ABSTRACT
Introductory remarks Explaining the unique quality and the development of modern Western society is a classical theme of sociology. Of the great classic authors in the field, Karl Marx formulated the logically most consistent explanation, but he did so at the expense of theoretical scope and of historical accuracy. Max Weber left the most historically detailed explanation, but at the expense of theoretical coherence. For sociology as a theoretical science in its own right, the most fruitful contribution was provided by Emile Durkheim, but this lacked the historical concreteness which Weber achieved. Any attempt we may make today to reach a satisfactory explanation of modern occidental development is impossible without an appropriate integration of Weber’s historical and sociological explanatory contribution with Durkheim’s theoretical perspective. Talcott Parsons made a major step forward with the integration of Weber and Durkheim.1 The voluntaristic theory of action is the theoretical centerpiece of his integrative work, and at its own center is the theory of interpenetration. Any present-day explanation of modern Western development which does not make use of a theory of interpenetration represents a theoretical retrogression back behind Parsons. This is confirmed if one reads Weber in the light of Parsons’ theory of interpenetration, which only then lends theoretical coherence to his work whilst preserving its historical concreteness; it is further corroborated by the explanatory deficiencies in theoretical approaches with take account neither of Weber nor Parsons in their formulation, and by attempts at reconstructing Weber’s explanation either without the backing of Parsons, or indeed contrary to Parsons’ approach. The latter deficiency also especially applies to the theory of rationalization which predominates in interpretations of Weber. In the course of this chapter I would like to sustain this thesis by critically examining a number of explanatory approaches and attempts at interpreting Weber, and also by reconstructing Weber’s explanation from the perspective of the theory of interpenetration.
