Provide an Overview and Critical Assessment of the Interpretive Sociological Tradition in Social Theory, Focusing Upon the Work of Weber and Simmel. What Has Been the Influence of This Tradition Upon Sociological Analysis?

University of Leeds

SCHOOL OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL POLICY
Online Submission of Assessed Work Student ID number | 200476897 | Degree programme | Sociology and Social Policy | Module code | SLSP2730 | Module title | Central Problems in Sociology | Essay Title | Provide an Overview and Critical Assessment of the Interpretive Sociological Tradition in Social Theory, Focusing upon the Work of Weber and Simmel. What Has Been the Influence of this Tradition upon Sociological Analysis? | Word count | 2713 | Disabled students with additional support needs agreed by Disability Services should tick the appropriate box

I have been assessed as having: Dyslexia | √ | | Dyspraxia | | | Other (please specify) | | |

For Office use

Provide an Overview and Critical Assessment of the
Interpretive Sociological Tradition
In
Social Theory
Focusing upon the Work of
Weber and Simmel.
What Has Been the
Influence of this Tradition
Upon
Sociological Analysis?

In sociological analysis we are concerned with society, its forms and contexts, the individuals and collectives, its social actors and social actions, to name but a few. The very foundations of these concepts of the discipline owe much to Max Weber and Georg Simmel, and the Interpretive Sociological tradition. This essay will explore, in part, the developments of sociological analysis by Weber and Simmel, looking at the development towards the importance of understanding the meanings actors give to their actions, and how these meanings are created. Understanding the context in which sociology moved away from the natural-science paradigm of cause and effect to the intersubjective socio-psychological perspective of individuals within society, we shall consider Weber’s distinction of explaining and interpretive understanding. Following onto Simmel’s focus of micro-scale social interaction, and how this has been of importance to later sociological theory.
For us then to see the importance of interpretive sociology, we need consider the milieu of those who have come to be known as the founders of such a theoretical perspective. For such a task, we should briefly consider the epoch of sociology itself. Auguste Comte had developed a positivist position for the study of society, an undertaking that was subsequently adopted by fellow Frenchman Emile Durkheim (Freund, 1979: 167). The positivism that had been held so dearly by the philosophes of the Enlightenment period was to continue in the teachings of the following generations. However, positivism did not dominate in the academic circles of Germany where the generations before had been schooled in the teachings of Kant’s theories and in the idealist philosophy, the “...premise that the ultimate reality of the universe lay in “spirit” or “idea” rather than in the data of sense perception.” (Hughes, 1974: 183). This presumed cleavage between the realms of the phenomenal and spiritual worlds seemed natural to German academics, thus a clear distinction was made between Naturwissenshaft (the natural-sciences) and Geisteswissenschaften (“cultural sciences”) (Hughes, 1974: 186). Positivists such as Comte and Durkheim had tried to develop their methodology prior to engaging with study (Comte never truly engaged in sociological field-work). Weber on the other hand was of the mind that “...a good method is one that proves fertile and efficient of the level of concrete work.” (Freund, 1979: 167). Max Weber and other German academics believed that such a method could not be employed from the natural-sciences, as was advocated by the positivists (Hughes, 1974: 186). That such a distinction between the social- and natural-sciences was “...an absolute one necessitated by the radical contrast between the realm of mind and spirit... and the realm of nature...” (Wrong, 1970: 9). Whilst quoting Tolstoi, in his lecture ‘Science as a Vocation’, Weber (1995 [1948]: 143) was to explain in blunt terms;
‘[Natual-]science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: “what shall we do and how shall we live” ‘ It is to Weber that the interpretive method can be most honoured, for it was Weber that developed most rigorously the distinction between erklären (explaining) and verstehen (interpretive understanding) in the practice of sociology (Hughes, 1974: 167). Weber had been profoundly influenced by the historical economists Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert. Dilthey had articulated that the social sciences should seek to understand events in the contexts of their unique time and space, whilst Rickert who agreed with the idealist division of the natural-world and the “spirit”-world developed the argument that the difference between the natural- and social-sciences lay in how concepts are used in scientific study (Edles & Appelrouth, 2005: 140-141). Because the natural-science paradigm is without verstehen, due to it being purely explanatory, it cannot be transposed to that