MAX WEBER IN THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY: A CASE OF CIRCULATING KNOWLEDGE

Abstract

By the middle of the 1970s, a Max Weber revival commenced in American sociology. Almost 75 percent of the articles on Weber in the American Journal of Sociology published in the past six decades appeared in the 1970s and 1980s. The Weber revival in American sociology is a phenomenon observed in leading literature. New translations and publications are frequently indicated reasons for the renewed interest in Weber. Without dismissing this factor, it is not an entirely satisfactory explanation. This article accounts for the Weber revival in a new way. Taking the American Journal of Sociology as a case study, I argue that the Weber revival was a case of circulating knowledge. Certain historically set issues led to a reorientation of Weber, which meant that knowledge about Weber was moved, extended, and transformed.

The work of Max Weber (1864–1920) has been a continuous source of inspiration for social scientists during the twentieth century. With a Cambridge Companion dedicated to him, Weber's work is ranged with the great classics of Western thought (Turner, 2000). Among the numerous Anglophone scholars who have interpreted Weber are Talcott Parsons (The Structure of Social Action, 1937), H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 1948), and H. Stuart Hughes (Consciousness and Society, 1958). Of more recent date are Stephen P. Turner (The Cambridge Companion to Weber, 2000), and Sven Eliaeson (Max Weber's Methodologies. Interpretation and Critique, 2002).

In this article, the focus is on the period 1975–1985, in which an “international Weber renaissance” (Kalberg, 1994) seemed to take place, and on the United States, where the leading journal in sociology showed a sharp increase of publications on Weber. Almost 75 percent of the articles on Weber in the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) published in the past six decades appeared in the 1970s and 1980s.

After having detailed the scope and nature of these publications, I use the concept of “circulating knowledge” to account for the renewed interest in the work of Max Weber. The central question behind this concept is: “How and why does knowledge circulate?” (Secord, 2004, p. 655). Was the “Weber revival” in AJS part of a larger historical trend within (American) sociology?

The Weber Reception in the United States

Generally, Talcott Parsons is considered the most important post-World War II American interpreter of Weber. His translation of The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism was published in 1930 (Weber, 2003). Parsons portrayed Weber as an idealist; mainly interested in the role of values in human action (Weber, 2003, p. xvi). In contrast, the historian H. Stuart Hughes stressed the importance of historical research in Weber's work (Hughes, 1958, p. 324). Of course, “there is no ‘essential’ Weber” (Eliaeson, 2002, p. 1). Weber served as an inspiration for influential scholars in the twentieth century, but the interpretations of his work are characterized by great diversity.

The reception of Webers work in the United States, according to Paul Honigsheim (who had known Weber personally), had its limitations. He claims that American social sciences lacked “that typical German cross-connection of the theological, juridical, social science, and philosophy faculties as represented precisely by Max Weber” (Honigsheim, 2000, p. 262). These cross-connections in Weber's work were hard to comprehend for American social scientists. Early, American interest in Weber focused on specific topics in his writings, such as his opposition to Kaiser Wilhelm, his views on welfare legislation, his interest in the United States, and his emphasis on rationality as an essential part of occidental culture (Honigsheim, 2000).

English translations of Weber's work were published only sporadically between 1930 and the 1970s. The reception of this translated work in American sociology was heavily influenced by Parsons’ interpretation of Weber. As academic circumstances and issues changed, Parsons’ authority decreased and room for new interpretations arose (Abbott, 1999). Moreover, a large part of Weber's work remained unknown to English language scholars (Honigsheim, 2000). For example, Weber's Wissenschaftslehre was not published in English until 1975 (Zaret, 1980, p. 1181).

