Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
More than any other man of his generation Max Weber remains today influential as well as controversial. Neither intellectually nor politically are scholars done with the man and his work. However, his impact has not been steady over the five decades since his death. At various times Emile Durkheim, Georg Simmel, Ferdinand Tönnies, Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, and Sigmund Freud have attarcted more attention and approbation. Among these members of the “generation of 1890”—as H. S. Hughes has called them—Durkheim emerges, in the long run, as Weber's closest rival in sociology. In one respect his reception has outstripped Weber's: he was incorporated with less strain into stuctural functionalism, the only contemporary “school” in American sociology that may deserve the lable. It is indicative of this difference that the Parsonian or Durkheimian approach is often contrasted with the Weberian, usually as a juxtaposition of an integration versus a conflict model of society. However, the Weberian approach has not given rise to a comparable school, perhaps because its practitioners are concerned less than functionalists with a general systems theory.
1. For an illuminating comparison, see Collins, Randall, “A Comparative Approach to Political Sociology,” in Bendix, Reinhard et al. , eds., State and Society: A Reader in Comparative Political Sociology (Boston, 1968), pp. 42–67.Google Scholar
2. See Clark, Terry N., “Emile Durkheim and the Institutionalization of Sociology in the French University System,” European Journal of Sociology, IX, No. 1 (1968), 37–71.Google Scholar
3. Cf. Oromaner, Mark Jay, “The Most Cited Sociologists: An Analysis of Introductory Text Citations,” The American Sociologist, III, No. 2 (05 1968), 124ff.Google Scholar
4. Weber habitually put the term Wertfreiheit in quotation marks in order to indicate its technical nature. This usage is retained in the present essay. There is no one English or German term which would make a satisfactory shorthand expression. Weber's attempt to neutralize emotional reactions to his terminology failed; he complained that “endless misunderstanding and a great deal of terminological—and hence sterile—conflict have taken place about the term ‘value judgment.’ Obviously neither of these has contributed anything to the solution of the problem.” Weber, . “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics,” in The Methodology of the Social Sciences ed. and trans. Shils, Edward and Finch, Henry (Glencoe, Ill., 1949), p. 10.Google Scholar In this essay published in 1917–1918 Weber set aside the institutional aspect of Wertfreiheit after some brief remarks. Moreover, the eassy omitted references to the Verein für Sozialpolitik, for which he had prepared it in 1913. The early version was not published until 1964; see Baumgarten, Eduard, ed., Max Weber. Werk und Person (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 102–39.Google Scholar
5. For an anecdotal sketch of Scherrer, see Honigsheim, Paul, On Max Weber, trans. Rytina, Joan (New York: The Free Press; East Lansing: Social Science Research Bureau, 1968), pp. 58f.Google Scholar
6. In his methodological essays between 1903 and 1906 Weber has in mind economics whenever he writes of “our science.” As late as 1919, he spoke of “we economists” in “Science as a Vocation.”
7. For details, see my introduction to Weber, Max, Economy and Society, edited with Wittich, Claus (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), section 9.Google Scholar The term Sozialökonomik was introduced by Dietzel, Heinrich, Theoretische Sozialökonomik (Leipzig, 1895).Google Scholar
8. Economy and Society, p. 312.
9. Like his friends Georg Simmel, Werner Sombart, and Georg Jellinek, Weber took issue with the neo-Kantian philosopher Rudolf Stammler, who maintained the identity of social ideal and social law. Cf. Stammler, Rudolf, Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung (2nd rev. ed., Leipzig, 1906).Google Scholar For a sketch of Weber's arguments against Stammler, see Economy and Society, pp. 325ff., 32f., and my introduction, p. lxi. Weber's two lengthy essays on Stammler have not been translated; see Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tübingen, 1951), pp. 291–383.Google Scholar
10. The relationship between Jellinek and Weber is traced in my essay “Max Weber's Strategy of Comparative Study,” in Smelser, Neil and Vallier, Ivan, eds., Comparative Methodology (scheduled for publication in 1970 by the University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
11. The letter is reprinted in the second edition of von Below, Georg, Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters (Leipzig, 1925), p. xxiv. This diplomatic statement addressed to a vociferous opponent of sociology must be taken at face value, since Weber made similar remarks in less personal contexts. For an elaboration, see the essay cited in n. 10.Google Scholar
12. For an excellent study of the Verein and the tensions between scholarship and politics, see Lindenlaub, Dieter, Richtungskämpfe im Verein für Sozialpolitik (Wiesbaden, 1967);Google Scholar for a general background, see Ringer, Fritz, The Decline of the German Mandarins. The German Academic Community 1890–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), ch. 3.Google Scholar
13. For a discussion of these studies, see Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (New York, 1962), ch. II.Google Scholar
14. Weber, , Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik (Tübingen, 1924), pp. 413f.Google Scholar
15. Weber, , “Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany. A Contribution to the Political Critique of Officialdom and Party Politics,” Appendix II of Economy and Society, p. 1381.Google Scholar
16. See von Wiese, Leopold, “Die deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie. Persönliche Eindrücke in den ersten fünfzig Jahren (1909 bis 1959),” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XI, No. 1 (1959), 11–20.Google Scholar
17. Verhandlungen des Ersten Deutschen Soziologentages, Frankfurt, 10 19–22, 1910 (Tübingen, 1911), p. v.Google Scholar
18. Ibid., pp. 39f.
19. Honigsheim, op. cit., p. 60; cf. idem, “Die Gründung der deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in ihren geistesgeschichtlichen Zusammenhängen,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XI, No. 1 (1959), 8ff.Google Scholar
20. Weber, Marianne, Max Weber. Ein Lebensbild (Tübingen, 1950), p. 469.Google Scholar
21. Weber had in mind a research institute rather than a professional association as we understand it today. On the pioneering efforts of Ferdinand Tönnies and Weber, see Oberschall, Anthony R., Empirical Social Research in Germany, 1848–1914 (The Hague, 1965).Google Scholar
22. Cf. Weber's post-mortem circular to the participants dated Nov. 15, 1912, in Schäfer, Bernhard, ed., “Ein Rundschreiben Max Webers zur Sozialpolitik,” Soziale Welt, XVIII (1967), 261–71.Google Scholar
23. On the link between Geiger and Weber, see Lenk, Kurt, “Das Werturteilsproblem bei Max Weber,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, CXX (1964), 56f.;Google Scholar for Tönnies on Weber, see his Soziologische Studien und Kritiken (Jena, 1926), pp. 419f.Google Scholar
24. Salomon, Albert, “German Sociology,” in Gurvitch, Georges and Moore, Wilbert E., eds., Twentieth Century Sociology (New York, 1945), p. 587.Google Scholar
25. See Tönnies, Ferdinand, “Hochschulreform und Soziologie. Kritische Anmerkungen über Beckers Gedanken zur Hochschulreform und Belows Soziologie als Lehrfach,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archive, XVI (1920), 212–45;Google Scholarvon Below, Georg, Soziologie als Lehrfach (Munich, 1920).Google Scholar
26. On Hintze's adoption of “value-neutrality” see Simon, Walter M., “Power and Responsibility: Otto Hintze's place in German Historiography,” in Krieger, Leonard and Stern, Firtz, eds., The Responsibility of Power. Historical Essay in Honor of Hajo Holborn (New York, 1967), pp. 215–37.Google Scholar On the consitutional differences of opinion between Hintze and Weber see my Social Democrats in Imperial Germany (Totowa, N.J., 1963), pp. 60ff., 285f., 296ff.Google Scholar
27. For von Wiese's, Leopold concerned comments, see “Zwei Soziologienkongresse,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, old series, IX, No. 3 (1931), 233–43.Google Scholar
28. For a review of older and newer political critiques of Weber from the perspectives of Marxism, fascism, and natural law, see my “Political Critiques of Max Weber: Some Implications for Political Sociology,” American Sociological Review, XXX, No. 2 (04 1965), 213–23.Google Scholar
29. Cf. ibid., pp. 222f., and Stammer, Otto, ed., Max Weber und die Soziologie heute. Verhandlungen des 15. deutschen Soziologentages (Tübingen, 1965).Google Scholar
30. For an interpretation of this development in the context of the historical relationship between Marxism and Weberian sociology, see my essay “Das historische Verhältnis der Weberschen Soziologie zum Marxismus,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XX, No. 3 (1968), 429–47.Google Scholar For another account, see Mayntz, Renate, “Germany: Radicals and Reformers,” The Public Interest, No. 13 (Fall 1968), 160–72.Google Scholar
31. For a summary of the Weber reception up to the end of the fifties, see my essay written jointly with Bendix, Reinhard, “Max Webers Einfluss auf die amerikanische Soziologie,” Köner Zeitschrift für Soziologie, XI, No. 1 (1959), 38–53.Google Scholar On some of the uses and misuses of Weber's work in foreign-area studies, see my essay “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism and Empire-Building in the New States,” World Politics, XX, No. 2 (01 1986), 194–206.Google Scholar
32. Weber, , “Der Sinn der ‘Wertfreiheit’ der Soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften,” Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. Winckelmann, Johannes (Tübingen, 1951), p. 486Google Scholar; cf. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, p. 11. The other Weber quotations in the rest of the essay are from the first nine pages of ibid.
33. For a recent answer from a liberal perspective, which distinguishes between the social role of the sociologist and the logical possibilities of sociology, see Dahrendorf, Ralf, Die Soziologie und der Soziologe—Zur Frage von Theorie und Praxis (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 1967).Google Scholar
34. For reminiscences of classroom propaganda shortly before and after the downfall of Imperial Germany, see Neumann, Franz, “The Social Sciences,” in Neumann, et al. , The Cultural Migration. The European Scholar in America (New York, 1961), pp. 15f. Neumann, a prominent member of the Old Left, comments: “I do not consider it the task of universities to preach democracy. In this, I fully stand with the ideas of Max Weber.… But it is most certainly not the function of the universities to ridicule democracy, to arouse nationalist passions, to sing the praise of past systems—and to cover this up by asserting that one is ‘nonpolitical.’”Google Scholar
35. On Treitschke, see a letter Weber's student days addressed to Baumgarten, Hermann, 07 14, 1885,Google Scholar in Weber, Marianne, ed., Max Weber: Jugendbriefe (Tübingen, 1936), p. 174;Google Scholar the reference in The Methodology of the Social Sciences, p. 2, is written from a distance of three decades.
