On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Bill Schell wrote:
> At 12:46 PM 11/18/97 -0500, Andy wrote to Richard
> >
> >But I did have a couple of questions. (1) Why do you consider Weberian
> >thought experiments (imaginary lines of history) to be a superior mode of
> >analysis to historical materialist theorizing from concrete reality and
> >actual history?
> >
> All of Weber's modeling was done from concrete historical example based in
> culture as well as in materialist theory -- which is one reason his work
> has held up better than marxism.
On this point at least, I find myself in (rare) agreement with Richard and
Bill. The fact that there are more self-styled Marxist than Weberian
scholars may say more about Marxism's simpler programmatic implications
than its resonance with historical reality. Furthermore, it seems fair to
say that an evaluation of programmatic alternatives in the present must
include a nuanced, Weber-style attention to the "thick" logics of
previous civilisations. All is not linear; sometimes counterfactual
exercises can shed light on more appropriate routes that often are still
available in essence. Finally, by emphasising linearity and "actual
history," one tends to acquire the constraining blinders that ignore the
contingent and decidedly non-universal character of present "universal,"
even "progressive," values. (But we have been through that whole can of
worms before, so I will spare you all a reiteration....)
Regards,
--AKW
===============================================================================
Adam K. Webb
Department of Politics
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544 USA
609-258-9028
http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb