIXand ROTH (1971). 12 See also my essays ROTH (1975, 1976a, 1976b). Zur Lage der Soziologie 95

RUNCIMAN’s interpretation of WEBER as a tinued pertinency to present interests and their philosopher of science (1972) and JOHN TOR programmatic aspects. In 1949 SHILS and RANCE’S lengthy essay on “Methods and the FINCH presented their translation of “The Mean Man” (1974), which in part is a rejoinder to ing of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Eco RUNCIMAN. The massive but subtle study by nomics”, “Objectivity in Social Science and So GERHARD HUFNAGEL, Critique as Vocation: cial Policy”, and the critique of EDUARD MEY The Critical Content in Max Weber's Work ER together with the essay on objective possi (1971) and the concise study by FRITZ LOOS, bility and adequate causation in historical expla On Max Weber's Doctrine o f Values and Law nation (WEBER 1949). For many years these es (1970) are written in German. An older German - says, important though they are, were the only critique, from a phenomenological viewpoint, is ones accessible to the English reader. Now the si ALFRED SCHUTZ’s The Phenomenology of the tuation has improved considerably and most of Social World (1932), which since its translation the other parts of the Wissenschaftslehre have be in 1967 (SCHUTZ 1967) has received consider come available: the 1913 frament “On Some Ca able attention among a new breed of phenomeno tegories of Interpretive Sociology”, a first version logically oriented sociologists and philosophers of the introductory terminology of Economy of science. This is a prime example of a very nar and Society (WEBER 1970); WEBER’s earliest row focus on WEBER’s definitions of social ac methodological, book-length treatise “Roscher tion, subjective meaning, ideal type and interpre and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical tive sociology to the exclusion of everything else. Economics” (WEBER 1975a); and the critique of SCHUTZ and his latter-day followers endeavor LUJO BRENTANO, “Marginal Utility Theory to provide a phenomenological grounding to WE and the So-Called Fundamental Law of Psycho BER’s basic categories and to supplement them physics” (WEBER 1975b), in which WEBER ar with an epistemological buttressing in which he gues that economics, as an analytical enterprise was not interested, since he merely wanted to concerned with economic rationality, is not de construct baseline concepts this side of epistemo pendent on basic psychological theories, thus de logy and philosophy of science from which to get fending the rationale of marginal utility theory on with his empirical inquiries13. against critics from the ranks of institutional and historical economics — JOSEPH SCHUMPETER WEBER’s methodological and programmatic once noted that among his peers WEBER was re writings were posthumously published under the markably free from any animus against formal misleading title Wissenschaftslehre, a term which economic theory, although he never worked in he did not employ. They comprise the critical that competing medium. Only the two critiques essays on WILHELM ROSCHER, KARL KNIES, of RUDOLF STAMMLER - already translated EDUARD MEYER, RUDOLF STAMMLER, LU- by GUY OAKES — and the shorter attack on JO BRENTANO and WILHELM OSTWALD, the WILHELM OSTWALD, “ ‘Energetic’ Theories programmatic essays on objectivity and value of Culture” are presently not accessible; however, freedom (aimed in part at GUSTAV SCHMOL a summary of WEBER’s position on STAMM- LE R and his reigning dispensation), and the basic LER’s confusion of “the ideal validity of a norm definitions of social action and the social group with the assumed validity of a norm in its actual (perhaps written in part against DÜRKHEIM), influence on empirical action” (326) is contained with the familiar “Science as a Vocation” tagged in an excursus in Economy and Society (WEBER on. Although these essays and fragments were 1968: 325-337). mostly written in a specific polemical context and address themselves to targets no longer re (3) Before the relevancy of WEBER’s historical cognized by most of today’s readers, they still typologies for the comparative study of social and make worthwhile reading because of their con political change or “development” was fully rea lized, his ideal type of bureaucracy received much attention in the literature on large-scale and for 13 For a critical appraisal of the claims of SCHUTZ and mal organization of the forties and fifties, but the those of PETER WINCH, from the perspective of ideal type was usually separated from his histori ordinary language analysis, see SUSAN HEKMAN (1975). For the latest contribution, see THOMAS cal theory of bureaucratization and democratiza BURGER (1976). tion. In recent years, however, the level of WEBER 96 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 9 1 -1 1 8

