1 Description of the Module Items Description of the Module Subject
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Description of the Module Items Description of the Module Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Classical Sociological Theory Module Name/Title Methodology, Science, Values, Objectivity & Ideal Types Pre Requisites Methodology, German historicism, positivism, Neo-Kantianism, Verstehen, social sciences Objectives This module seeks to examine Weber’s ideas on methodology of social sciences, through objectivity, value-relevance, and Verstehen. Key words Weber’s methodology, Verstehen, Ideal types, Value-relevance, Value-neutrality, and Objectivity Module Structure Methodology, Science, Values, Objectivity & Ideal Introduction, Weber’s methodology, its context, Types Verstehen & science, causality, objectivity, ideal types and values. Team Details Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology, University of Hyderabad Paper Coordinator Vishal Jadhav Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune Content Writer Rajula Shah Dept. of Sociology, University of Mumbai Content Reviewer Vishal Jadhav Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune Language Editor Vishal Jadhav Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune 1 CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY METHODOLOGY, SCIENCE, VALUES, OBJECTIVITY AND IDEAL TYPES INTRODUCTION Max Weber was, no doubt, one of the brightest intellectuals amongst the early organizers of the sociological thought. An overall evaluation of Weber’s writings demonstrate its historical comprehension of modern Western societies and their economic, political, legal and religious development. Among other things, Weber wrote extensively on the methodology of the social sciences, but his writings on methodology are complex and are the subject of many conflicting interpretations. It is Weber’s methodology that has been extensively read, discussed, debated, sometimes accepted and often refuted for its inconsistencies. Weber’s approach to social theory was a central feature of his overall work. By and large, Weber was a modernist in his overall approach to social thought. Considering the other two classical sociologists, Marx and Durkheim, Weber had a modernist perspective, which also reflected in his methodology. By bringing together various traditions of social theory, Weber thereby formed a unique theoretical perspective based on history, economics, philosophy, law and comparative historical analysis (Morrison, 2006). Further, when compared to Marx and Durkheim, Weber’s approach was not only more individualist, but also more culture oriented. And both these aspects, individualism and cultural orientation, particularly appear in Weber’s perspective on the methodology of the social sciences. We open this module bylooking at the major aspects of Weber’s methodology, which is particularly unique to Weberian work and which still remains a topic of agreement, disagreement as well as speculation even today. We will be examining the following: historical background for Weber’s views on the methodological issues in social sciences, Verstehen and science, causality, objectivity, ideal types and values – value-relevance and value-neutrality. All the sub-sections included here, are not airtight compartments, but rather all together represent Weber’s methodology for the social sciences. WEBER’S METHODOLOGY 2 Weber’s methodology, with his modernist perspective, has been discussed excessively amongst the sociologists for various reasons. His methodology has always attracted special attention in the 'interrogation' of Max Weber, as he may appear, unclear, confused and at the same time passionate, determinant and complete (Torrance, 1974). It is well known that Weber was completely opposed to pure, abstract theorizing. To the extent that Weber’s theoretical ideas are embedded in his empirical, usually historical research (Ritzer, 2011). Weber’s methodology of the social sciences was not only unique to him but also a very important contribution to study of society that seem to have influenced many scholars later on. It was between 1902 and 1903 that Weber wrote a series of essays questioning the methodology of investigation in social sciences. Specifically, the term ‘methodology’ refers to the procedures and the principles of inquiry in a particular discipline to obtain knowledge of society. Unlike natural sciences, the methods used in social sciences are not so clear and straightforward. A significant phase of that period was the development of social sciences. In such a context, it became important for Weber to distinguish between the methods of social sciences and the methods of natural sciences. Therefore, specifically two of Weber’s works stand out in particular as being of central importance in the formation of his methodological views: first, a work entitled Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics, written between 1902-03 and second, a work called ‘Objectivity in the Social Sciences and Social Policy’ written between 1903-04 (Morrison, 2006). It is the latter work, in which Weber discusses at length the aspects of objectivity as a part of methodology for the social sciences. Weber’s methodology should be understood with the fact that he was greatly inclined towards the study of history, irrespective of being a lawyer and economist. Weber suggested the development of clear concepts so that a causal analysis of historical phenomena can be performed. Therefore, Weber’s perspective and methodology was a fusion of historical and sociological orientations. For Weber, historical sociology was concerned with both individuality as well as generality. For this unification to be achieved, there was development and utilization of general concepts (to be known as “ideal types”) while studying particular individuals, events, or societies (Ritzer, 2011). Thus, with the help of these general concepts, one could arrive at the individuality of each development, thereby determining the causes for differences between such developments. 3 THE GENESIS AND CONTEXT OF WEBER’S METHODOLOGY Weber’s methodological works were in direct response to his immediate circumstances. The natural sciences grew dramatically between 1880 and 1900 in Europe. Knowledge in physics, biology and chemistry as well as experimental discoveries all advanced steadily. The scientific methodology thus became dominant within the scholarly community. This was followed by a decline in the scholarly tradition of historical and philosophical sciences in explaining the nature of reality (Morrison, 2006). In addition, at the turn of the nineteenth century, most scholars in social science and history were strong adherents of the broad tradition of historicism. According to the tradition of historicism, reality was seen as a historical product. However, historicism holds strong animosity towards abstract concepts (Eliaeson, 2002). The attack of natural sciences and the defence of social sciences, particularly the historicists’ hegemony in Germany, became the basis for the famous Methodenstreit– the controversy over method that related to the issue of preference between a historical and a theoretical approach. Thus, eventually, the situation resulted in an open clash between the natural sciences and social sciencesquestioning the basis of knowledge and thereby drawing attention to the differences between the methodology of the natural sciences and the methodology of the social sciences. The non-scientific nature of the historical and social sciences was largely criticized. With a general crisis by 1885, a re-examination of the relationship between the scientific method and philosophy took place. By 1890, a movement popularly known as Neo-Kantianism (a return to the work of Immanuel Kant) emerged in order to resolve the problem and thereby questioning the validity of scientific knowledge itself(Morrison, 2006). Neo-Kantianism can be considered the first truly secularized modern scientific methodology (Eliaeson, 2002).Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert – two of the central thinkers of the Neo-Kantian movement – sought specific directions to solve the problem of method (Morrison, 2006). These two scholars seem to have had tremendous influence on the Weber’s thinking about the methodology of social sciences, besides the influences of Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel– all close friends of Weber. Weber’s methodology was connected to the relationship between history and sociology. For this, he is also known as a historical sociologist(Ritzer, 2011). Weberstarted developing his own methodological position by attempting to resolve theoretical disputes in the social sciences pertaining to method. In a series of methodological essays written between 1903 and 1906, 4 Weber outlined the methodological foundations of the social sciences. Weber crystallized the methodological controversy step by step by showing the fundamental differences between the natural and social sciences. Amongst other things, for Weber, social sciences must arrive at a methodology which encompasses both general and individual aspects of historical reality, a procedure he referred to as the ‘ideal type’ (Morrison, 2006). In Rickert’s theory of knowledge, he used the concept called ‘value relevance’, which Weber absorbed for dealing with issues of subject matter in the social sciences. According to Rickert, since judgement comes before knowing, therefore knowing itself was a kind of valuing. Further, Rickert reasoned that it is impossible to have any judgement about reality without concepts. Therefore, without concepts, knowledge of the empirical world was also impossible. The value relevance thus became