Verstehen and Related Constructs

  • Bedrich Baumann
Chapter

Abstract

In the preceding chapter the present writer stated in agreement with H. Blumer that — and this is the main reason that our concepts are sensitizing and not definitive — every object in our “natural social world” has a distinctive, particular or unique character and is in the context of a similar distinctive character. We have to respect the nature of this world, the peculiar character of human beings, of human groups and conduct, and to organize a methodological stance reflecting that aspect.

Keywords

Social Reality Subjective Meaning Creative Imagination Social Causation Interpersonal Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L.A. Coser, Masters of Sociological Thought. New York 1971, p. 247.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Wrong, ed., Max Weber. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1970, Introduction, pp. 19, 21.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For a discussion on Verstehen see a selection of contributions: P.A. Munch, “Empirical Science and Max Weber’s Verstehende Soziologie”, in: Amer. Sociol. Rev.22, 1, 1957;Google Scholar
  4. 3a.
    E. Allarat, “International and External Criteria of Behaviour Regularities”, in: Acta Sociol. 4,4, 1959;Google Scholar
  5. 3b.
    W. Tucker, “Max Weber’s Verstehen”, in: Sociol. Quart., 6, 2, 1965;Google Scholar
  6. 3c.
    L. Braude, “ Die Verstehende Soziologie: A New Look at an Old Problem”, in: Sociol. Soc. Res. 50, 2, 1966;Google Scholar
  7. 3d.
    M. Wax, “On Misunderstanding Verstehen: A Reply to Abel”, in: Sociol Res.51, 3, 1967;Google Scholar
  8. 3e.
    E. Mokrzycki, “The Operation of Verstehen”, in: Polish Sociol. Bull. 2, 22, 1970;Google Scholar
  9. 3f.
    D. Leat, “Misunderstanding Verstehen”, in: Sociol. Rev. 20, 1, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    M. Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,ed. by T. Parsons. Glencoe, pp. 88–100.Google Scholar
  11. 5.
    J. Freund, The Sociology of Max Weber. New York 1968, pp. 117, 118.Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    Max Weber, p. 25.Google Scholar
  13. 7.
    A. Schutz, The Problem of Social Reality (ed. by M. Natanson). The Hague 1962, pp. 38ff.Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    M. Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology. New York 1964, p. 29.Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    T. Parsons, “Natural and Social Sciences”. In: D. Wrong, ed., op. cit., pp. 90–98.Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    B. Nelson, “Weber’s Legacy”. In: D. Wrong, ed., op. cit.,p. 100.Google Scholar
  17. 11.
    The “meaning” of meaning, the key concept of any symbolism, is still an abyss of open questions: Is it an intrinsic property, an unanalysable relation to other things? Is it a connotation of a word? An essence à la Husserl? An activity projected into an object? An event intended? The place of anything in the system? The practical consequence of a thing in our future experience? The mnemic effects of a stimulus? (C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, op. cit., p. 186).Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    W.I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl Boston 1923, p. 41.Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    R. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe 1957, pp. 421f.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, N.Y. 1966;Google Scholar
  21. 14a.
    P. Berger, “Identity as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge”, in: European Journal of Sociology, VII, 1966, pp. 105–115.Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    F. Znaniecki, The Method of Sociology. New York 1934, p. 41.Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    Ibid., pp. 44, 45.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    F. Znaniecki, The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge. New York 1940, p. 5.Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    F. Znaniecki, Cultural Sciences. Urbana 1952, p. 132.Google Scholar
  26. 19.
    F. Znaniecki, Social Relations and Social Roles. San Francisco 1965, pp. 49, 50.Google Scholar
  27. 20.
    G. Simmel, Essays on Sociology, Philosophy and Aesthetics, ed. by K.H. Wolff. New York 1959, p. 350.Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    Ibid., p. 355.Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    Ibid., p. 344.Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    Ibid., pp. 339, 340.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    A. Schutz, The Problem of Social Reality, p. 53.Google Scholar
  32. 25.
    A. Schutz, The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston 1967, pp. 163, 164.Google Scholar
  33. 26.
    A. Schutz, Studies in Social Theory. (ed. by Arvid Brodersen). The Hague 1964, pp. 64ff.;Google Scholar
  34. 26a.
    idem, The Problem of Social Reality,pp. 3ff.Google Scholar
  35. 27.
    A. Schutz, Phenomenology of the Social World, p. 92; M. Natanson, “Alfred Schutz on Social Reality and Social Science”, in: Social Research 35, 2, 1968, p. 227.Google Scholar
  36. 28.
    A. Schutz, Phenomenology of the Social World, p. 240.Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    M. Natanson, op. cit., p. 233.Google Scholar
  38. 30.
    R.M. MacIver, Social Causation. New York 1964, p. 75.Google Scholar
  39. 31.
    Ibid., p. 264.Google Scholar
  40. 32.
    Ibid., p. 265. The military historian DJ. Goodspeed explores in his brilliant account of the attempt at Hitler’s life at Rastenburg on July 20, 1944 (The Conspirators, Toronto 1962) the possibilities of what would have happened if the attempt would have been successful,i.e. what could the rebels have achieved if they, instead of improvising in an amateurisch fashion, had decided upon the calculated risk of a simultaneous plan. In the first place, Berlin could certainly have been captured. Then, the word of Hitler’s death could have been broadcast over the Berlin station and for several hours at least it could have served as a self-fulfilling prophecy. General Beck could have spoken to the German people and to the world. Gestapo Headquarters in Berlin could have been taken, Kaltenbrunner, Müller and Goebbels shot, the SS in Berlin disposed of. In the West, von Stülpnagel and his friends might have been encouraged to put von Kluge under arrest and to execute the elite of the Gestapo and the SS in Paris. In sum, Hitler’s regime, hard pressed as it was on both fronts and overshadowed by the growing uncertainty of disastrous military defeat, would have found it difficult to survive this additional strain and the Second World War might have ended nine months before it did (pp. 205–206). The consequences of Hitler’s death in July 1944, mainly in terms of saved human lives and matériel, would have been enormous. The historian’s guess, an imaginative reconstruction of events in retrospect, is an academic question, yet, as it happens in some armchair theorizing, it is worthwile exploring it.Google Scholar
  41. 33.
    R.M. MacIver, op. cit., p. 371.Google Scholar
  42. 34.
    Ibid., p. 388.Google Scholar
  43. 35.
    Ibid., p. 391.Google Scholar
  44. 36.
    Ibid., p. 392.Google Scholar
  45. 38.
    R.D. Laing, Self and Other. London 1969, p. 14.Google Scholar
  46. 39.
    S.E. Asch, Social Psychology. New York 1952, p. 142. Emphasis added.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 40.
    T.M. Newcomb, “The Cognition of Persons as Cognizers”. In: R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo, eds., Persons,Perception and Interpersonal Behaviour. Stanford 1965, p. 190. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
  48. 41.
    For a survey see R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo, eds., op. cit. Google Scholar
  49. 42.
    Beckett exemplifies these two dynamics by “the tragedy of the Marcel — Albertine liaison” from Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past which is “the type tragedy of human relationships” (Proust, New York 1931, p. 7).Google Scholar
  50. 43.
    M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge.New York 1964, pass im.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bedrich Baumann
    • 1
  1. 1.Laurentian UniversitySudburyCanada

Personalised recommendations