I had to have read this piece by Weber 3 times and only came away asking myself more questions than produced answers. Reading this stuff makes me wish I could have had just ONE opportunity in life to talk 1 on 1 with all of these sociologists and see if I'm on the right track in my analysis.
In “Objectivity in Social Science”, Max Weber’s critical point was his concern of whether people making sociological arguments factored their evidence off of their own personal values or just off of simple, concrete facts. This makes the reader ask themselves a few questions: 1. Does objectivity apply only to values, only to facts, or both? AND 2. Can objectivity be used to show that one value is equally superior to another? As confusing as it is to really come up with a clear answer to these questions, one other factor must be criticized before moving forward: Weber’s methods. Some of his evidence/ideas are described in ways that he has tried to make statements that deny the ability for science to overrule his position. “Whoever accepts the proposition that the knowledge of historical reality can or should be a ‘presuppositionless’ copy of ‘objective’ facts, will deny the value of the ideal-type….Every conscientious examination of the conceptual elements of historical exposition shows however that the historian, as soon as he attempts to go beyond the bare establishment of concrete relationships and to determine the cultural significance of even the simplest individual event in order to “characterize” it, must use concepts which are precisely and unambiguously definable only in the form of ideal types” (212-213).
The answer to the above questions at the beginning is tough at first to answer because Weber kept a two-way approach to value-free social science. From what I’ve read, he believed that ultimate values could not be figured out just by using a simple fact-style analysis. Therefore, while comparing different religious, political or social systems, one system could not be chosen over another without taking a value or end into consideration. On the other hand, Weber believed that once a value, conclusion, end, purpose, reason or perspective had been established, then a social scientist could attempt an investigation without values into the most effective means within a system of bringing about the established end. Similarly, Weber believed that objective comparisons among systems could also be made once a particular end had been established, acknowledged, and agreed upon, a position that allowed Weber to make what he considered objective comparisons among such economic systems of capitalism and socialism.
Even though Weber maintained that ultimate values could not be evaluated objectively, this belief did not keep him from believing that social problems could be scientifically resolved, that is, once a particular end or value had been established. One might think that Weber is just craving attention for coming up with numerous viewpoints in this section, but he cleared the air for every reader in the following: “Now all this should not be misunderstood to mean that the proper task of the social sciences should be the continual chase for new viewpoints and new analytical constructs” (216).
Let’s see if I can come remotely close to understanding this: Weber wants the people with the values (mostly religious folks) and the people with the facts and materials (mostly government folks) to come to a rationalization that the human institutions were not developed by materialism and facts, but by religious values. It’s appropriate to call into question Weber’s methods because it can be argued that Weber premeditated the fact that if he based his whole argument on religious values, then nobody in this world could then argue against him. This is because religious values are very tough, if not impossible, to justify scientifically (That is, to break down reason by reason, etc.) as opposed to arguments based off of concrete facts, which can be replicated with research. Last I checked, religious beliefs cannot be replicated because none of us were around to see Jesus born and begin this universe. Therefore, we can only stand strong by our values.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nick has some good points to make and it is important to go over what the early sociological theorist wrote because they lived in a different time and place and their speech was much different than ours and the meaning behind the words were slightly different. Right from the very beginning of the reading Weber is trying to lay out a very methodical way of looking at the science that deals with the institutions, individuals and individual behavior in human society. Weber states in the first two sentences “We have in abstract economic theory an illustration of those synthetic constructs which have been designated as “ideas” of historical phenomena. It offers us an ideal picture of events on the commodity-market under conditions of a society organized on the principles of an exchange economy, free competition and rigorously rational conduct.” He is saying there is insufficient fact (abstract) based on the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services (economic) on plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles (theory) to clarify with subjects fabricated for special situations that replace usual realities (synthetic) and set them in logical order. These he is saying have been designated as “ideas” of historical phenomena. This logical order is like a utopia which has come about by separating and emphasizing certain elements of reality. If you want to understand and describe a current social structure you have to be objective and analytical so that you are not influenced or distorted by synthetic constructs. Weber has layers or categories for the ideal-type and he tries to explain that it is not perfect but it is study able and you are able to place similarities and differences within these categories.
Weber is saying we can make the distinguishing trait relating to matters of fact or practical affairs clear and understandable by reference to an ideal-type. By doing a series of steps followed in a regular definite order that will be absolutely necessary as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods. He believes by doing this it will “help to develop our skill in imputation in research: it is no 'hypothesis' but it offers guidance to the construction of hypotheses. It is not a description of reality but it aims to give unambiguous means of expression to such a description.”
“Whoever accepts the proposition that the knowledge of historical reality can or should be a ‘presuppositionless’ copy of ‘objective’ facts, will deny the value of the ideal-type….Every conscientious examination of the conceptual elements of historical exposition shows however that the historian, as soon as he attempts to go beyond the bare establishment of concrete relationships and to determine the cultural significance of even the simplest individual event in order to “characterize” it, must use concepts which are precisely and unambiguously definable only in the form of ideal types” (212-213).
It is a little difficult to understand so I looked up the meaning of words Weber was using and this was a little bit of what I got.
“Whoever accepts” a theorem or problem to be demonstrated (proposition) that the fact that something with familiarity gained through experience or association of something used in the past and reproduced in historical presentations as the quality or state of being real (historical reality) “can or should be a” hypothesis - to suppose beforehand (presuppositionless) “copy of” condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers the quality of being actual (objective fact) “will deny the value of the ideal-type” ... Every person governed by or conforming to the dictates of conscience, the act or process of examine of the act of conceiving thought, (conscientious examination) the simplest principles of a subject of study of having the character of history an example of it designed to convey information or explain what is difficult to understand “shows however that the historian, as soon as he attempts to go beyond the bare establishment of concrete relationships and to determine the cultural significance of even the simplest individual event in order to “characterize” it, must use concepts which are precisely and unambiguously definable only in the form of ideal types.
Weber is saying there needs to be analytical integrity. That even though we have our value systems that we include in analyzing ideal types, uncertainty and genetic concepts has lead to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion. He states on pg. 213 “Hundreds of words in the historian's vocabulary are ambiguous constructs created to meet the unconsciously felt need for adequate expression and the meaning of which is only concretely felt but not clearly thought out.” He later states “the use of precise formulations in the sphere of cultural analysis is in many cases absolutely necessary.”
Weber believes social science is capable of being put to use by following an important method of conducting research and objectively analyzing facts using an ideal-type concept as opposed to using speculation or pure fact.
Post a Comment