Re:Weber

[Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:48 PM 10/10/97 -0400, Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

>I agree with you that Weber should not be seen as an "idealist".
>On the other hand, Weber did not give priority to the economy, nor
>did he advance an accidental (or contingent) view of history.
>Historical causality cannot be reduced to the
>two extreme poles of  "teleologism" and "contingentism". Weber, for
>his part, sought to conceptualize the conjunctural interaction of a
>broad set of historical forces. In contrast to the marxist tradition,
>one does not find in him any attempt to prioritize one or two
>causal factors. And neither does one find a strictly contingent
>conception of history. Weber had one singular preoccupation: to
>explain the peculiar rationalism of Western culture. How and why this
>rationalism developed was a complex empirical question, in which
>contingency played a major role but always within the context of a
>broad set of forces (economic, political, military, cultural).
>
>Finally, Hegel never advocated a teleological
>conception of history; if anything that has been a characteristic of
>Marxists - though not all. There is a telos to Hegel, but one far
>more complex than the one you are criticizing.


I reply (WS): Obviously, when you abandon explaining the whole world's
development you must come down with a much more narrowly defined subject,
such as western rationalism.  However, I would not like to turn this
discussion into the analysis of the original text which, IMHO, while
important in its own right, is rather tangential to empirical science.
While models of history implied by classical writers of political economy
might stirr academic controversy (my interepretation of Weber's approach to
history rests on the analysis by Wolfgang Schluchter, _The Rise of Western
Rationalism_) -- the debate on that subject generally indicates an impasse
in empricial research.

More importantly, the intentions of the writer do not matter, it is the
intepretations of his/her writings by other that do.  Regardless of the
Masters themselves had thought (they are all dead now, so it does not
matter), the interpretation of Weber by a host of scholars like Skocpol,
Tilly, or Perrow who emphasized the importantce of millieu-contingent
elements in the historical trajectiories of the entities they studied
created more empirically accurate models than those who, like Wallerstein
(who is closer to the Marxian than to Weberian tradition) for example, tried
to produce grand theories of world development.  In that sense, I think that
the emprical work of writers like Skocpol or Moore is more in line with the
materialistic spirit of Marxism (even thought they re-work the classical
Marxist class-based model quite substantially) than, say, the world system
approach that, I cannot help but notice, smacks of the invisible hand.

But that is really hair-splitting.  The bottom line is that neo-weberian
(BTW, I have a real problem with that name, I do not like the suffix neo-
and I am suspicious of the refrences to Grand Masters) analysis of
nation-states or the economy and organizations is much much closer to Marx
than to the "timeless truths" of the modernization theories, Huntington's
waves, Fukuyama's trust, and neo-classical models.  There is a clearly
discernible difference between the writings of Moore or Skocpol with their
meticulous focus on empirical detail and careful examination of the material
aspects of social life to justify every generalizations, and the glittery
schmoozing Fukuyama- or Huntington-style who seemingly look at the same
empirical reality, yet come up with sweeping generalizations and mental
constructs "explaining" material phenomena.

regards,
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233

POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS
IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE.
- John Dewey