Compared to book publications and translations, the flow of journal articles on a particular subject or author may serve as a useful tool to assess fluctuations in scholarly interest. Publication trends—like that of Weber in AJS—are potential case studies. Scientific journals are useful sources to investigate the production and circulation of knowledge, both in a quantitative and a qualitative manner. Quantitative methods seem especially suitable for “the mapping of large-scale trends in scientific development, such as the development of research schools and disciplinary dynamics” (Söderqvist, 1997, p. 6). A qualitative interpretation may help to understand the background of these trends, for instance by linking the changes in the content of journal articles to wider political or cultural developments. In the following sections, I will first describe quantitative trends in “Weber publications” in relevant scientific journals, followed by a qualitative assessment of their content.

Publication Trends

The starting point of my quantitative investigation was a search on the Web site ISI Web of Knowledge.1 The search was directed at articles with substantive2 reference to Weber (reviews excluded) and the disciplines, which most often referenced his work. The focus was on the period 1950–2009. The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Articles with Substantive Reference to Max Weber per Subject Area: 1950–2009 (Reviews Excluded)

Subject Area	Record Count	Percentage
Source: http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=WOS&SID=S2KD@3LKOPGNpkIm9Hk&search_mode=GeneralSearch (ISI Web of Knowledge, consulted: April 2010).
Sociology, interdisciplinary social sciences, history of social sciences	466	52.4
History, multidisciplinary humanities	139	15.6
Religion	74	8.3
Philosophy	63	7.1
Economics	48	5.4
Political science	46	5.2
Other	53	6.0
Total	889	100

The majority of the articles shown in Table 1 were published in social sciences journals, the field of main interest here. English is the main language of 60 percent of the articles, with German (21 percent) as the next most frequently used language. The next quantitative step was a search in English language journals. The results of the search in the journals American Journal of Sociology, British Journal of Sociology, History and Theory, and History of European Ideas are presented in Table 2. These journals display a relative high number of articles on Weber, and are of considerable historical and academic value.

Table 2. Articles with Substantive Reference to Max Weber per Journal (Reviews Excluded)

	American Journal of Sociology	British Journal of Sociology	History and Theory	History of European Ideas	Total
Source: http://omega.library.uu.nl.proxy.library.uu.nl/seal/omegasearch.php (consulted: March 23, 2009).
1950–1959	1	1	0	-	2
1960–1969	0	1	2	-	3
1970–1979	5	8	6	-	19
1980–1989	6	20	4	1	31
1990–1999	2	6	0	2	10
2000–2009	1	3	3	4	11
Total	15	39	15	7	76

As Table 2 shows, the number of articles on Weber before the 1970s is strikingly low, especially in contrast with the two following decades.3 Nearly 75 percent of the articles in the two sociological journals were published between 1970 and 1989, in History and Theory this rate is almost 59 percent. Despite this difference, the general pattern is striking.

In AJS, 11 articles on Weber were published between 1975 and 1985, out of a total of 15 articles published over 60 years. This is significantly more than articles in AJS on a classic such as Emile Durkheim, and slightly more than publications on Karl Marx in the same period.4

Since the annual number of pages published in AJS roughly doubled between 1969 and 1974, the comparison between the 1960s and the 1970s and 1980s is not even.5 Furthermore, articles on Weber take up 1.5 percent of issues between 1975 and 1985.6 Citation reports indicate a certain weight of those authors who wrote on Weber; the average citations per item range between 1.00 and 13.52. The 11 relevant articles were cited between 0 and 103 times; the average number of citations is 17.5. These numbers demonstrate the divergent authority of authors and articles. This diversity must be taken into consideration. The quantitative weight of the Weber revival in the AJS should not be exaggerated, but a qualitative analysis of the articles in this period yields some interesting results.

Weber in the American Journal of Sociology: a Qualitative Analysis

What was the precise content of the 11 articles on Weber in AJS between 1975 and 1985? In the first article, “Neither Marx nor Durkheim… perhaps Weber,” Edward A. Tiryakian (1975) emphasizes the particularities of Weber's understanding of American society. Weber refers to the United States several times in The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. He touched upon an important characteristic of American society, its preeminently puritan character that is soaked in Protestant ethos. Tiryakian extends Weber's original thesis to contemporary issues, but leaves the method largely intact, creating “New casks for Weberian wine” (1975, p. 19). Tiryakian adds a double layer to his argument by combining his Weberian argument with specific American concepts such as “voluntarism” and the “conquering of wilderness as collective calling.” He uses the puritan ethic to explain the dynamics of American society, for example the ability to adapt to new situations (the hippie movement) and the eagerness to overcome disasters (Watergate). In more general terms, the whole scientific and academic community is based on the puritan cultural system. So for Tiryakian, Weber is the best classic figure of a new American sociology (1975, p. 31).

