Weber and Interpretive Sociology in America

Abstract

This article examines the role of Webcr's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie in the construction of an American variant of interpretive sociology during the first half of the twentieth century. It thereby illustrates thc connections between intellectual appropriation and the academic institutionalization of competing sociological schools. After reviewing Weber's general reception in American sociology, it focuses on the respective relevance of Weber for symbolic interaction, which developed out of the Chicago School; Parsonian action theory; and the phenomenological social theory of Alfred Schutz. Three conclusions emerge. First, the symbolic intcractionists and their predecessors operated with the implicit assumption that they did not need Webcr. Second, Weber was not only intellcctually valuable to Parsons, but also useful in his qucst for intellectual hegemony. Finally, Schutz, in offering a third, alternative and competing interpretation of Weber, served to complicate this struggle bctwecn the two American sociological schools.The relationship between Weber's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie and the construction of an American variant of interpretive sociology during the first half of the twentieth century constitutes a particularly curious tale in the history of the discipline. A review of that history from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge illustrates the connections between intellectual appropriation and thc academic institutionalization of competing sociological schools. Specifically, we focus on three interconnectcd issues: the first, factors that conuibuted to what Jennifer Platt (1985) rcrers to as the "missing link" between Weber and the Chicago School; the sccond, the manner in which Weber was appropriated by and accorded a privileged position in Parsonian theory; Ihe third, the role played by European scholars who migrated to America betwecn the wars in articulating a Weberian-inspired phenomenological sociology.

Re-reading Weber, re-conceptualizing state-building: from neo-Weberian to post-Weberian approaches to state, legitimacy and state-building

“…Due to this selective reading and interpretation of Weber, we contend, neo-Weberian 'institutionalist' approaches to state-building have failed to adequately take into account the complex and diverse nature of 'the state', which has led to the conceptualization of state-building interventions from a narrow, technocratic perspective. In doing so, this article builds on, and connects, three separate literatures: the literature inquiring into the reception and interpretation of Max Weber's work (for instance McFalls 2007;Tribe 2007;Ghosh 1994;Kivisto and Swatos 1990), the critical literature on institutionalist state-building (Richmond and Mac Ginty 2014;Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013;Lemay-Hébert 2013), and the burgeoning debates on the sociology of contemporary state-building (see Bliesemann de Guevara 2010;Lemay-Hébert 2014.…”

La temprana recepción de Max Weber en la sociología argentina (1930–1950)

“…En la entreguerra los sociólogos tuvie ron alguna participación en el debate en torno a la ética protestante, estimulados en parte por la aparición, en 1926, del libro de Richard Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, y por entonces, igualmente, los escritos metodológicos de Weber comen zaron a recibir atención en los trabajos de Morris Ginsberg. Pero no fue sino hacia la posguerra, y en parte debido a una expansión de la enseñanza de la sociología en el sistema universitario, que su obra concitó un interés sostenido entre los sociólogos (Kivisto y Swatos, 1988). También en Italia Weber permaneció desconocido.…”

“…En rigor, quienes leen y difunden a Weber en Estados Unidos son, en realidad, aquellos que se han graduado en Alemania, especialmente en la propia universidad de Weber, Heidelberg, y en su mayoría son de origen alemán (Theodore Abel, Alexander von Schelting, Pitirim Sorokin, Howard Becker, Paul Honigsheim, Talcott Parsons, Albert Salomon, Carl Meyer, Adlph Lowe, Alfred Schutz, Hans Speier, Hans Gerth y Reinhard Bendix). Todos ellos escribieron sobre Weber desde los años veinte en adelante, pero no fue sino hasta los treinta que comenzaron a desplegar una labor activa en las universidades norteamericanas (Shils, 1970;Platt, 1985;Kivisto y Swatos, 1988). En resumen, la literatura relativa al tema confirma la impresión de que, salvo en Estados Unidos, Weber no fue una figura relevante en los medios so ciológicos antes de la posguerra y que, en rigor, sus ideas devinieron influyentes en el viejo continente a partir de la mediación norteamericana.…”