Verstehen : Max Weber and an approach to social sciences
This is the first of a number of posts dedicated to the thought of Max Weber. Max Weber, along side Karl Max and Emile Durkheim, is known as one of the ‘founding fathers’ of sociology. He uses a particular method, known as Verstehen, with the aim of understanding the ‘motives’ of why people take certain actions. In this post, we look at this method and how it has been utilised.
We first discuss some of the foundational concepts and then bring to light how Weber formed Verstehen, and its definition. We then look at some criticisms of the method.
For the more engaged reader, we refer to Max Weber : A critical Introduction by Kieran Allen.
Natural vs Social Science
This discussion really begins by understanding the different points of view scholars have about the difference between natural and social science. Natural science was conceived as an attempt to, by breaking down into smaller components, understand basic, elementary attributes and establish general properties. These properties would then allow concepts and laws to be developed which would be independent of space and time. Social science didn’t attempt to break things down into individual or smaller components, it’s approach was to use things in a more holistic manner. The considerations by the Germans at the time were that social sciences aimed to get to the Spirit(Geist) , and this could only be elucidated on by looking internally into things, and finding their intentions.
Thus natural science aimed to explain, while social science aimed to understand. This distinction was developed by German historist philosopher Johann Gustav Droysen.
German Idealism and Modernity
German idealism was a philosophical movement that came out of Germany in the 18th and 19th century and is developed on the foundations of Immanuel Kant. Prominent figures include Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, as well as Arthur Schopenhauer.
Kant’s philosophy suggested that things in themselves were unknowable. We get so much information from the outside world, but our mind, using a set of ‘filters’ and techniques, makes sense of the world. The filters and techniques it uses are not external, and are developed internally.
Comparison of German Idealism was made against modernity, which believed that everything behaved like a machine, it was mechanical, everything moved according to a system akin to the laws of physics, and these laws were independent of time and space. This is really a reflection of the modernisation process which was occurring at the time of Weber’s writing in Germany.
We can see clearly how German Idealism and Modernity fit into the differences in social vs natural sciences. (That is a very high level statement, the aim here to get the reader to understand the different approaches, and the concept of method which each utilises to obtain results)
Economics
The difference in approach by the social and natural scientists is most evident in the field of economics. The German Historical School (building on the ideas of Geist ) aimed to look at things in a holistic manner, using concepts of culture and national spirit as major attributes which shape the economy.
On the other hand, the Austrian school of economics, (which is now the widely accepted approach to economics) insisted on their being ‘laws’ which were general in nature. It’s model was on an economic system being represented by actors, i.e. the ‘individual’, who would take actions with the aim of maximising some outcome.
Weber used the Austrian schools approach of scientific rigour, especially the idea of the individual. He wanted to incorporate this with the ideas of the German Idealists, and have robust, scientific approach to understanding causation.
Here we see the integration of the traditional and the scientific approaches that Weber has tried to coagulate.
His desire to break down ideas such as class and family stem from using the scientific method, none the less, when he has broken them to ‘individuals’, the aim is still to elucidate on the underlying reasons .
With the emphasis on the individual taking action and to elucidate on their motives, Weber adopted a particular version of Kant’s philosophy : ‘all knowledge of reality is structured by the particular point of view that the actor brings to bear on it. Reality is a chaotic mass of sense experiences, which our perceptions actively structure; ‘Empirical reality becomes ‘culture’ to us because and insofar as we relate it to value ideas. It includes those segments and only those segment of reality, which have become significant to us because of their value relevance.’ [1]
Thus we can, from the above, state that there are not ‘absolute truths’ and the value system is judged objectively.
So what is Verstehen?
By definition, Verstehen means ‘understanding’ in German, ‘emphatic understanding of human behaviour’, or simply put, ‘putting oneself in another’s shoes’.
In order to understand this better, we need to consider what we are aiming to do.
When undertaking research, there are two approaches:
- Quantitative approach
- Qualitative approach
As discussed above, there is a difference in the Natural and Social sciences in what they aim to achieve. Thus, Verstehen is a qualitative approach used in social sciences who’s aim is to developed understanding.
Dilthey [2] claimed that natural and mental phenomena were different.
‘Only way to acquire scientifically respectable knowledge of a phenomenon is to gain comprehensive insight into what is of crucial importance to the essence of the phenomena’
Thus, we can say that Verstehen is an approach where the observer relates to its subjects from the subjects cultural/world view, and not the researcher’s own.
In the words of Weber:
to identify a concrete ‘motive’ or complex of motives ‘reproducible in inner experience’, a motive to which we can attribute the conduct in question with a degree of precision that is dependent upon our source material. In other words because of its susceptibility to a meaningful ‘interpretation’ … individual conduct is in principle intrinsically less ‘irrational’ than then individual natural event.[1]
There are two types of Verstehen:
- Direct observational : this type constitutes the use of outward behaviour and facial expression to understand what is going on
- Explanatory understanding : action is placed in a ‘sequence of motivation’ and so work out why it is occurring
From his definition of Verstehen, Weber remarks about ‘reproducible in inner experience’ clearly highlight his desire to use robust ‘scientific’ approach to putting oneself in another’s shoes. He wants to reconcile the scientific approach and the important of Geist, i.e. German Idealism and the Austrian School of economics.
Criticism
One of the main criticisms of Verstehen is that , when we place ourselves in another’s shoes, the possible solutions to understanding are many. There can be a number of reasons why the action’s are being taken, and there is no real way of being able to pin-point which one may be correct. [3]
Following on from this, we can see that our interpretation, our ability to develop scenarios is predicated on our knowledge. As our knowledge changes about the subject, so will our interpretation. This can be argued is not a scientific approach. If individuals are to be utilised to interpret, we can assume, that they have varying degrees of knowledge, and thus the results will not be same. [3]
However, some have argued that Verstehen can be used to aid in the preliminary exploration of a subject, and to help develops hypothesis.
Some have argued that it is impossible from someone from one culture to understand another. [4]
Conclusion
Verstehen is a qualatative method used in social sciences to help us understanding the reasoning behind actions, putting ourselves in anothers shoes. Weber, has tried to use Verstehen in a scientific way, attempting to reconcile some of his feeling about the scientific approach the Austrian School use, and on the other, the German Idealist’s, and their desire to search for the Geist. As we have seen, there are criticism's of the method, that it is inherently unscientific , and we can never really know ‘the other’.
Bibliography
[1] : Weber, M., & Shils, E. (1949). Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press
[2]: Dilthey, W. (1991). Introduction to the human sciences. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press
[3]: Abel, T. (1965). Systematic sociology in Germany: A critical analysis of some attempts to establish sociology as an independent science. London, UK:Octagon Books
[4]: Rossi, I. (1983). From the sociology of symbols to the sociology of signs : Toward a dialectical sociology. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press