In his “Response to Cohen: Max Weber on Ethnicity and Ethnic Change” (1976), Michael Hechter tries to falsify Weber's thesis that as class groups become more important (and eventually predominant) social stratification increases. The empirical foundation for Hechter's argument is a study on regionalism in Britain. Moreover, he gives an example of possible contradicting status and class interests of a successful black businessman, applying Weber's thesis to a contemporary issue. While Hechter appreciates Weber's separation of status and class, he considers his method of explanation as less useful for modern research, because it is unable to explain long-term historical change.

Hechter's article was written in response to an article by Ira Cohen entitled “On Hechter's Interpretation of Weber” (1976). Here, Cohen acknowledges Hechter's contribution to sociological theory and analysis, but denounces his misinterpretation of Weber. According to Cohen, class and status in Weber's work were more complex ideal types than Hechter appreciates. By highlighting dichotomies in and predictions in Weber's work, Hechter ignores that Weber's ideal types aimed at transcending simple dichotomies, and that Weber was very careful in claims about the future. Reinterpreting Hechter's case study, Cohen in the end typifies it as an unintended extension of Weber's work (1976, p. 1162).

While the articles described above can be seen as mainly retrospective (Weber is used for contemporary analysis), other articles are rather contextualist, in that they place Weber's work in its historical German context (Eliaeson, 2002, p. 127). Introducing the translation of Weber's “Anticritical Last Word on The Spirit of Capitalism,” Wallace M. Davis (1978) discusses a critique by Rachfahl, Weber's renowned contemporary critic. He notices similarities between Rachfahl's critique and contemporary criticisms: both tried to falsify Weber's theses by exemplary individual cases, while misconstruing the importance of larger historical developments.

Likewise, Richard Herbert Howe's “Max Weber's elective affinities: Sociology within the bounds of pure reason” (1978) locates the origin of Weber's methodology in its German academic context. Howe claims that the concept of “elective affinities” (Wahlverwandtschaften) is crucial to the central logic of Weber's work, although Weber himself is not very clear about its meaning. Howe contextualizes the term by referring to the work of Kant and to other earlier users of the concept such as Goethe, Treitschke, and Ostwald. According to Howe, the concept of “elective affinity” was Weber's attempt to combine empiricism and rationalism, and explain action as behavior oriented to meaning.

“Action theory” is seen as a significant part of Weber's work—famously illuminated by Talcott Parsons and discussed in a 1980 article by David Zaret. The author discusses Weber's action theory as a part of twentieth century methodological debates. According to Zaret, Parsons ignored the historical flavor of Weber's action theory and thereby increased the gap between the disciplines of sociology and history. Parsons’ authoritative interpretation had enhanced the tendency within American sociology to overemphasize the role of theory and even claim the possibility of universal causal laws, which was contrary to Weber's view on social theory. According to Zaret, Weber's work represents a synthesis that can be used to overcome the antagonisms between the positivist and idealist camps, and between sociology and history. Zaret concludes: “Development of historically grounded theory still remains one of the vital tasks confronting sociology” (1980, p. 1199).

Authors such as Zaret, who favor a renewal of sociology also emphasize the merits of Weber's comparative approach, that is often misunderstood by other interpreters: “his argument loses much of its force and intelligibility when formalized so as to overlook or ignore the comparative perspective that is used to analyze uniqueness” (Zaret, 1980, p. 1187). In the same issue of AJS, Stephen Kalberg mentions “The comparative-historical sociology that is laid out in E&S [i.e. Economy and Society] — so often between the lines” (1980, p. 1176). Essential in Weber's comparative method is “how historical processes advanced sociologically within given civilizations” (1980, p. 1177).