interpretation in the literature on formal organi tion of political rationality and of the defense of zation has improved — witness CHARLES PER- Reason against its perversions. ROW’s treatment of the Weberian approach in his critical essay, Complex Organizations (see PER- We owe to DAVID BEETHAM (1974) the best ROW 1972: Chap. 4)14. Moreover, and quite pro extant treatment of WEBER as theorist of mo perly, there has been increasing recognition that dern politics16. BEETHAM synthesizes WEBER’s for many purposes of formal organization or sy perception of the preconditions of liberal demo stems theory WEBER’s utility is rather limited. cracy mainly from his political writings on Im Yet it is probably fair to say that WEBER received perial Germany and Imperial Russia. He shows most attention in both Europe and the United that WEBER’s scholarly and political writings States as theorist of the bureaucratic age. differ in approach, not just in content. His poli tical analysis is concerned with the assessment WOLFGANG SCHLUCHTER’s Aspects o f Bureau of a given distribution of power with a view to cratic Domination (1972) is the most judicious ward changing it; it explicitly addresses questions and comprehensive account we presently have of of how to bring about change — parallel to WEBER’s place in the literature on bureaucrati MARX’s interests. In essense, WEBER practices zation and democratization15. The book draws situational class analysis. By contrast, the scho together 150 years of intellectual history and larly writings focus on long-range transformation most of the American and European discussion and historical comparisons. BEETHAM correctly of bureaucratization and democratization. In points out that in the latter the emphasis is on both historical and contemporary perspective it types of legitimation and on bureaucracy as a compares WEBER’s vision with its two alternati superior technical instrument, whereas in the ves, the Saint-Simonian and the Marxian. political essays bureaucrats are treated as a status SCHLUCHTER deflates the Saint-Simonian hope group with vested interests. In turn, capitalism shared by so many American organization theo appears as part of occidental rationalization in rists that politics can ever be reduced to efficient the scholarly writings, whereas in the political administration and that replacing office authori ones capitalism’s capacity for creating class con ty with functional authority (expertise) can ever flicts is stressed. WEBER fully recognized that bring about the vaunted change from “the domi the introduction of advanced capitalism into “un nation of men to the administration of things.” derdeveloped” countries such as Germany and Far from being uncritical toward WEBER, Russia militated against the opportunities for SCHLUCHTER identifies the theoretical ambi liberal democracy by reenforcing both traditio guities and empirical lacunae of WEBER’s thought, nalism and radicalism. BEETHAM’s account of yet he concludes that WEBER’s perception of WEBER’s untranslated writings on Russia cannot the ineluctable dialectic of formal and substanti be found elsewhere in such clarity and complete ve rationality intensified by “progress” provides ness. us with the best basic model for understanding the nature of modern society; and similar to (4) If much of WEBER’s sociological vision, both BRUUN he makes it plain that WEBER’s postu in his scholarly and political writings, remains late of value freedom is the dialectical precondi viable, the same cannot be claimed for his poli tics, which had to be time-bound, as WOLFGANG MOMMSEN shows in his massive and exhaustive 14 In the literature on professionalization there has account of WEBER’s place in German politics. also been a more sophisticated understanding of WE The first edition appeared in 1959, almost at the BER. JEFFREY BERLANT’s study of the American same time as BENDIX’s intellectual portrait. The and English medical associations as monopolistic professions and status groups (1975) benefited from the availibility, in Economy and Society, of WEBER’s 16 The following observations draw on my elaboration treatment of monopolist and expansionist tendencies of BEETHAM’s analysis and of WEBER’s views on within various kinds of groups. the preconditions of liberal democracy in my essay “History and Sociology’’ (ROTH 1976b). On WE 15 Previously, SCHLUCHTER wrote a tightly reasoned BER’s political thought see also ILSE DRONBER- essay on the relation between science and politics, GER (1971), CHRISTIAN VON FERBER (1970), value freedom and the ethics of responsibility in KARL LOEWENSTEIN (1966), DANIEL ROSSI- WEBER’s thought; see SCHLUCHTER (1971). DES (1972), LAWRENCE A. SCAFF (1973). Zur Lage der Soziologie 97 second edition (MOMMSEN 1974a) incorporates Partly in reaction to MOMMSEN, MARCUSE all the new source materials and the secondary and LUKACS, ANTHONY GIDDENS has offe literature since accumulated, and contains a red his own interpretation in Politics and Socio lengthy reply to numerous critics, including logy in the Thought o f Max Weber (GIDDENS BENDIX and myself. In 1959 the book was re 1972), a small volume that is an addendum to presentative of the youngest scholarly genera his comprehensive treatment of MARX, DÜRK tion’s attempt to come to terms with “the Ger HEIM and WEBER in Capitalism and Modern man catastrophe” (as the octogenarian FRIED Social Theory (GIDDENS 1971). GIDDENS RICH MEINECKE had titled his last work) and (1972: 8) rightly considers “one of the most ur with the web of intellectual guilt for the rise of gent tasks confronting modern social theory . . . Nazism; it was written partly under the impact that of re-examining the social and political en of Anglo-American re-education, with its appeals vironments which generated the main parameters to the ghosts of the natural law tradition, and of social thought which exist today. In the case partly in response to the attempt by parliamenta of WEBER, this means making something of a ry survivors of Weimar Germany to install WE return to the sort of discussion which his works BER as patron saint of the fledgling Federal Re stimulated in Germany during his own life public — a role for which he was not well sui time”. ted. His advocacy of a democratized form of national integration that would permit Germany If WEBER’s politics come from a much different to take a more responsible part in the politics of time and place, his views on the role of the uni the great powers makes WEBER the politician a versity and a specifically academic “freedom man of his time and not ours. However, MOMM from value judgments” (which may be a better SEN does not rest his case there. He also posits a translation than the customary “value neutrali fateful intellectual link via CARL SCHMITT, the ty”) have remained ideal and target in contempo theoretician of the authoritarian state, to Hitler’s rary American academic politics. EDWARD appearance as the “charismatic leader with a po SHILS has edited, translated and for the first litical machine.” This construction, coupled with time collected WEBER’s editorials, articles, spee a tendency to view WEBER’s sociological writings ches, and memoranda, which at several occasions as indicative of his political views, led to a some precipitated a public eclat involving government times acrimonious clash with mostly older scho officials, professors and parliamentarians (WE lars and political men. BENDIX, PAUL HONIGS BER 1974). The collection is intended as a HEIM, KARL LOEWENSTEIN, BENJAMIN “classic” contribution to the present-day dis NELSON and PARSONS became prominent par course. It is also useful because it shows the con ticipants in a controversy that eventually broade crete political incidents and issues which finally ned into the political warfare that engulfed Ame made WEBER state his position more systemati rican and European universities from 1964 cally in “The Meaning of ‘Value Freedom’ in So on. ciology and Economics” (1913) and in “Science as a Vocation” (1919). WEBER wished to pre In The Age o f Bureaucracy MOMMSEN (1974b) serve “the proud tradition of academic solidari put his views in his own English words, but the ty” (1974: 6) against interference from the go slim volume of five essays on WEBER’s politics vernments, the churches and various interest and sociology cannot substitute for the author’s groups and therefore advocated, inter alia, a na main opus, which unfortunately remains un tional organization or union of professors in op translated. This English volume is paralleled by a position to the cartel of the ministries of educa partly overlapping collection of previously pub tion against the universities. He denied that there lished essays in German (MOMMSEN 1974c), was meaningful academic freedom as long as po which also contains a discussion of the United litical and religious criteria determined appoint States in WEBER’s political thought and a new ments; he feared that the increasing manipulation contribution on “Verstehen und Idealtypus”. In of younger scholars by the ministries through both volumes MOMMSEN goes beyond his poli often secret preferment would breed academic tical biography in that he now tries to demon strate explicitly an underlying intellectual unity 17 On some of the exchanges between MOMMSEN and of WEBER’s political and sociological vision17. his critics, see BENDIX and ROTH, 1971: 6 6 . 98 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 9 1 -1 1 8 place-hunters and operators, at the same time The method is “insufficient” because it separates that he castigated the growing tendency of bour the Ought from the Is, takes the epistemological geois students to look upon academic patents possibility of a purely empirical science as unpro- and fraternity membership as qualifications for blematical, and studies only limited causal con joining the “feudal” establishment. nections — all of which adds up to veiling the “truth” about capitalist exploitation. WEBER’s As civil servants, German professors were under subjective recognition of capitalism’s inherent in even greater restrictions than American govern humanity thus would appear irrelevant to his ment employees are unter the Hatch Act, restraints method of inquiry, as indeed it was in contrast to which American academics are unaccustomed, to his substantive concerns. For LEFEVRE, WE although, as WEBER pointed out at the time, uni BER’s work,and hence all of social science today, versity administrations tend to take the place of rests on a “naive and optimistic research libera the ministries of education. WEBER condemned lism” (LEFEVRE 1971: 17), which parallels the authoritarian indoctrination and patronage of stu free enterprise model with its glorification of dents not only for pedagogical reasons, but also the anarchy of production. Here there are satirical because he desired the universities to have a moral possibilities, but LEFEVRE cannot afford to be justification for rejecting interference on the part anything but deadly serious in his insistence on a of “religious, economic, social and political parties unity of theory and practice that will totally trans (which otherwise) would then all possess the cend the prevailing mode of production and do right to have separate universities or professor mination. MOMMSEN (1974a: 446) correctly ships provided for them, in which instruction in views this stance as “naive Hegelianism with a accordance with their own ideals would be given” Marxist twist.” After all, the alternative to the (1974: 22). Anybody opposed to such a state of imperfect liberal university can only be central affairs must also for himself forego “instruction political control or a universal consensus on a phi in ultimate values and beliefs.” We must not for losophy of history — and the former is much more get, however, that this political stand was not likely than the latter. directly related to the epistemological distinc tion between value and fact on which WEBER GOERAN THERBORN’s Science, Class and So founded the logical possibility of scholarship ciety (1976) is intended as a contribution to the and science. formation of sociology and historical materialism. He offers his study as an exercise in the sociology (5) Both this epistemological distinction and the of knowledge, even more, as a “historical materia advocacy of a liberal university as an elite of scho lism of historical materialism, or, in other words, lars committed foremost to the intergenerational a social scientific study of the development of continuity of academic competence are totally (Marxist) social science” that reduces sociological unacceptable to the long line of WEBER’s Marxist theorizing to “underlying” relations of produc critics, recently joined by LEFEVRE and THER- tion and class struggle. With ALTHUSSER, he BORN. LEFEVRE, one of the leaders of the stu believes that Marxism became a science by turning dent rebellion at the Free University of Berlin in to working-class politics. The equation of philo the late sixties, wrote a highly controversial disser sophy and class struggle — “philosophy is, in the tation on which the examiners split, On the Histo last analysis, class struggle in theory” — in ALT rical Character and Historical Function o f the Me HUSSER appears to THERBORN (1976: 47) “a thod o f Bourgeois Sociology (LEFEVRE 1971). It philosophical practice of the greatest significance.” was part of the theoretical justification for the In this view the whole history of sociology and attack on one of the outposts of “Americanized” contemporary American social science, which social science, which subsequently was largely dis THERBORN reviews extensively if superficially, placed by the Marxist “science of society”. The must look like apology. Since class commitment book is a narrow case study limited to WEBER’s is crucial, it is revealing to THERBORN (1976: methodology and The Protestant Ethic, but since 255) that, in contrast to MARX, ENGELS and it proceeds from a total theory of cognition and LENIN, those “proletarian” intellectuals, of the society it can claim to demolish all of contempo capitalist world who, as a sociologist, has been rary social science by proving WEBER’s “insuffi formed by beeing part of a militant labor move ciency of method” (the title of the first chapter) ment.” THERBORN’s