I. Introduction
In 1902, a new phase in the scientific production of Max Weber began. Still suffering from his breakdown in 1898 which forced him to refrain from any intellectual work for several years, Weber started working on a different field of interest than before his crisis; he focused on methodological issues.
Weber had, already at the age of thirteen, actually written an essay which touched upon fundamental questions of the philosophy of history, like establishing of “laws of history”. The occasion on which Weber started writing his academic methodological works was a request by his colleagues at the University of Heidelberg to contribute an essay for a Festschrift of the university.
“Roscher und Knies und die logischen Probleme der historischen Nationalökonomie” was the first of the methodological essays written by Max Weber from 1902 on.
The value of Max Weber’s methodological essays was often underestimated. In Reinhard Bendix’s “Intellectual Portrait” e.g. they are “intentionally” left out in favor of Weber’s empirical work . Oakes even judges Weber’s metatheoretical project as a failure because of a lack of examination, understanding and evaluation on the part of his successors. In this paper, I am going to focus on the Weber’s essay on “Roscher and Knies” as a primary source, because the conclusions reached by Weber here are premises for his later methodological work. My aim is not to give a comprehensive analysis of this essay, but rather an overview of central points in Weber’s concept.
As secondary literature, I shall use Oakes “Introductory essay” to the “Roscher and Knies” essay, Toby Huff’s study in Weber’s methodology and for the biographical context, parts of Marianne Weber’s biography of her husband.
First of all, I shall look at the Methodenstreit in the German sciences which constituted the intellectual context inspiring and -in a way- provoking Weber. Secondly, I shall examine his critiques both of the ‘naturalist’ and of the ‘intuitionist’ positions and also take Weber’s remarks on ‘irrationality’ into account.
Then, I shall try to reconstruct the main thoughts of Weber’s own concept as it is shown in his rejection of Wundt’s category of ‘creative synthesis’ and in his theory of ‘causal explanation and meaningful interpretation’.
After a short summary of Weber’s ideas, I shall conclude with the attempt to show the importance of Weber’s methodological concept for the theory of history. [...]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Methodenstreit
III. 1. Weber’s Critique of the Naturalist Position
III. 2. Weber’s Critique of Intuitionism
III. 3. The Problem of ‘Irrationality’
IV. 1. The Category of “Creative Synthesis”
IV. 2. Causal Explanation and Meaningful Interpretation
V. Summary
VI. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines Max Weber’s methodological essay "Roscher and Knies" to reconstruct his core arguments regarding the foundation of the sociocultural sciences. The primary objective is to clarify Weber’s rejection of both naturalist and intuitionist approaches while outlining his own concept of meaningful interpretation and causal explanation in historical research.
- The historical and intellectual context of the German Methodenstreit.
- Weber’s critique of the naturalist demand for nomological laws in social sciences.
- An analysis of Weber’s rejection of intuitionism and psychological empathy.
- The role of value relevance and the concept of culture in historical analysis.
- The relationship between causal explanation and meaningful human action.
Excerpt from the Book
III. 1. Weber’s Critique of the Naturalist Position
Weber rejects the naturalist goal of establishing a coherent system of general “laws” according to the model of the natural sciences, not only for the sociocultural sciences, but for any science: “In individual cases, a complex of regularities [...] may have extraordinary heuristic value. However, it should be obvious that their discovery cannot be conceived as the ultimate goal of any science, neither as ‘nomological’, nor an ‘historical’ science, neither a ‘natural’ science nor a ‘sociocultural’ science” .
As Weber argues, even if “an enormous number of ‘empirical’ historical generalizations” were established, they would have “no causal status” , i.e. just these generalizations would not constitute adequate explanations. Further abstractions from these generalizations, i.e. applying the logical model of the natural sciences by establishing “a system of formulae of absolutely general validity” does not solve any given problem in the historical field of interest, because ”[i]t is obvious that historical reality, including those ‘world-historical’ events and cultural phenomena which we find so significant, could never be deduced from these formulae” . Therefore, these general formulae do not “contribute to an increase in the empirical ‘intelligibility’ of the individual causal complexes of concrete reality” .
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter contextualizes Max Weber’s methodological work and outlines the focus on his essay "Roscher and Knies" as a foundational primary source.
II. The Methodenstreit: An overview of the "struggle of methods" in 1880s Germany, contrasting the naturalist pursuit of universal laws with the intuitionist emphasis on immediate experience.
III. 1. Weber’s Critique of the Naturalist Position: Weber argues against the naturalist assumption that historical reality can be explained through general nomological laws or deductive formulae.
III. 2. Weber’s Critique of Intuitionism: This section critiques the intuitionist reliance on empathy, identifying it as a form of "psychologism" that fails to provide objective causal knowledge.
III. 3. The Problem of ‘Irrationality’: Weber addresses the misconception that human freedom creates an inherent unpredictability that excludes human action from scientific analysis.
IV. 1. The Category of “Creative Synthesis”: A critical look at Wundt’s notion of mental life as a unique quality, arguing that value relevance, not empirical uniqueness, defines our interest in such phenomena.
IV. 2. Causal Explanation and Meaningful Interpretation: This chapter defines Weber’s view on "meaningful interpretation" and how "understandable" motives serve as causal explanations in history.
V. Summary: A concise review of Weber’s rejection of naturalism and intuitionism, reiterating the necessity of value relevance for historical science.
VI. Conclusion: The author concludes that Weber’s methodology remains a vital framework for contemporary social sciences and interdisciplinary research.
Keywords
Max Weber, Roscher and Knies, Methodenstreit, Naturalism, Intuitionism, Causal Explanation, Meaningful Interpretation, Value Relevance, Sociocultural Sciences, Historical Research, Irrationality, Philosophy of History, Methodology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on Max Weber’s early methodological essay, "Roscher and Knies," analyzing how his conclusions in this work laid the groundwork for his later contributions to social science methodology.
What were the central intellectual tensions of that time?
The work explores the "Methodenstreit," a conflict between those who wanted to apply natural science models (naturalism) to the social sciences and those who favored empathy and intuition (intuitionism).
How does Weber define the goal of history?
Weber argues that the goal is not to discover universal laws of history, but to achieve a "meaningful interpretation" of specific, culturally relevant historical facts through causal explanation.
What does Weber mean by "value relevance"?
Value relevance refers to the idea that our selection and understanding of historical facts are determined by the specific values and questions we bring to the subject, making history an anthropocentric field.
How does the author characterize Weber's methodology?
Weber’s methodology is depicted as a robust framework that avoids the extremes of scientism and pure empathy, providing a clear path for rational, causal analysis in the human sciences.
Why is the concept of "culture" central to this research?
Culture serves as a lens through which we determine which aspects of reality are historically significant, anchoring our interest in the causal nexus of human action.
How does the paper address the "problem of irrationality"?
It clarifies that "irrationality" (or unpredictability) in human action is not a unique obstacle to social science, as concrete events in the natural world also present similar limits to predictability.
What distinguishes Weber's approach from intuitionism?
Unlike intuitionists, who prioritize subjective feelings, Weber emphasizes the need for objective causal analysis, warning that empathy should not replace the scientist’s duty to identify rational causes.
- Quote paper
- Helmut Strauss (Author), 2004, Max Weber's Methodological Essay on Roscher and Knies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/24996