In addition to retrospective and contextualist approaches to Weber's work, there are also textualist analyses: trying to assess “what Weber really said.” Examples are the two articles about Weber's essays on Ancient Judaism (part of The economic ethics of world religions). According to Tony Fahey (1982), this work represents the “mature” Weber, dealing with complex meanings, construction of meaning, and systems of meaning of individual agents in history. In a response to Fahey's article, Charles Camic emphasizes the continuity between The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism and Ancient Judaism since both deal with “exactly the same nexus between religion and practical life” (1984, p. 1414).

The exceptional nature and origin of Western capitalism, and its supposed relation to religious values, was another subject of debate. In an article on “rational capitalism” in Renaissance Italy, R. J. Holton (1983) reviews Weber's way of connecting capitalism with Protestantism. Critics have tried to disprove Weber's thesis time and again by showing examples of capitalism prior to the Reformation, for instance in Renaissance Italy. In response, Holton asserts that Weber accepted the existence of some elements of capitalism before the Reformation and never claimed that there was a monocausal relationship between Protestantism and capitalism. Holton criticizes a study by Jere Cohen, for Cohen had “grossly exaggerated” the scale of rational capitalism in Renaissance Italy. According to Holton, on both a conceptual and an empirical level—and also on both a sociological and a historical level—Weber's argument was more perceptive than was acknowledged in these “falsifying” studies.

Finally, Weber's ideas about science and politics were used as inspiration for contemporary scientific and social problems. For example, Lawrence A. Scaff compares the political analyses of Weber to those of his friend Robert Michels. While Michels, living in Italy, eventually turned away from democracy for utopian reasons, Weber remained realistic about the possibility of democracy. For Weber, the scientific reality of domination was not contradictory to the political ideal of democracy. With a certain distance, scientists could and should investigate the issue of domination, including power relations, leadership, and professional specialization. Furthermore, Weber used the “language of legal and traditional authority, purposive and value rationality, and charisma” (Scaff, 1981, p. 1283). Ultimately, Michels wanted “a knowledge of ‘utopian possibilities’” while Weber wanted “knowledge ‘without illusions’” (1981, p. 1283).

Features of the Weber Revival in the American Journal of Sociology

What then was the particular character and content of the Weber revival in AJS? First, a large segment of Weber's work was discussed. References were most often made to: The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, Economy and society, Politics as a vocation, Science as a vocation, Essays in sociology, Sociology of religion, and Ancient Judaism. This broad interest in Weber's work contrasts with the more limited earlier reception of Weber in the United States. The articles are a mixture of adoption—for example, by the standardized usage of his famous terms (irresistible bureaucratization, universal rationalization, and charisma)—and critique, of both the empirical content and methodological coherence of Weber's work. Another trend in the reception was to argue for a more detailed and comprehensive study of ideal types and methodology, mainly in order to defend Weber against standardization and shallowness.

Discussion of the correct interpretation of Weber is another frequent theme in the articles: “As in the case with all literature which some hold to be scriptural, in perusing the corpus of Weber's work it is easy to find ideas to suit a broad range of tastes. That is one reason why he is always stimulating to read and reread. It is also why his work has inspired so much debate between rival interpreters” (Hechter, 1976, p. 1166). The weight of Parsons’ canonized interpretation is discussed in several articles in AJS.

The balance of social methodology and historical analysis was another regular point of debate. Two kinds of interpretations come to the fore. Some authors, focusing strictly on Weber's sociological theory, characterize Weber as an idealist. Others, focusing on the historical and empirical aspects of Weber's work, value him for synthesizing sociology and history (or theory and history). It is the latter interpretation that became most frequent in the period discussed here (the1970s and 1980s). There is a relation here with new views on Marxism in the same period. Before the 1970s, Weber was usually considered an “idealist” in opposition to Marx's materialist interpretation of society and history (see Kalberg, 1994). In the revival, Weber was considered to be more than a pure idealist, for example by Hechter.