of the social sciences. The uniqueness of Weber’s contributions, at the time of his writings, lays in his interpretation of the extent to which there is a separation between social structures and the actions of people. Unlike Durkheim or Marx, who described people acting as a result of external forces (although this is putting it rather simply), Weber saw the two interwoven. From Weber’s perspective, social structures and institutions are resultant from the social action of individuals who place meaning upon such structures (Freund, 1972 [1966]: 88), as did Simmel, if in a slightly different formulation (Edles & Applerough, 2005: 244). Thus for Weber, sociology is the comprehensive study of social action (Aron, 1968 [1967]: 181). This forms the basis for his methodological individualism. Weber was primarily interested in the subjective meanings that actors place upon their actions within the context of their historical milieu (Coser, 2003: 217). Social action is of central importance in interpretive sociology, it is the behaviour of social actors that has subjectively intended meaning by the actor and is done in the direction of others (Weber, 1981 [1913]: 152). This subjective meaning is codetermined in relation to the social action of others and can be explained in terms of this intended subjective meaning (Weber, 1981 [1913]: 152). Weber separated social action into four categories: 1) “instrumentally rational”, 2) “value-rational”, 3) “affectual”, & 4) “traditional” (Weber, 2007 [1914]). These are not mutually exclusive, or indeed exhaustive, it is also of note that although not explicitly stated within Weber’s Basic Sociological Terms, rationality is defined in regards to the knowledge of the actor and not the knowledge of the observer (Aron, 1968 [1967]: 181-182). Weber (1947: 116) was aware that traditional social actions could be difficult to differentiate from non-social actions. “…[I]nterpretive sociology makes distinctions in terms of the typical meaningful (above all external) relationships of action…” (Weber, 1981 [1913]: 152; emphasis in original). These categories of social action are used within Weber’s methodology as ideal types, an analytical construct explained in great detail in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1947). In all cases of sociological analysis, so Weber (1947: 110) claimed, we abstract from reality concepts which we then use to help us understand social phenomenon. Thus “…it is necessary for the sociologist to formulate pure ideal types of the corresponding forms of action… [involving] the highest possible degree of logical integration…” (Weber, 1947: 110) which can then be used to compare against ‘real’ phenomenon (Edles & Applerough, 2005: 139), ipso facto ideal types are rarely to be found in actuality (Weber, 1947: 110). In these formulations Weber was seeking to forge a middle path between the generation of universal laws characteristic of the natural-sciences and the general casual explanations of the humanities (Edles & Applerough, 2005: 139), reconceptualising many of the concepts and terminology of sociology that had limited Durkheim’s work. Prime example of such an undertaking, what is fair to say, is Weber’s most famous work: The ‘Spirit’ of Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic (Campbell, 2006). In contrast to Marx’s dialect of economic development, where each stage of progress from one system to another occurs after the resolution of opposing states of being (or “spirit” in line with Hagel) (Singer, 2000), Weber developed a historical account for the development of economic systems driven by the changes in the dominance of motivation of individuals (Campbell, 2006). “...[T]he whole of ascetic literature... is saturated with the idea that faithful labour, even at low wages, is highly pleasing to God.” (Weber, 1974: 178), giving individuals “...the psychological sanction...” (Weber, 1974: 178) to pursue wealth as required by the ‘spirit’ of capitalism. But in reference to his desire for this middle ground, Weber was to state that there is an ‘elective affinity’ between the protestant ethic and the growth of capitalism, and nor was it the only cause. Inter alis it is important to note that this work was written at a time when strong partisan calls were being made by Catholics in Germany for parity within the state professions (Nipperdey, 1995: 74). Debates of progress and inferiority were often discussed in parameters of religion (Nipperdey, 1995: 77). Weber was aware of the imperialist claims that could be made of sociologists, and spent the later years of his life developing the methodological principle of value-neutrality, for one to be aware of one’s values and prejudices (Freund, 1979: 180-181). Weber’s “...line on value-freedom... is neat and remains authoritative.” (Hollis, 2008: 203). At the core of The Protestant Ethic and a theme running throughout Weber’s work is the process of rationalisation (Tenbruck, 1980 cited in Shilling & Mellor, 2001: 75), believing such a process would “...become an iron cage.” (Weber, 1974: 181) as society becomes “...stripped of its religious and ethical meaning...” (Weber. 1974: 182).
