Social Science Methodology

Author: (German) Max Weber
Translator: Li Qiuling
Editor-in-Chief: Wang Ailing
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1999-01-01
Features:
Fragment: However—without deceiving ourselves—regrettably, the last sentence mentioned above actually carries more meaning than it first appears in the current context. First, as already pointed out, the possibility of impartially coexisting with political opponents in a neutral setting—whether social or intellectual—has, according to experience, unfortunately, everywhere psychological barriers, especially under the conditions of Germany. This factor, which should be unconditionally opposed as a sign of partisan fanaticism and underdeveloped political culture, would be fundamentally reinforced for a journal like ours. In the field of social sciences, the motivation to discuss scientific issues is often provided by practical "problems," so that merely acknowledging the existence of a scientific problem is personally connected to the specific aspirations of living people. For a journal founded under the general interest of a specific issue, there are often some authors who coexist in its columns; their personal interest in the issue arises because certain specific circumstances, in their view, are irreconcilable with the ideal values they adhere to and would endanger those values. In such cases, similar ideal affinity will create cohesion among this circle of authors and attract new members, which, at least when discussing practical social policy, will give the journal a certain "characteristic," a byproduct of any collaboration involving extremely sensitive individuals; these people's evaluative statements on the issue, even in purely theoretical work, are not always completely restrained, and their critique of practical proposals and measures—under the aforementioned conditions—is entirely legitimate. The Library was founded when certain practical aspects of the "labor problem" had emerged at the forefront of social science discussions. Those who believed that the issues The Library would explore were closely related to the highest, decisive values and thus became its most stable authors were precisely therefore representatives of cultural views influenced by those values. As is well known, although the journal firmly rejected the idea of following a "" (inclination) in thought by explicitly limiting itself to "scientific" discussions and explicitly inviting "members of all political camps," it still has the aforementioned "characteristic" in the sense. This characteristic is created by its stable circle of authors. Generally speaking, regardless of how different these authors' views may be, they all aim to protect the physical health of the working masses and to increase their share of the material and spiritual wealth of our culture as much as possible, but they combine the state's intervention in the field of material interests with the free development of the existing political and legal order as means. They—regardless of what views they hold on the construction of social order in the more distant future—definitely support the development of capitalism in the present, not because they see it as a better form compared to earlier social organizational forms, but because it is practically unavoidable; fundamentally opposing it would not promote but hinder the cultural advancement of the working class. Under the current conditions of Germany—here no further explanation is needed—this has been inevitable in the past and is still so now. Indeed, this situation has actually successfully directly promoted comprehensive participation in scientific discussions, which is rather an element of strength for the journal, and perhaps—under certain conditions—one of the reasons for its existence. There is no doubt that if the selection of authors becomes a planned one-sided choice, then the development of this "characteristic" in the sense of a scientific journal could and would necessarily threaten its impartiality in scientific work: in such a case, suppressing that "characteristic" would in fact merely mean the existence of a "." The editors are fully aware of the responsibility this situation imposes on them. They do not intend to deliberately change The Library's "characteristic" or artificially protect it by consciously limiting the circle of authors to scholars holding certain partisan views. They accept this "characteristic" as given and are watching its further "development." What form it will take in the future may change due to the inevitable expansion of our circle of authors, primarily depending on the characteristics of those who enter the circle with the intention of serving scientific work and become or remain regular contributors in the journal's columns. This situation will inevitably develop further as the scope of issues broadens, and promoting this broadening is one of the goals we have set for our journal. Through this explanation, we have touched upon the actual boundaries of our field of work, a question that has not yet been discussed. But without discussing the nature of the general goals of social science cognition here simultaneously, we cannot answer the aforementioned question. So far, by distinguishing between "value judgments" and "empirical knowledge," we have assumed that there is in fact an absolutely valid form of cognition in the field of social sciences, namely, the conceptual organization of empirical reality. As far as we must discuss what the objective "validity" of the truth we pursue in our field can mean, this assumption is now called into question. As long as one recognizes the conflicts surrounding methods, "basic concepts," presuppositions, the continuous change of "views," and the constant redefinition of the "concepts" used, as long as one recognizes that the forms of theoretical and historical examination are still separated by an insurmountable gap—as the despairing Vienna student lamented sadly in his time—as there are "two national economies"—no one can deny that the problem itself exists, rather than being invented here through idle speculation. Here, what is objectivity? The following discussion is intended to address only this question.
Afterword: In the early 1990s, China Renmin University Press published a Chinese translation of Max Weber's Methodology of the Social Sciences based on the English translation. To this day, we still feel that the content of this book has vitality and market demand. However, Max Weber was a leading German sociologist, and translating this book from the English version seems to create a sense of detachment. Therefore, we decided to directly translate and publish selected chapters from Essays on Science based on the original German text. During this translation, we read Weber's original work Essays on Science and referred to the table of contents of the English translation Methodology of the Social Sciences. In the process of translation, we also found that there is already a significant gap between the English translation and the original German text. Weber's original writing is rather obscure and convoluted. To remain faithful to the original, we have largely preserved the style of the German text and the author's linguistic habits. We hope that readers, while reading this book, can accurately grasp the essence and spirit of Weber's thoughts.
Translator: December 1998