Max Weber’s Concepts Of Social Behaviour
Since the Enlightenment, social scientists tried to use philosophical concepts to understand the social world, and one of the concepts is epistemology which means the study of knowledge. Above this, there are two distinct approaches, positivism and interpretivism. The first one focuses on objective knowledge, as universal truth of the social world, that is to say knowledge be gained through observation. The modern academic discipline of sociology began with the studying of Emile Durkheim, who is an extremely important French sociologist and the founding father of positivism. He pointed out the social sciences are a logical extension of the natural sciences into the land of human behavior, and insisted that they may keep the same objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality(Wacquant, 1992). The other approach called interpretivism, which is also known as antipositivism. In contrast to positivism, interpretivism focuses on subjective knowledge, it means that knowledge is built in the mind, and affected by personal experience. In addition, studying humans’ subjective experiences may cause the obtainment of knowledge. Max Weber was a key proponent of interpretivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive ways, based on understanding the purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their own actions (Macionis, 2012). Above these two founding fathers of sociology, the theories and methods are relatively different. Therefore, this essay will account the comparison and contact about their theories and methods to make a better understanding. Finally, there are four sections in this paper, section one and two will describe the detailed theories and methods supported by Durkheim and Weber respectively. The comparisons and the contacts will in section 3.
Emile Durkheim’s theory and method
Auguste Comte effectively sought to extend and apply the scientific method found in the natural sciences to the social sciences, this sociological positivism influence on Durkheim’s thought (Calhoun, 2002). According to Comte, two of theories are developed by Durkheim which are social fact and suicide method.
2.1 Social Fact
“A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations”(Durkheim, 1895, pp.13). For Durkheim, sociology was the science of social facts. By definition, social fact is that social structures that exist independently of the individual. In this theory, the key point is social structures which include institutions, traditions and beliefs, and patterns of behavior (Dictionary of the Social Sciences). Durkheim’s work around this, and argued that “a social fact must be sought among the antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness” (Durkheim, 1895, pp.13). That is to say, social fact is an independent existence greater and more objective than the activities of the individuals that combine society. Though such study, sociology could determine whether a given society is ‘healthy’ or ‘pathological’, and seek social reform to negate organic breakdown. In his study social fact is not equal to social phenomenon, the studying of social phenomenon is not a person’s subjective activity, but it is a kind of objective existence, and the social fact once happens, it will affect the individuals in society.
2.2 Suicide method
Durkheim also attempted to find out whether human behavior was caused by social structures, rather than an individual’s mental formal. Among his researches, his seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), was published. In Suicide (1897), Durkheim explores the different suicide rates among Protestants and Catholics, discussing that stronger social control like Catholics lead to lower suicide rates. As Durkheim’s researcher, Catholic society has normal levels while Protestant society has low levels. Overall, suicide rates are not caused by non-social factors, such as race, genetics, mental disorder, climate, season of the year, in addition, suicide rates are caused by social factors, such as religious faith, marital status, employment, and sudden change in income (Calhoun, 2002). Thus Durkheim treated suicide as a social fact, explaining there are such things as ‘social facts’ that influence an individual’s behaviour. In Durkheim’s though, suicide is not only the collection of personal behavior, it has the feature model of this phenomenon. In spirit of its limitations, Durkheim’s studying on suicide has influenced supporters of control theory, also it is often supposed as a classic sociological study. The theory founded modern positivism and served to decide social science from psychology and political philosophy (Poggi, 2000).
2.3 Method using
With positivism, social scientists started to ‘import’ or borrow views, assumptions and methods of research from physics, chemistry, and particularly anatomy. In the methodology, Durkheim also developed the functional analysis of sociological research principles. In his book, Rules of the Sociological Method (1895), when a society is unchanging it could be affirmed as being healthy and normal; when a society is in opposition it could be understood as abnormal. This description is similar as anatomy, when all the structures in the body are healthy, the body is healthy and normal; when one organ does not work, the whole body is affected and its behaviour is abnormal. In addition, researchers would need to exclude the emotional factors, moral judgment, and prejudices interference, and stand on the standpoint of neutrality. From the social fact with stability, the description of the phenomenon is scientific (Allan, 2005).
Max Weber’s theory and method
Different from Durkheim, the key theory is called “Verstehen ” which is the interpretive understanding of social action, and though this studying, ‘ideal types is the main method Weber used.
3.1 Verstehen
Verstehen is a German word; in general it is in the situation of German philosophy and social sciences. Verstehen involves an understanding of what someone is thinking, which needs an understanding of the culture that individuals live in. Weber thought of sociology as a science of social behavior. He believed that studying why individuals do the things they do is the basic foundation of sociology, this is the concept he termed Verstehen. In addition, He argued that sociologists should not just study a group of people but also try to improve an empathetic understanding for the individuals in that group (Udehn, 2001). There is a phrase which is “put yourself in his shoes”. This is the same as what Verstehen describe: developing an understanding of social action from the insider’s point of view in order to better understand the exchanges within a group and the group’s determination. This, in turn, helps to describe how groups of people make sense of the world around them, how they fit into society as a whole, and how they’ve helped society evolve over time(Udehn, 2001). Weber put value to understanding and meaning of key elements – not just with perception or consideration with the individual but also the creation of “systematic and rigorous research”. The aim is to identify human behavior and understanding them as observable events leading us to believe that it not only delivers for a great explanation for human behavior but also for group interactions. The meaning attached needs to include constraints and limitations and analyze the motivation for action. Weber thought that this gives the sociologist a benefit above a natural scientist because “We can accomplish something which is never attainable in the natural sciences, namely the subjective understanding of the action of the component individuals” (Weber, 1968, p. 15).