His culmination of works, has resulted in Weber being deservedly lauded as one of the most important figures in classical sociology and an intellectual giant of his time, his contributions are still influencing the way we analyse contemporary social life (Sica, 2003 cited in Kivisto, 2011: 55). But it is important for us to mention that Weber was indebted to the contributions of his contemporary Georg Simmel, although Weber’s references of Simmel are seemingly less than he is owed (Runciman, 1972: 9). The primacy of agency in the study of sociology can be seen from Simmel’s argument that society is a “...collection of individuals who are actual realities... what palpably exists is indeed only individual human beings and their... activities: therefore the task can only be to understand them...” (Simmel, n.d. quoted in Frisby, 1981: 40). Simmel (1959b [1908]: 312-315) believed it was the task of sociology to study the forms and contents of the social interaction (or ‘sociation’ as he referred to it) of individuals. This method of sociological analysis of the forms and their contents of sociation is the methodology which is oft considered Simmel’s Formal Sociology (Tenbruck, 1959; Coser, 2003; Freund, 1979). Although many unique events and situations do occur throughout history and the world on a daily basis, it may appear that there is little to link between any two events, but a study of the forms of sociation will “...reveal underlying patterns common to both.” (Coser, 2003: 178). A series of works entitled ‘Snapshots sub specie aeternitatis’ are indicative of how Simmel approached this issue of interrelated forms in a seemingly fragmented society (Frisby, 1981: 103). Literally translated as ‘Snapshot viewed from the aspect of eternity’ (Frisby, 1981: 102), Simmel finds the general in the particular: taking a social reality, stripping it of the content that is situation specific, and focusing on the enduring social forms (Frisby, 1981: 103), it is these “...details of social life... [that] hold the key to an understanding of the human social totality.” (Frisby, 1981: 107).
These forms emerge from sociation and individual reflection, crystallising to create structures that then influence patterns of social relationships (Shilling & Mellor, 2001: 63). Culture develops from an individual’s involvement with their nature, their subjectively judged actions with intended consequences; it requires their purposive (reflective) action (Simmel, 1971a [1908]: 228). Only human’s possess these qualities to create such multiple phenomena as inherent in culture, values derive from the instincts of the individual, developing “…something that is external to him.” (Simmel, 1971a [1908]: 230; emphasis in original), giving said individual a sense of self through real and ideal forms. But these values and meanings are not implicit in the objects of culture, they appear only through our intersubjective evaluations of such forms. The values and meanings which are created by the collective intersubjective process will vary between different groups, and results in a relationship between personal and collective individuality, as an individual devotes themself to a smaller collective they become less personally individual, yet separate themselves more from other collectives (Simmel, 1971d [1908]: 257). We can see in Fashion (Simmel, 1971c [1904]) that where an individual in one sphere of culture (perhaps education) is less personally individual, they shall become more personally individual in another (Simmel himself refers to educated women being less likely to follow trends in fashion). Simmel shared in Weber’s bleak view of individuals in modernity as they become surrounded by objects of constraint that impede their individual desires and needs (Coser, 2003: 192), objects that are created by the forms that have become removed from the “...spiritual dynamic which created them...” (Simmel, 1971d [1918]: 375), “...acquir[ing] fixed identities, a logic and lawfulness of their own...” (Simmel, 1971d [1918]: 375).
This outlook for modern man has some uncomfortable implications, we find that as individuals become disenchanted with the world and the mechanics of our social systems develop a nature of their own. Removing the ability of the common person to enact social change, leaving only “...individuals like capitalist entrepreneurs and responsible charismatic leaders [to]... consciously act on their own motives in modern society.” (Brennan, 1997: 39). By ignoring the external constraints of social structure upon individuals, interpretivists have failed to understand how social structures facilitate social change or enhance social order (Shallach, 1973: 135). This uncritical style of interpretive sociological analysis serves only to protect the ruling elite of the capitalist bourgeois class (Turner, 1999ː 63), of which Weber was most certainly a member (c.f. ‘Science as Vocation’ (Weber, 1995 [1948])). Yet despite the flaws one can find with the works of Weber and Simmel, and the interpretivist sociological tradition as a whole, it is hard to not find its influence impressive. Weber’s influence was especially felt on phenomenological sociology which developed in Germany, and was later expanded in the United States of America in ethnomethodological analysis (Walters, 1994ː 8). Some sociologists, such and Talcott Parsons, were to develop a synthesis between Weber and Durkheim focusing of large structures, whilst others like the structurationist Giddens were to remain close to their German influences (Walters, 1994ː 8). All of which could receive much further attention if not for the constraints of this work. But we shall focus on the Symbolic Interactionism, originated by George Herbert Mead, which grew from the teachings of Simmel (Walters, 1994ː 7).
