ABSTRACT
A fruitful place to start the search for a new individualist theory of explanation in the social sciences is Max Weber. A study of his view may begin an examination of, on the one hand, the role which theories of rationality have played in furthering and hindering explanations in the social sciences and, on the other hand, the relationship of social scientific theories to ethical theory. Weber’s theory was widely influential and has been especially important for recent attempts to develop individualist alternatives. His view brings the theory of explanation in the social sciences about as far as one can under the assumptions about rationality he made and which to a large extent are still shared by those working in the social sciences. By studying his view we can see the impact of these assumptions and the problems they lead to. We may thereby better understand those problems his successors have tried to overcome and to what degree they have succeeded. In sum, the view of Weber presented here is as follows. Weber attempted to develop a theory of explanation in the social sciences in the framework set by the assumptions that rationality is coherent and requires justification. In order to explain social events under these assumptions he needed to supplement his individualist theory of explanation in the social sciences with a functionalist theory of societies. He was also forced to limit the explanatory power of social scientific theories. He could not explain social change, because his assumptions about rationality forced him to view it as beyond reason. His theory of historical explanation could not fill this gap. His assumptions of the coherent nature of rationality and the need for justification prevented him as well from developing an adequate response to the challenge of relativism. It led him in the direction of a too narrow view of ethics as dependent on system, which he could only overcome in an ad hoc manner. Weber’s functionalism limits explanatory power Weber’s theory of social scientific explanation is so influential and important because it plausibly and systematically combines (1) an individualistic theory of the force which produces social events with (2) a theory of how institutions influence the course of events. Weber attributes rationality to both institutions, which on his view turn out to be functioning systems, and to individuals insofar as they pursue their aims in accord with their beliefs. He gives both institutions and sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
individuals a role in the explanation of social events without creating any conflict between them. He explains how institutions steer events, but the actions of individuals move events forward. All social events are explained as the consequences of the (rational) actions of individuals, but the context of their actions are institutions, which have their own properties and their peculiar impact on events. This remarkable feat was not, however, accomplished without paying a price. His theories of institutions, of rational social change and of the explanatory power of social scientific theories have a limited range of application. The resulting view of society is so limited, that it cannot be effectively applied to any open and rapidly changing society, that is, any modern society. When Weber’s view is applied here social scientific theories lose their explanatory power to such a high degree, that they can hardly be enlightening. The roots of these limitations lie in the assumptions which Weber made about rationality. The basis of Weber’s theory is an individualist theory of human action. According to this theory individuals act in accord with their beliefs in ways which are designed to achieve their goals. In order to understand why humans act the way they do and to explain the consequences of their action, we need to understand the beliefs of individuals. Weber analyzed, then, the beliefs of capitalists, that is, Calvinists, in order to understand why they acted the way they did and to explain this economic system. He relied heavily on comments by Benjamin Franklin, whom he took to be an articulate and representative figure. He found that according to the beliefs of Calvinists the accumulation of capital was a sign that God had blessed the person who was so fortunate. One could, then, explain why capitalists pursued the unending accumulation of wealth: they wanted a sign that they were blessed. They did not merely seek sufficient wealth to enjoy those activities which the possession of wealth made possible-as individuals had always done. Because they sought wealth as a sign that they were blessed and not for the goods they could buy with it, they used any wealth they had to accumulate even more. And this is what is characteristic of capitalists: they use wealth as capital and do not use it above all to consume. This behavior leads to the steady growth of wealth. In order to turn the analysis of the individuals’ beliefs into a social scientific explanation, however, one must do more. One must explain how the actions of many individuals lead to some social results. Weber presumes, then, that in each society we may discern particular structures with systematic character. These structures are represented in the beliefs of the individual members of the society in question. The most general characteristics of any society are due to the fact that they receive the shape they have from assumptions or world views of its members. Such a view may be some religion and often is, since it is often religion which provides the most general and influential framework for the construction of institutions. Weber thus devoted an enormous effort to explain the sociology of various religions. The institutionalized rules of any society and the social structures they produce are products of the beliefs of individuals which, in turn, determine how individuals live.