Triggered by the new Weber interpretations, some scholars went looking for the “real” Weber by localizing him firmly in his historical German context. An example of this is the contemporary debate between Weber and Rachfahl, uncovered by Davis. The conceptual history of “elective affinity” in Germany by Howe is another illustration of contextualization.

The frequent references to contemporary issues constitute an important aspect of the Weber revival. This takes place on two levels: society and sociology. Contemporary social issues—such as Watergate, the hippie movement, and changing voting behavior—are introduced to demonstrate Weber's importance. These social issues are inextricably linked to sociology; the call for new sociological methods is often related to contemporary issues. Tiryakian, for example, seeks a new direction in sociology, one that will help understand the changes in American society. He believes the Weberian method can help to explain America's contemporary issues and scientific climate.

A new direction in sociology, one informed by Weber, is the goal of several other authors too. They argue for a greater emphasis on history and consequently emphasize the historical aspects of Weber's work. Historically grounded sociology naturally seemed to lead to interdisciplinary and comparative methods, as exemplified in the articles by Zaret and Kalberg. The rising interest in comparative methods also led to a renewed awareness of the differences between Western and non-Western societies; here, Weber's claims about the uniqueness of Western society again became relevant. This comparative trend operated against the earlier trend of American sociologists investigating (their own) societies as variations of universal systems.

Conclusion

What then, finally, is the explanation for the Weber revival in the American Journal of Sociology—as part of a broader Weber revival that combines historical context (of society and sociology), quantitative analysis, and qualitative analysis? Weber's work belongs to the past and is irreversible, but its interpretation has been subject to many changes, that reflect wider social and social scientific concerns.

Social order, and its counterpart: social revolution, was the most prominent issue from the 1970s onwards. While skepticism about the enforcement of social order and the role therein of sociologists was rising, disillusionment with the prospects of a social revolution was increasing. In both respects, the world seemed more chaotic—and harder to control than ever before. It was felt that the relation between social action and values should be studied in a new way, and some scholars thought Weber's action theory would provide a useful way to do this. Also, as ethnic, gender, age, and gay protest groups became more influential, the sociological concept of “class” no longer seemed the most appropriate concept for the social subdivision of people; new concepts and explanations were necessary. Here, Weber's separation of class and status, and his ideas about the honor and dignity of groups could be used (or disproved).

The economy, central in Weber's work, was transformed in the 1970s by the end of the Bretton Woods monetary system and the first serious crisis in decades. This was followed by a new respect for capitalism, exemplified in Friedman's economic liberalism, which could effortlessly be connected to “the spirit of capitalism.” Power and realism seemed to be at the forefront of economy and politics. The study of power relations was in line with Weber's “knowledge without illusions.” Domination was a central factor in Weber's study of the social world. Leadership, charisma, and professional specialization seemed to fit the social and academic context, while scientific ethics and democratic ideals could be safeguarded by referring to Weber.

The last major social change was in the realm of religion. Religious factors became more influential in sociology and religion could now also be used to explain the unique and dynamic characteristics of American society. Given Weber's interest in religion, his studies could easily be connected with the renewed importance of religion in social processes. This is a central point of the Weber revival: the connection between different sociological factors (e.g., religion and economy; rationality and values), and between social theory and history. These cross-connections fitted the larger trend of interdisciplinary research.

New circumstances drove sociologists to look for new methods, leading to the rediscovery of history. Here, the comparative aspect came naturally, since theory could only be tested by comparing actual historical cases. Weber's work could be and was used to legitimize new—interdisciplinary—approaches and methods. Although Abbott (1999) claims that historical sociology mainly emerged from monographs and edited volumes, the Weber articles demonstrate that a lively debate about historical sociology took place within the pages of AJS. The journal was affected by, and played its part in, this larger development. Thus, the Weber revival as displayed in AJS, is more than a case of “local knowledge.”