Although there is much more to Symbolic Interactionism than we can achieve to explain here, at the base of this perspective of sociological analysis is the idea that we should try “...to understand human action... focus[ing] on... social interaction, human thinking, [their] definition of the situation, the present, and the active nature of the human being.” (Charon, 2010: 29; emphasis added). Here we can see Weber’s influence upon this tradition with its emphasis on subjective meaning and an individual’s personal interpretation of a given situation (Wallace & Wolf, 2006: 200), and Simmel’s central importance as his Formal Sociology aimed to understand society from the intersubjective meanings at a micro level (Plummer, 1996: 229). Symbolic Interactionism is a broad school of thought, and has had many note-worthy individuals whose work could generally be defined under such a title, for example Howard Becker and Erving Goffman with their studies into deviancy/occupations and social interaction respectively (Fisher & Strauss, 1978). The works of Becker and Goffman, as well as many more of those who have come from the symbolic interactionist tradition are still of influence to sociological analysis and still studied in universities around the world.
It is difficult for a student of sociology to find any other conclusion than one of profound influence to sociological analysis. As we have discussed, in the space of little over one hundred years the interpretive tradition came from small philosophical beginning in Germany to influence sociological analysis throughout Europe and America. The view that society cannot be reduced to simple cause and effect formulations by the social scientist owes much the “idealist” tradition and its implications. We now generate abstracted concepts by which to measure against particular events, treating people as individual actors with personal subjective meanings and interpretations rather than simply non-reflexive beings reacting to stimuli. It can be argued most sociological analysis has departed from the implications and methodology (Campbell, 2006) of the works of Simmel and Weber, but as Weber noted the work of the scientist is to be superseded at a future date (1995 [1948]). It has helped to shape sociology as its own distinctive discipline, separating it from the everyday life of the man on the street and the pure abstraction of the philosopher (Berger & Luckmann, 1991 [1966]). We can all observe the same event, but what separates the sociologist is “…not what we see but the way we see…” (Ekikson, 1997: 3; emphasis in original), and this is most certainly due to the influence of the Interpretive Sociological tradition.

Bibliography
Aron, R. (1968 [1967]) Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vol. 2. Translated from French by Howard, R. & Weaver, H. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991 [1966]) Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Reprint. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Brennan, C. (1997) Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification: An Interpretation and Critique. Gateshead: Ashgate.
Campbell, C. (2006) Do Today’s Sociologists really appreciate Weber’s essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? The Sociological Review. 54(2) pp. 207-223.
Charon, J. (2010) Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Coser, L. (2003) Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. 2nd edition. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press Inc.
Edles, L., & Appelrough, S. (2005) Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. United States of America: Pine Forge Press.
Fisher, B., & Strauss, A. (1978) Interactionism. In: Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. eds. A History of Sociological Analysis. London: Heinemann. pp. 457-498
Freund, J. (1972 [1966]) The Sociology of Max Weber. Translated from French by Ilford, M. Aylesbury: Penguin University Books.
Freund, J. (1979) Germany Sociology in the Time of Max Weber. In: Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. eds. A History of Sociological Analysis. London: Heinemann. pp. 149-186
Frisby, D. (1981) Sociological Impressions: A Reassessment of Georg Simmel’s Social Theory. London: Heinemann.
Hollis, M. (2008) The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Revised and updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, H.S. (1974) Consciousness and Societyː The Reorientation of European Social Thought 1890-1930. Reprint. Frogmore: Paladin.
Kivisto, P. (2011) Key Ideas in Sociology. 3rd edition. United States of America: SAGE.
Nipperdey, T. (1995) Max Weber, Protestantism, and the Context of the Debate Around 1900. In: Lehmann, H., & Roth, G. Weber’s Protestant Ethic: Origions, Evidence, Context. United States of America: University of Cambridge. pp. 73-81
Plummer, K. (1996) Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century: The Rise of Empirical Social Theory. In: Turner, B. ed. The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 223-251
Runciman, W. (1972) A Critique of Max Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shallach, D. (1973) Critical Theory and Critical Sociology: The Second Synthesis. Sociological Inquiry. 43(2) pp. 131-140
Shilling, C., & Mellor, P. (2001) The Sociological Ambition: Elementary Forms of Social and Moral Life. Guildford: SAGE Publications.