3.2 Method using
One of the methods Weber used to study his objects of analysis was ‘ideal types’. It means an abstract summary of the common features of complex social phenomena. For Weber, one of many subjective basics which certainly discriminate sociology from natural science is social science depends on the construction of hypothetical concepts in the abstract. Therefore, ideal type is a subjective division in social theory. Weber wrote: “An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct…” (Shils& Finch, 1997).While opposition supporters of the ideal type including normal type theory supporters. Some sociologists consider that, ideal type more prone to extreme phenomena and ignore the connection, it is difficult to display how the varieties and the elements into the whole social system theory.
The comparisons and the contacts
On the basis of theoretical background and the logical starting point, Durkheim and Weber inherited and developed the traditional social theory of two methods in the study: positivism and interpretivism, and laid the basic methodology character for future generations of sociological research.
Durkheim treated social facts as its research objection of sociology. Compared to Weber’s social action, is the macro level. From this point Durkheim’s theory of society is existent, while Webb argues that only individuals exist, only explain the understanding of human social action, understand the meaning behind, and finally makes a causal explanation. This is the whole process of sociological research.
Durkheim’s sociology theory is positivism. It used the objectivity of social facts as the object of study, and thought society and nature are identical in nature. As the objective necessity of domination, society and natural phenomena are the same, which determines its research methods must be used the empirical research method in the natural sciences, through observation, such as experiments, comparisons, and test methods (Durkheim, 1895, pp.13). Weber’s sociological understanding to social action is same as the research object, and argued that the method of natural science in special effect is difficult to apply social science research, it cannot explain human behavior with subjective meaning hidden behind the value and significance (Weber, 1968, p. 15). Weber thought that researchers should focus on experience, at the same time, putting on the same subject to each other’s as their own thinking and evaluation, its distinctive feature is the emotion in the thinking object and thinking process input. Therefore, researchers make a reasonable explanation about social fact though changing the role the subjective motives of others’ social action.
But the study method of Weber and Durkheim’s theory still has something in common. In a sense, Weber thought methods in social science research should establish the ideal type (Shils& Finch, 1997). He realized that the research object of social science has unique characteristics and subjective, and if researchers want to keep the absolute objectivity is not an easy job. Ideal type refers to a series concept system in sociological research in which scholars generally recognized and accepted, so that it can reduce or even avoid the sociological study of arbitrariness and disunity. Researchers in research processes must keep value objectively themselves, and eliminate their additional influence and intervention on the object of study. Similarly, Durkheim also emphasized that the fact more important than the conception; the existence precedes the essence; and observation of the phenomenon should be eliminated the subjective emotion (Allan, 2005)..
Above all, the social fact and social action are two different sized concepts, which can be said a relationship between containing and being contained. That is to say, Weber’s social action is more specific than Durkheim’s social fact .Because social facts and macroscopic reasons, Durkheim research object in the theory of sociology is the objective existence. But Weber’s social science research should be specific, individual existence, it will be in the society of human action as the research object, to explain the understanding of it, and to know the “secret” the hidden behind the specific social action, in order to make the causality of the final paper. Weber also will provide two major tasks of sociology as the explanatory understanding and causality of social action description. In this way, the two major factions in social science research — positivism and interpretivism, make differences between increasingly bigger, thus it caused the contradiction between both sides.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay described and analyzed Durkheim’s and Weber’s theories and methods. Both of them played important roles in social science history, and they have big influence on social science. Their theories and methods are researched and used by many scholars. After comparison, it could be seen that their ideas about social science are quite different. Durkheim’s theories based on positivism. It used the objectivity of social facts as the object of study, and thought society and nature are identical in nature.
Durkheim thought that structures that exist independently of the individual.
Weber’s theories based on individuals’ existence, he only explained the understanding of human social action, understood the meaning behind, and finally made a causal explanation. Weber thought that verstehen involves an understanding of what someone is thinking, which needs an understanding of the culture that person lives in. But, the contrast of their ideas is that the study method of Weber and Durkheim’s theory still has something in common.
The difference of social research methods found by the two fathers cannot say which one is better, because both of them in the field of social science had gained the success that attracted worldwide attention, and each method found a reasonable breakthrough for sociological research. Because of this differences, which makes the social science research shows a kind of mutual opposition and mutual encouragement and supplement of the state. Society science research is infinite in the future, each historical giant higher later is through the shoulders of giants before. But social science research is still arduous task, social scientist should summarize the experience of the former step by step, in order to continuous the development and progress of science which is a heavy and meaningful subject to society.
