Showing papers on "Ideal type published in 1970"
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the use of the ideal type can be seen as falling along a continuum between the propaedeutic and the theoretical, and they suggest that the notion of idealization should be removed from sociology.
Abstract: This paper is critical of some uses made of the "ideal type" and of the fruitless efforts to grasp the significance of this basic tool of science through the work of Max Weber. Weber, a genius in many respects, did not have a scientifically mature grasp of the class of logical devices to which the ideal type belongs, namely, idealizations, which in the older sciences represent an inevitable, almost commonplace, research strategy. Idealizations, we suggest, may conveniently be thought of as falling along a continuum between the propaedeutic and the theoretical. Most of Weber's types and most others used in sociology either do violence to the basic strategy of idealizations or fall close to the propaedeutic extreme of the continuum. However, a few idealizations which remarkably approximate the purely theoretical ones found in physical science are available in the discipline, although they are not recognized as such. Several of these are herein singled out and briefly discussed. Sociology, we plead, must make a special effort to recognize the theoretically fertile strategy of the idealization. A proper and deliberate use of this device helps avoid fruitless squabbles about extra-scientific aspects of theories and enhances our chance of getting down to the serious business of theory construction with a focused sense of purpose and a cumulative orientation. Finally, in order to avoid past difficulties, we suggest that the term "ideal type" be dropped altogether from
46 citations
01 Jan 1970
TL;DR: The Phenomenology of the Social World as discussed by the authors is an English version of Schutz's book, which was first published in 1932 and has been extensively studied by American philosophers and social scientists.
Abstract: It has taken American philosophers and social scientists thirty-five years to catch up with the early work of Alfred Schutz. HisDer sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologiewas first published in 1932. An English version has recently appeared under the title,The Phenomenology of the Social World.1It is clear that the German edition was closely studied by some of the ablest minds of the thirties and forties who were concerned with problems of the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences. References to Schutz’s book appear in the writings of such thinkers as Jose Ortega y Gasset, Ludwig von Mises, Raymond Aron, and Felix Kaufmann. Although it is not unlikely that the English edition will be studied with equal care by American scholars, the fundamental assumptions of the European reader about the relevance of philosophy for social science have heretofore been rather different from those of his counterpart in the United States. Thus, for example, Ludwig von Mises, unlike most American economists, begins his treatise on economics,Human Action, with a substantial section on “The Epistemological Problem of a General Theory of Human Action.” The fundamental assumption is that to be concerned with man in the social world is necessarily to explore the reality which underlies and characterizes “Man,” the “Social,” and “World.” Philosophy is inescapable for the social scientist who seeks clarity and rigor in his work, who takes the term “discipline” seriously.
29 citations
14 citations
TL;DR: The red-expert paradigm has perhaps hampered as much as it has facilitated understanding of contemporary Chinese politics as discussed by the authors, and the problem stems primarily from the fact that the Chinese Communists have used the phrase to refer to a new "ideal type" of Chinese cadre and citizen, whereas Western specialists have extended this image of the ideal comrade to classify specific officials.
Abstract: IN ANY CONFLICT situation, it is difficult to describe the action without a program and a means of classifying and categorizing the players. This is true in war, professional athletics, and cultural revolutions. Most analyses of China's Cultural Revolution utilize, often implicitly, some form of the "red-expert" paradigm. The purpose of this article is to suggest an alternative approach. The red-expert paradigm has perhaps hampered as much as it has facilitated understanding of contemporary Chinese politics. The problem stems primarily from the fact that the Chinese Communists have used the phrase to refer to a new "ideal type" of Chinese cadre and citizen, whereas Western specialists have extended this image of the ideal comrade by using the red-expert paradigm to classify specific officials. If "red" and "expert" were ideal types, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that some officials would be more "red" than "expert"; this assumption was reinforced by the continuing process of reinterpreting red and expert to emphasize first "redness" and then "expertise." Moreover, as this seemed to suggest a process of competition and perhaps conflict between reds and experts, officials were soon being classified as reds (appropriate synonyms in the literature are ideologue, utopian, and revolutionary romanticist) and experts (pragmatist, moderate, and consolidator). One of the earliest and most interesting accounts of Chinese politics in terms of conflict be. tween reds and experts suggested that Liu Shao-ch'i, Peng Chen, and Teng Hsiao-p'ing were among the leading reds, while Chou En-lai, Ch'en Yfin, Po I-po, Li Fu-ch'un, and Li Hsien-nien were among the leading experts.' This classification, however, plays havoc with any attempt to understand the Cultural Revolution, for it is the reds who are purged and the experts who not only survive but on the whole thrive. Does this mean that the experts out-ideologued the reds in the manner in which Stalin purged the Preobrazhensky school of economic thought only to adopt the policies for which they were condemned and purged?2 Or does it mean that earlier
2 citations
01 Jan 1970
TL;DR: In this article, the authors make three assumptions in discussing the effect of collective negotiations on teachers' sense of alienation: first, alienation is a multidimensional concept that, in this context, is taken to derive from within the organizational setting of the school system; second, school systems are organized as bureaucracies containing more or less the general characteristics of Weber's "ideal type" bureaucracy; and third, negotiations in school systems deal with both the centralization of authority and the rule structure of the organization.
Abstract: The author makes three assumptions in discussing the effect of collective negotiations on teachers' sense of alienation: first, alienation is a multidimensional concept that, in this context, is taken to derive from within the organizational setting of the school system; second, school systems are organized as bureaucracies containing more or less the general characteristics of Weber's "ideal type" bureaucracy; and third, negotiations in school systems deal with both the,:centralization of authority and the rule structure of the organization. The conceptual scheme ba'sed on these assumptions is that teacher alienation from work, the sense of powerlessness and meaninglessness, is related to the extent to which the bureaucratic structure of the school provides the means for teachers to become involved in the decisions affecting the rules and regulations governing their. work. The negotiation process is seen as a mealts whereby teachers may have increased input into the decision-making authority of the organization and, consequently, provide a rule structure that has more meaning to them. Three hypotheses are derived as a guide to further research. What is critical is the degree to which the negotiation process is truly a joint decision-making one'and the nature of the rule structure that develops from the negotiations. (Author/IRT)
1 citations