Simmel, G. (1959 [1910]) On The Nature of Philosophy. In: Wolff, K. Georg Simmel, 1858-1918. Translated from German by Wolff, K. United States of America: Ohio State University Press. pp. 282-309
Simmel, G. (1971a [1908]) Subjective Culture. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Ash, R. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 227-234
Simmel, G. (1971b [1908]) Group Expansion and the Development of Self. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Albares, R. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 251-293
Simmel, G. (1971c [1904]) Fashion. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Anon. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 294-323
Simmel, G. (1971d [1918]) The Conflict in Modern Culture. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Etzkorn,K. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 375-393
Singer, P. (2000) Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tenbruck, F. (1959) Formal Sociology. In: Wolff, K. ed. Georg Simmel, 1858-1919. United States of America: Ohio State University Press. pp. 61-99
Turner, B. (1999) Classical Sociology. Londonː Sage Publications.
Wallace, R., & Wolf, A. (2006) Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Walters, M. (1994) Modern Sociological Theory. Londonː Sage.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated from German by Henderson, A., & Parsons, T. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (1974) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 12th impression. Translated from German by Parsons, T. Great Britain: Unwin University Books.
Weber, M. (1981 [1913]) Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology. Translated from German by Graber, E. The Sociological Quarterly. 22(2) pp. 151-180
Weber, M. (1995 [1948]) Science as a Vocation. In: Gerth, H., & Mills, C. eds. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated from German by Gerth, H., & Mills, C. Cornwall: Routledge. pp. 129-156
Weber, M. (2007 [1914]) Basic Sociological Terms. In: Calhoun, C. et, al. Classical Sociological Theory. 2nd edition. Translated from German by Henderson, A., & Parsons, T. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 218-227
Wrong, D. (1970) Introduction. In: Wrong, D. ed. Max Weber. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. pp. 1-76

Bibliography: Aron, R. (1968 [1967]) Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vol. 2. Translated from French by Howard, R. & Weaver, H. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991 [1966]) Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Reprint. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Brennan, C. (1997) Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification: An Interpretation and Critique. Gateshead: Ashgate. Campbell, C. (2006) Do Today’s Sociologists really appreciate Weber’s essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? The Sociological Review. 54(2) pp. 207-223. Charon, J. (2010) Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Coser, L. (2003) Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. 2nd edition. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press Inc. Edles, L., & Appelrough, S. (2005) Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. United States of America: Pine Forge Press. Fisher, B., & Strauss, A. (1978) Interactionism. In: Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. eds. A History of Sociological Analysis. London: Heinemann. pp. 457-498 Freund, J Freund, J. (1979) Germany Sociology in the Time of Max Weber. In: Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. eds. A History of Sociological Analysis. London: Heinemann. pp. 149-186 Frisby, D Hollis, M. (2008) The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Revised and updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, H.S. (1974) Consciousness and Societyː The Reorientation of European Social Thought 1890-1930. Reprint. Frogmore: Paladin. Kivisto, P. (2011) Key Ideas in Sociology. 3rd edition. United States of America: SAGE. Nipperdey, T. (1995) Max Weber, Protestantism, and the Context of the Debate Around 1900. In: Lehmann, H., & Roth, G. Weber’s Protestant Ethic: Origions, Evidence, Context. United States of America: University of Cambridge. pp. 73-81 Plummer, K Runciman, W. (1972) A Critique of Max Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shallach, D. (1973) Critical Theory and Critical Sociology: The Second Synthesis. Sociological Inquiry. 43(2) pp. 131-140 Shilling, C., & Mellor, P Simmel, G. (1959 [1910]) On The Nature of Philosophy. In: Wolff, K. Georg Simmel, 1858-1918. Translated from German by Wolff, K. United States of America: Ohio State University Press. pp. 282-309 Simmel, G Simmel, G. (1971b [1908]) Group Expansion and the Development of Self. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Albares, R. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 251-293 Simmel, G Simmel, G. (1971d [1918]) The Conflict in Modern Culture. In: Levine, D. ed. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms. Translated from German by Etzkorn,K. Chicargo: The University of Chicargo Press. pp. 375-393 Singer, P Tenbruck, F. (1959) Formal Sociology. In: Wolff, K. ed. Georg Simmel, 1858-1919. United States of America: Ohio State University Press. pp. 61-99 Turner, B Wallace, R., & Wolf, A. (2006) Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Walters, M. (1994) Modern Sociological Theory. Londonː Sage. Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated from German by Henderson, A., & Parsons, T. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1974) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 12th impression. Translated from German by Parsons, T. Great Britain: Unwin University Books. Weber, M. (1981 [1913]) Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology. Translated from German by Graber, E. The Sociological Quarterly. 22(2) pp. 151-180 Weber, M Weber, M. (2007 [1914]) Basic Sociological Terms. In: Calhoun, C. et, al. Classical Sociological Theory. 2nd edition. Translated from German by Henderson, A., & Parsons, T. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 218-227 Wrong, D