To what degree was the Weber revival in AJS due to editorial changes? The increase in number of sociology graduates and the professionalization of AJS had changed the character of the journal. The result was a disciplinary rather than a departmental journal, one no longer shaping the character of a department but shaped by the larger sociology discipline. So, the increase of articles about Weber was not (purely) due to novel editorial policies. The larger historical context of society and sociology were more important here. This resulted in articles with new approaches (e.g., Marxist) and new subjects (e.g., women) in the 1970s. The progressivism of the 1970s paved the way for all kinds of new approaches in sociology. Openness to new approaches and changing social circumstances were intertwined with the reinterpretation of Weber in the 1970s and 1980s.

Finally, the Weber revival and changes in society and sociology can be seen as illustrations of the workings of the circulation of knowledge, that is, movement, extension, and transformation of knowledge. The movement of knowledge is demonstrated by the number of articles devoted to Weber. The absolute numbers show a clear high point of interest in Weber between 1975 and 1985. The extension of knowledge is demonstrated by interest in unknown aspects of Weber's work in the English-speaking world. Aspects of his work largely ignored earlier were now included in debates. The transformation of knowledge is demonstrated by the dense and even contradictory meanings ascribed to Weber. Parsons’ Weber was not merely slightly altered, he was transformed into a fundamentally different Weber legacy.

However, knowledge about Weber was not only moved, extended, and transformed, there was also continuity. “Weber” as a term, almost as a brand name, remained the same, as did his original German corpus. This simple (linguistic) affinity keeps the conversation going. It is the reason for the absence of drastic incommensurability. Although knowledge transforms, debates remain possible. The history of Weber's reception in the 1970s and 1980s shows how knowledge circulates in context, but also how the continuity of knowledge is secured by references to the past.

1. 1

   http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?highlighted_tab=WOS&product=WOS&last_prod=WOS&SID=N1f8Kini9pIpFamIHi7&search_mode=GeneralSearch (ISI Web of knowledge, consulted: April 2010).

2. 2

   Substantive reference means references to Weber in the title or summary of the article.

3. 3

   The journal History of European Ideas evidences a deviant trend, because it was founded in the 1980s.

4. 4

   The percentage of articles in AJS on Durkheim in the 1970s and 1980s is 37 percent (compared to 33 percent in the 1990s alone). The percentage of articles on Marx in the 1970s and 1980s is 50 percent, demonstrating a high point, but of a less exceptional height. The percentage of articles on Marx in the decades 1990–2009 was 36 percent.

5. 5

   But there was also a format change in 1970 that limits this increase slightly (Abbott, 1999, p. 153). And: http://omega.library.uu.nl.proxy.library.uu.nl/seal/omegasearch.php?applid=omegavolumes&idx=omega&cfg=omega&act=parasearch&parafields=tocid&srt=reversealphabetical&title=American%20journal%20of%20sociology&qry=000000000001737:*/ODI_RECORD/IDENTIFIER_IDSYSTEM&lan=nl

6. 6

   One hundred and eighty-three pages of 12,000 pages between 1975 and 1985 (12,000 is the estimated total pages in 10 years, excluding review pages).

Acknowledgments

The author like to thank Ruud Abma, Jaap Bos, and Ed Jonker for commenting on early drafts of this paper. Jaap Bos inspired me to present this paper at a conference of the European Society for the History of the Humanities and I am indebted to him for his trust in my work. I wish to thank Ruud Abma for his suggestions and advice when completing the final draft of this paper. Above all, I am grateful to the European Society for the History of the Humanities for granting me the Early Career Award for this paper in December 2009.

References

Biography

• MARLISE RIJKS has obtained a bachelor in History and master degrees in ‘Comparative History’ and ‘History of the Sciences and Humanities’ at Utrecht University. As a master student at the Descartes Centre in Utrecht, she has done research on the circulation of knowledge from the seventeenth century to the present. She is currently employed by the Huygens ING (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) as a research assistant on the project “Dutch History of Science Web Centre”.