The concept of Verstehen, which loosely translates to ‘understanding’ in German was made popular by Max Weber, one of the “founding fathers” of sociology. It became a critique of the positivist and naturalist approaches to sociology prevalent in the 19th century. It argues that human actions cannot be analysed by merely adopting the research methods followed in natural sciences with ‘absolute objectivity’. Weber believed that the interpretation of human actions through recognition and empathy was crucial for a better understanding of social phenomena in society. Verstehen is the procedure by which sociologists gain access to the meanings behind human actions.
Types of Verstehen
Verstehen requires researchers to place themselves in the position of the individual observed to see and comprehend the meanings behind the person’s action and the meanings attached to the motivation, purpose or outcomes of their actions. This becomes important as actions can have different meanings in different cultures and societies. Without proper investigation, one is at risk of misinterpreting the data collected. A good example would be body gestures, which can be misleading if not contextually understood. Different meanings are attached to various body gestures like handshakes, hugs, waving, and clapping among others in different cultures. During the U.S. Presidential Inauguration day in 2005, President George W. Bush gestured the “Hook ‘em, horns” (the salute of the University of Texas Longhorns), where he raised his fist with his index and little finger extended. Newspapers in many parts of the world were puzzled by the gesture as this was a sign shown to a person whose spouse cheated on them in countries like Argentina, Brazil, Spain and Portugal. To avoid the risk of misinterpretation that may lead to a misguided grouping of actions, one needs to understand the meaning attached to an action by an individual before ascertaining the cause of the action.
Weber distinguished between two types of understanding. The first is Aktuelles Verstehen or direct observational understanding, where a researcher observes what an individual was doing. Observation of a person cooking or writing could be an example of this. One can confirm and determine the meaning of the action by simply observing it. However, observational understanding alone is not sufficient to explain human action. Thus, empathetic understanding or Eklarendes Verstehen was also required.
Here, a researcher attempts to understand the meanings attached to an act in terms of the motives that have given rise to it. This requires them to find the reasoning behind an action — is a person cooking for themselves or others? Are they cooking to feed their family or is it part of their work? Do they get paid for their work? Are they enjoying the activity? To interpret such actions and the purpose behind them, Weber argued that one had to “get into the shoes” of the people doing the action.
The motives behind social action
Social action determines structural transition in society. The causes and meanings attached to it is important in understanding what pushes social change. For Weber, changes were caused when society encouraged certain types of motives for actions by individuals which then led to changes in society, making human actions equally relevant in understanding social change. In his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he explained that the emergence of Calvinism, a branch of Protestantism, promoted frugal living, saving money and business investments because success and profit-making were attributed to God’s satisfaction with the person’s actions. This religious idea eventually led to the emergence of capitalism in northern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, one of the most relevant structural changes in human history.
According to Weber, there are four ideal types of social actions — traditional social action which refers to actions controlled by socio-cultural norms in the society, while affective social actions are determined by one’s emotional state wherein one might not think of the consequences of actions. Value rational social actions are determined by a conscious belief in the inherent value of a type of behaviour and lastly we have instrumental-rational social actions which are carried out to achieve a certain goal. No social action is purely just one of the four types. These types are simply used as a tool to look at real actions and categorise them.
While modern society, obsessed with efficiency and utilitarianism, encouraged instrumental-rational social actions, it is important to look at other aspects that may influence human actions. For instance, a jeweller makes a diamond ring as part of his livelihood. Yet, he may also be motivated by the happiness he brings in the eyes of a young woman who is gifted the ring. Motivations behind a social action cannot be simply observed as one observes the outcome of a science experiment. Thus, Verstehen through its ‘deep understanding’ of individual actions aims to help social science researchers in comprehending social actions and structural changes in society.
Criticisms of the concept
The concept of Verstehen was criticised by scholars on two grounds. The interpretations arrived at through Verstehen could not be easily validated as the researcher’s understanding and biases influenced their interpretation of actions. Further, the concept still largely focused on society’s role in encouraging certain actions which then led to social changes. This was critiqued by scholars after Weber through theories like symbolic interactionism which discusses individual agency and explains how people possess more freedom to shape their identities and influence societal change than what was previously thought by sociologists.