treatment of WEBER does Zur Lage der Soziologie 99 not differ much from LEFEVRE’s. Just like him, conjures up an image that probably will leave he makes only fleeting references to the bulk of “the curious” to whom it is addressed with WEBER’s historical studies and stresses the indi little curiosity and will not encourage many rea vidualist perspective of social action at the ex ders to take seriously much of WEBER’s substan pense of the practiced methodology and the sub tive work, which is treated in the later chapters. stantive historical explanations. If THERBORN MACRAE appears to be irked by the observation would admit the closeness of MARX and WEBER that “practically all that is written on Weber is as historical analysts, as TURNER has demon written in awe”, although he concedes that “it strated it again, he would have to explain how a is remarkable that despite this awe so much writ self-professed “class-conscious bourgeois” could ten about Weber is so good, even if so incom hold views similar to those of a “proletarian” plete” (MACRAE 1974: 103). thinker. MACRAE takes a clear position: He identifies These two examples are representative of other himself with the evolutionary and positivist tra Marxist or neo-Marxist endeavors18. They have dition from SPENCER and DÜRKHEIM to been balanced by comparisons made by BENDIX HOBHOUSE; he prefers “successful” sociologists (1973) , GIDDENS (1970, 1971), MAYER (1975) like them and PARETO to “unsuccessful” ones and RUNCIMAN (1963)19. In general, MARX like WEBER and MARX, and he likes his heroes WEBER comparisons, political and non-political, dead and done with in the name, presumably, of have almost become a specialty. The genre was ini scientific progress. Put another way, he does not tiated in 1932 by KARL LOEWITH with a famed care for historical sociology, for which clear-cut philosophical inquiry, the Weberian part of which explanations, his apparent criterion of success, are is now available in English (LOEWITH 1970). not feasible. MACRAE seems to belong to those who are troubled by the Germanness of MARX (6) Apart from uncompromising Marxists for and WEBER and by their persistent importance whom personal qualities must recede behind class in the Anglo-Saxon realm, where they continue membership, most of the writers considered so to be living presences instead of dead saints (as far seem sympathetic to WEBER, and some even ERICH FROMM and ANTHONY GIDDENS engage in intellectual hero worship. However, have put it). His ultimate explanation is in line while few sociologists would dismiss WEBER’s with the cultural stereotypes: WEBER and MARX, achievements out of hand, a quite substantial about whom he has written earlier (MACRAE number are ambivalent about the work and un 1969), succeed by obfuscation rather than Gallic sympathetic to the person. The man who was clarity or English common sense. WEBER must known to his contemporaries for his easy laugh be a magus, at heart an irrationalist exerting an ter is almost invariably pictured in that formal irrational appeal far beyond what is tolerable to portrait that graces so many books — including the positivist view of the world. DONALD MACRAE’s - confirming the cultural stereotype of the grim-faced German professor. This image contrasts with MARTIN GREEN’s MACRAE’s sketch in the Modern Master series mythological universe in which WEBER incar (1974) is the first overall account that is a frank nates the Apollonian spirit as a nemesis of Deme- exercise in debunking. Beginning with WEBER’s trian and Aphroditean irrationalism (GREEN reputation and depicting the life, the man, the 1974). In GREEN’s mythology almost the whole country and his academic surrounding, MACRAE twentieth century, as a cultural configuration, is the creation of two diametrically opposed spiritual attitudes: those of D. H. LAWRENCE and of 18 For some other recent Marxist or neo-Marxist com parisons, see RICHARD ASHCRAFT (1972), JOHN WEBER. There is too much heavy-handed symbo LEWIS (1974), JOACHIM STREISAND (1965). Cf. lism in GREEN’s reconstruction, and a preoccu also the older account by NORMAN BIRNBAUM pation with establishing point-by-point parallels (1953). For an attempt at synthesizing MARX and and oppositions between persons and ideas. But WEBER, see IRVING ZEITLIN (1973: 123-138). his work makes fascinating reading and has a lesson 19 For more references, see my essay on WEBER’s re for sociologists and intellectual historians; it pro lationship to MARX in BENDIX and ROTH (1971), vides a wealth of scattered and jumbled materials Chapter XII. for the study of intellectual circles as originators 100 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 9 1 -1 1 8

