Remaining Lecture Notes on Weber & Reminders

Since we did not finish Chapter 7 on Weber today (4/13), I am going to post the rest of what I planned to say about Weber on this blog. Of course, be sure to incorporate these notes in your class notes.

We left off talking about one of Weber's central methodological contributions, the concept of VERSTEHEN. This is well-described in a passage in the middle of p. 175.
(personally, I do not see the distinction between "direct observational" and "explanatory" understanding as being that significant.)

(In general, Weber's advocacy of the verstehen approach clearly provides support for QUALITATIVE research approaches such as PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION or FIELD WORK over and above quantitative, statistical, scientific approaches.)

3. In a previous text I used, Weber's position in this regard was referred to as "methodological individualism." Indeed, in this respect, Weber did not have much use for Durkheim's "social realism" -- society or social facts existing over and above individuals, as the basic reality. Rather, Weber focused on SOCIAL ACTION -- action to which subjective meaning is attached, subjective meaning which takes into account the behavior of others. (p. 177)

a.) The "Critique and Conclusions" section has a nice statement of the above point:
"Weber's work was, in many ways, a critique and correction of Marx's work, as we have noted in this chapter. It was also largely a repudiation of Durkheim's reification of collective concepts, such as the sui generis understanding of society, as well as his methodological position. For Weber, sociology was the interpretive exercise that took the individual and individual action as the basic unit of analysis. When examining concepts such as the state, association, or feudalism, the 'task of sociology is to reduce these concepts to understandable action, that is, without exception, to the action of participating individual men.'" (pp. 193-194)

4. Weber also introduced, and argued for, the use of the IDEAL TYPE. Ideal types are abstractions that emphasize the core or central elements of any phenomenon (such as bureaucracy). It is a tool for understanding any aspect of society.

H. In connection with ideal types, the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY.

1. It should be noted in this regard that ideal types are NOT ethical prescriptions which stipulate what we should do or what position we should take.

2. A nice statement of this doctrine (although it is not labeled as such) appears near the bottom of p. 176. "The key to objectivity is conducting research according to rational, objective methods. The research must be clearly conceptualized, the conventional rules of evidence must be followed, conclusions must be drawn only on the basis of the evidence, and no moral or political status should be attributed to the conclusions reached by the scientist as scientist."

"Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists' using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the academic platform.'" (p. 176)

a.) This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position (endorsed by critics such as C. Wright Mills) -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position. (I believe this is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between ideology and sociological theory.)

I. On issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his fellow sociological theorists.

1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of women, and in his personal life he strayed from his monogamous relationship.

2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction (a view which was not widely accepted at the time). And he made a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. and why prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See p. 188.
___________________________

That brings us to Chapter 8 and Simmel, which is where I will pick up on Thursday (4/15).

REMINDERS:

1. ESSAY II IS DUE THURSDAY (4/15)

2. READ CHAPTERS 8, 9 & 10 (ONLY VEBLEN IN 10).

3. I WILL BE POSTING A BLOG DESCRIPTION OF OUR NEXT FAMILY EXERCISE SOMETIME THIS WEEK. IT WILL INVOLVE MATERIAL BEYOND CHAPTER 10 IN THE TEXT.

4. THE FIRST "SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION" QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION WILL BE NEXT MONDAY (4/19) BETWEEN 1-3PM IN A LOCATION TO BE ANNOUNCED. (THE PORTICO OUTSIDE MAIN BLDG. IF NICE WEATHER PREVAILS)