Max Webber's 'Objectivity' Reconsidered.

Dieter K. Buse is professor emeritus of history at Laurentian
University.

In 1904 Max Weber published The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy. In it he sought to place the social sciences in the same realm as the natural sciences with value-free knowledge, though acknowledging the limits of such an attempt.

Now, Laurence McFalls of the University of Montreal has gathered an eminent collection of diverse scholars (from anthropology, political science, logic, philosophy, sociology, social sciences, and public philosophy from around the globe, though Canadians and Americans predominate) to reconsider Weber’s attempt.

McFalls has edited a cohesive, clear, and cogent set of reflective essays offering a reconsideration of Weber’s methodology and theory. McFalls introduces Weber’s famed essay with a sweeping overview of the reception of his work and the impact of his thinking. McFalls notes that Weber “concludes that modern scientific inquiry, like modern capitalism, has roots in an ethical calling that proved effective only within a particular cultural and historical constellation, namely that of early modern Western Europe.” Today, Weber might have to reconsider that perspective. Together with Austin Simard and Barbara Thériault, McFalls also provided the conclusion about “the ‘objectivist’ ethic and the ‘spirit’ of science.” He ends thanking Weber for making us aware “that our construct is historically, culturally, and socially contingent.” In between are three parts of four to six essays, each devoted to the issue of Weber’s “objectivity” between theory and practice, “objectivity” in cross-cultural interaction, and whether contemporary social science has utilized sufficiently the opportunities inherent in Weberian thinking.

The book contains many interesting essays, partly because the authors employ diverse issues to demonstrate their own use of Weberian approaches. Topics range from European encounters with natives in the Pacific to voting patterns in Spain after the Madrid train attacks, from East Prussian agricultural workers’ exploitation to predictions about the post-Communist nature of Russia (though that self-congratulatory author omits the lack of prediction among Weberian and non-Weberian social scientists about the fall of the Berlin Wall). In reviewing numerous scholarly debates, the essays are sometimes highly challenging in terms of language and concepts employed. Most, though, affirm the importance and utility in Weber’s multi-layered thinking. However, Anthony Oberschall is direct in challenging postmodern relativism using Weber’s concepts, such as truth-value explanations via Verstehen (understanding). “Truth value of facts and causation can be established on a valid, shared, non-arbitrary standard for social inquiry.”