of new ideas and for some of the major transmis GREEN’s mythologizing enterprise, it is only fair sions of ideas from central Europe to the Anglo- that MARIANNE WEBER’s own account, with its Saxon realm, a topic preciously dealt with by sometimes vexing mixture of unabashed glorifi PARSONS and H. S. HUGHES. Foremost, GREEN cation and overly discreet cover-up, should finally succeeds in sketching one important story relati be available to English readers (MARIANNE vely unknown to Americans — the rise of Schwa WEBER 1975). The biographies of these men bing, the bohemian suburb of Munich, around and women by GREEN, MITZMAN and MA 1900 as the locus of the new movement of aesthe RIANNE WEBER and the story of Heidelberg tic and libidinal liberation and as the vanguard of and Schwabing as intellectual constituents of the much that is familiar to us today in the American twentieth century are important for cultural, counterculture. The central figure was the social and political history, especially for under calamitous, drug-addicted Otto Gross, who in his standing some of the antecedents of our own in rebellion against an authoritarian father, a famous tellectual and professional environment. Beyond criminologist, radicalized Freudian ideas in the that, they can make a contribution, as case stu direction of an intensely lived way of life that dies, to the sociology of the intelligentsia. How was politically and erotically anarchic. Frieda ever, the utility of WEBER’s comparative socio von Richthofen, a distant relative of the Red Ba logy remains independent of the question of its ron, converted D. H. Lawrence to the anti-pater origins. Here intellectual development, rather nalistic creed of Gross, her erstwhile lover, and than social reductionism, is called for. Insofar as thus changed the English literary climate. Frieda’s comparative research is breaking new ground, it older sister Else, one of the first women Ph.D.s at can gradually leave WEBER behind as a genuine the University of Heidelberg, taught WEBER the classic - dead and dusty in MACRAE’s sense. moral value of eroticism, which found its reflec Yet there is another side to WEBER’s influence tion in successive changes in his sociology of reli that will probably not diminish soon. In the face gion. After Else gave birth to one of Gross’ ille of his own denials that he was concerned with gitimate children in 1907, WEBER began to read philosophy, WEBER took a distinctive stance Freud and Gross and wrote to her a scathing that made KARL JASPERS choose him as the attack on the tenets of total libidinal freedom heroic figure of his existentialist philosophy. This (reprinted under camouflage in BAUMGARTEN, stance of stoic existentialism may survive the re 1964: 644-48). But regardless of his opposition sults of his scholarship, just as the Promethean to Otto Gross’ anarchism, he became the legal and messianic spirit of MARX has survived his adviser and helper-in-need to members of Gross’ scientific accomplishments. The hoped-for pro circle in matters of divorce, child custody, draft gress of scholarship cannot resolve the need for dodging and criminal prosecution. GREEN making existential choices for which MARX and (1974: 66ff) casts WEBER in the role of the WEBER remain exemplary. “greatest, though most self-divided, representati ve . . . of the patriarchal mode”, as “the Brutus of Patriarchy, the virtuous rebel,” while Lawrence plays the part of the worshipper of Demetrian References matriarchy and Gross that of Aphroditean en thusiast. As the tortured defender of moral res ARON, R., 1967: Main Currents in Sociological Thought. New York: Doubleday (Also published in French in ponsibility WEBER appears ultimately as the em 1967). bodiment of patriarchalism’s enlightened Apollo ASHCRAFT, R., 1972: Marx and Weber on Liberalism nian side. GREEN seems to be quite right in per as Bourgeois Ideology. Comparative Studies in Histo ceiving WEBER’s promotion of his wife Marianne, ry and Society 14, 2, 130-168. BAUMGARTEN, E., ed. 1964: Max Weber: Werk und as a leader of Women’s Liberation and as a scho Person. Tübingen. Mohr. lar, as a form of liberal patriarchalism intended BEETHAM, D., 1974: Max Weber and the Theory of to bring women into the Apollonian world of Modern Politics. London: Allen & Unwin. work, which Frieda, the Demetrian spokeswo BENDIX, R., 1960: Max Weber: An Intellectual Por man of total feminine liberation, hated so pas trait. Garden City. (Re-issued: Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977). sionately. BENDIX, R., 1973: Inequality and Social Structure: A Comparison of Marx and Weber. American Sociolo After MITZMAN’s psychohistory (1970) and gical Review 39, 2, 149-61. Zur Lage der Soziologie 101

BENDIX, R., et al., eds., 1968: State and Society. Bo KÄSLER, D., ed., 1972: Max Weber. Munich: Nymphen ston: Little Brown. (Reprinted by University of Cali burger Verlagsbuchhandlung. fornia Press, 1973) KÄSLER, D., 1975: Max-Weber-Bibliographie. Kölner BENDIX, R., ROTH, G., 1971: Scholarship and Zeitschrift Für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 27, Partisanship. Berkeley: University of California Press. 4, 703-30. BERGER, P. L., 1963: Charisma and Religious Innova LEFEVRE, W., 1971: Zum historischen Charakter und tion: The Social Location of Israelite Prophesy. zur historischen Funktion der Methode bürgerlicher American Sociological Review 28, 6, 940-50. Soziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. BERLANT, J., 1975: Profession and Monopoly. Berke LEWIS, J., 1974: Max Weber and Karl Marx. Marxism ley. University of California Press. Today, November, 328-39. BIRNBAUM, N., 1953: Conflicting Interpretations of LOEWENSTEIN, K., 1966: Max Weber’s Political Ideas the Rise of Capitalism: Marx and Weber. British in the Perspective of Our Time. The University of Mas Journal of Sociology 55, 125-41. sachusetts Press. BRUUN, H.H., 1972: Science, Values and Politics in LOEWITH, K., 1970: Weber’s Interpretation of the Max Weber’s Methodology. Copenhagen: Munks- Bourgeois-Capitalistic World in Terms of the Guid gaard. ing Principle of ‘Rationalization’. In: WRONG 1970: BURGER, Th., 1976: Max Weber’s Theory of Concept 101- 120. Formation: History, Laws, Ideal Types. Durham: LOOS, F., 1970: Zur Wert- und Rechtslehre Max Duke University Press. Webers. Tübingen: Mohr. COHEN, J., 1972: Max Weber and the Dynamics of LOVELL, T., Weber, Goldmann and the Sociology of Rationalized Domination. Telos 14, Winter, 63-86. Beliefs. Archives of European Sociology XIV, 304- COHEN, J., HAZELRIGG, L., POPE, W., 1975a: De- 23. Parsonizing Weber: A Critique of Parsons’ Interpre MACRAE, D.G., 1969: Karl Marx. In: The Founding tation of Weber’s Sociology. American Sociological Fathers of Social Science, ed. by Timothy Raison. Review 40, 2, 229-41. Baltimore: Penguin, 59-67. COHEN, J., HAZELRIGG, L., POPE, W., 1975b: Reply MACRAE, D.G., 1974: Max Weber. New York: Viking to Parsons. American Sociological Review 40, 5, Press. 670-74. MAYER,C., 1975: Max Weber’s Interpretation of Karl COLLINS, R., 1968: A Comparative Approach to Po Marx. Social Research 42, 4, 701-19. litical Sociology. In: BENDIX et al., eds., 1968: MITZMAN, A., 1970: The Iron Cage: A Historical In 42-69. terpretation of Max Weber. New York: Knopf. COSER, L.A., 1971: Masters of Sociological Thought. MOMMSEN, W., 1959: Max Weber und die deutsche New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Politik, 1890-1920. Tübingen: Mohr. DRONBERGER, L, 1971: The Political Thought of MOMMSEN, W., 1974a: Max Weber und die deutsche Max Weber. New York: Appleton. Politik, 1890-1920. Second revised edition. Tübin EISENSTADT, S.N., ROKKAN, St., eds., 1973: Build gen: Mohr. ing States and Nations: Models, Analyses and Data MOMMSEN, W., 1974b: The Age of Bureaucracy: Per across Three Worlds. Beverly Hills: Sage. spectives on the Political Sociology of Max Weber. FERBER, Ch. v., 1970: Die Gewalt in der Politik. Stutt New York: Harper & Row. gart: Kohlhammer. MOMMSEN, W., 1974c: Max Weber: Gesellschaft, Po FREUND, J., 1969: The Sociology of Max Weber. New litik und Geschichte. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. York: Vintage Books. (First publish in French in PARSONS, T., 1937: The Structure of Social Action. 1966). New York: McGraw-Hill. GEERTZ, C, 1968: Islam Observed. University of Chi PARSONS, T., 1975: On “De-Parsonizing Weber” cago Press. (Comment on Cohen et al., ASR April, 1975). Ame GELLNER4 E., The Kathmandu Option: Patrimony and rican Sociological Review 40, 5, 666-70. Bureaucracy. Encounter, Oct., 56-58. PERROW, Ch., 1972: Complex Organizations: A Criti GIDDENS, A., 1970: Marx, Weber and the Development cal Essay. Glenview: Scott, Foresman. of Capitalism. Sociology 4, 289-310. RAPHAEL, F., Max Weber et le judaisme antique. Ar GIDDENS, A., 1971: Capitalism and Modern Social chives of European Sociology XI, 297-336. Theory. Cambridge University Press. REX, J., 1971: Typology and Objectivity. In: SAHAY GIDDENS, A., 1972: Politics and Sociology in the 1971: 17-36. Thought of Max Weber. London: MacMillan. ROTH, G., 1975: Socio-Historical Model and Develop GREEN, M., 1974: The von Richthofen Sisters: The mental Theory. American Sociological Review 40, Triumphant and the Tragic Modes of Love. New 2, 148-57. York: Basic Books. ROTH, G., 1976a: Religion and Revolutionary Beliefs: HERMAN, S., 1975: Max Weber’s Philosophy of Social Sociological and Historical Dimensions in Max We Science: A Modern Critique, unpublished dissertation. ber’s Work. Social Forces 55, 2, 257-72. Department of Political Science, University of Washing ROTH, G., 1976b: History and Sociology. British Jour ton, Seattle. nal of Sociology 27, 3, 306-18. HUFNAGEL, G., 1971: Kritik als Beruf: Der kritische ROTH, G., BENDIX, R., 1959: Max Webers Einfluß auf Gehalt im Werk Max Webers. Frankfurt: Propyläen. die amerikanische Soziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift HUGHES, H. St., 1975: The Sea Change. The Migration für Soziologie XI, 38-53. of Social Thought, 1930-1965. New York: Harper & ROSSIDES, D., 1972: The Legacy of Max Weber: A Row. Non-Metaphysical Politics. In: Perspectives in Poli- 102 Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg. 6, Heft 1, Januar 1977, S. 91 — 118

tical Sociology, ed. by A. Effrat. Indianapolis: Bobbs WEBER, MAX, 1920: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Reli Merrill. gionssoziologie. Tübingen: Mohr. RUNCIMAN, W.G., 1963: Karl Marx and Max Weber. WEBER, MAX, 1946: From Max Weber, ed. by H.H. In: Social Science and Political Theory, by W.G. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford Uni Runciman. Cambridge University Press, 43-63. versity Press. RUNCIMAN, W.G., 1972: A Critique of Max Weber’s WEBER, MAX, 1947: The Theory of Social and Econo Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge University mic Organization, ed. and transl. by T. Parsons with Press. A.M.Henderson. New York: Oxford University Press. SAHAY, A., ed., 1971: Max Weber and Modern Socio WEBER, MAX, 1949: The Methodology of the Social logy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sciences, transl. and ed. by E. Shils and H. Finch. SCAFF, L.A., 1973: Max Weber’s Politics and Political New York: The Free Press. Education. American Political Science Review WEBER, MAX, 1956: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. LX VII, 1, 128-41. Fourth German edition, ed. by J. Winckelmann. Tü SCHLUCHTER, W., 1971: Wertfreiheit und Verantwor bingen: Mohr. tungsethik. Tübingen: Mohr. WEBER, MAX, 1958: The Protestant Ethic and the Spi SCHLUCHTER, W., 1972: Aspekte bürokratischer Herr rit of Capitalism, transl. by T. Parsons. New York: schaft. Studien zur Interpretation der fortschreiten Scribner. den Industriegesellschaft. Munich: List. WEBER, MAX, 1968: Economy and Society, ed. by SCHUTZ, A., 1967: The Phenomenology of the Social G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminster World, transl. by G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Chicago: Press. 3 Volumes. (Re-issued: Berkeley : University Northwestern University Press. (First German edi of California Press, 1977). tion 1932). WEBER, MAX, 1970: On Some Categories of Interpre SEYFARTH, C., et al., 1977: Max-Weber-Bibliographie: tive Sociology, transl. and ed. by E.E. Gräber (un Eine Dokumentation der Sekundärliteratur. Stutt published M.A. thesis). Norman: University of Okla gart: Enke. homa. SEYFARTH, C., SPRONDEL, W.M., 1973: Seminar: WEBER, MAX, 1972/73: Die protestantische Ethik I Religion und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung. Studien und II, ed. by J. Winckelmann. Hamburg: Sieben zur Protestantismus-These Max Webers. Frankfurt: stern Verlag. Suhrkamp. WEBER, MAX, 1974: Max Weber on Universities: The STAMMER, O., ed., 1971: Max Weber and Sociology Power of the State and the Dignity of the Academic Today: Transactions of the Fifteenth German Socio Calling in Imperial Germany, transl. and ed. by E. logical Congress. New York: Harper & Row. Shils. The University of Chicago Press. STREISAND, J., 1965: Max Weber: Politik, Soziologie WEBER, MAX, 1975a: Roscher and Knies: The Logical und Geschichtsschreibung. In: Die bürgerliche deut Problems of Historical Economics, transl. and ed. sche Geschichtsschreibung, ed. by J. Streisand. East by G. Oakes. New York: The Free Press. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 179-89. WEBER, MAX, 1975b: Marginal Utility Theory and the TENBRUCK, F.H., 1975: Das Werk Max Webers. Köl So-Called Fundamental Law of Psychophysics, ner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie transl. and ed. by L. Schneider. Social Science Quar 27,4,663-702. terly 56, 1, 21-36. THERBORN, G., 1976: Science, Class and Society. WEISS, J., 1975: Max Webers Grundlegung der Soziolo London: New Left Books. gie. Munich: Verlag Dokumentation. TORRANCE, J., Max Weber: Methods and the Man. WRONG, D., ed., 1970: Max Weber. Englewood Cliffs: Archives of European Sociology XV, 127-65. Prentice Hall. TURNER, B.S., 1974: Weber and Islam. London: ZEITLIN, L, 1973: Rethinking Sociology. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Appleton-Century Crofts. WARNER, R.St., 1972: The Methodology of Max Weber’s Comparative Studies. Unpublished disser Anschrift des Verfassers: tation. University of California, Berkeley. Prof. GUENTHER ROTH, Ph.D. WEBER, MARIANNE, 1975: Max Weber: A Biography, RT. 6., Box 6849 trans. and ed. by Harry Zohn. New York: Wiley. Bainbridge Isl., Washington 98110