Some thoughts on Max Weber and Value free sociology
Can something really exist outside of a value system? Is it possible that one can be ‘objective’ and completely remove the ‘subjectivity’ in their views? In my previous post I described the method of Verstehen, a qualitative approach in social sciences to understand the reasoning behind actions, an approach Max Weber has used in his work.
Following on from the theme of writing about Max Weber, in this post, I discuss the concept of value-free sociology, the motivation behind using such a method in the historical context for Max Weber, and whether or not the approach has any merit.
Why is Value free sociology important for Max Weber?
Simply put, value-free sociology is defined as the researcher putting aside their own values, and approaching the problem ‘value-free’.
Before we get into the details about the definition and the reality of value-free approach, we need to understand why this has come about. While Max Weber hasn’t been the one to bring about this concept, it is evident that he is the one that is most attached to it. [2]
For Weber, the sociologist ‘is interested in what is, not what it should be.’[1]
Max Weber was researching during a time of turmoil, which was reflected in the politics and seeping through to all of its institutions, including academia. The government was known to interfere with universities in a number of ways. Individuals undertaking doctorates were not awarded PhD’s due to antisemitism. Academics who were known as ‘privatdozenten’ were paid according to the number of pupils that attended their lectures. From this certain lecturers were also more popular than other, such as those who were antisemitic and supportive of Bismark[1]. For Weber, this presented a problem. With his overall goal to develop ‘modern rational methods’ in Germany, to overcome these issues he considered the following :
- The state should not interfere with universities.
- Lecturers should be show restraint in promoting their values.
Weber thought by taking an approach to limit state intervention and also the promotion of personal values, the individuals could use rational scientific methods to solve problems.
NOTE : An overall theme that has developed in Allen et al is Weber wished for Germany to become a colonial superpower and in order to achieve this utilise modern scientific methods. At the time, the other European countries were on the well on their way to [1]
Taking Weber’s points above, it makes sense what he aims to do. He sees a problem and he wants to overcome it, but is the solution viable? Firstly, the process of social investigation requires a particular topic to be explored. Then, within that topic, it’s at the behest of the researcher to take from that topic, what they deem valuable, what they deem worthy of elucidating on further. What they deem valuable would come from their own value system, thus we can see that nothing can be entirely ‘objective’. Weber tries to separate the ideas:
- Value freedom : Put aside all value judgements when engaged in the process of analysis.
- Value relevance : Particular problems are chosen by the researcher to pursue based on their own value system.
We can see this in play in Weber’s own work, The Protestant Ethic. The problem ‘How did Western Capitalism begin?’ was looked at through the lens of his background, Protestantism.
Few points to make here:
- So, given the notion of value relevance, he concludes that rational-approaches are not viable/possible and thus no criticism can be made.
- Academics can thus choose problems based on their value system, but once. the investigation is underway, they need to suspend their own beliefs.[1]
To the first point: This is somewhat dangerous. Given the concept of value relevance, because we involve some personal bias, our criticism has no value. An approach which suggests that due to this constraint no criticism is allowed is ensuring that whatever the status quo is, continues to be maintained. If there is no criticism, can there be any progress? If you are unable to criticise, how can change happen? The question which directly relates (which we won’t discuss here) to this is who sets the standards for the current mode of operation?And will people suddenly stop forming an opinion/Criticism?
I think an interesting reflection of this is the current times we live in. ‘Woke’ culture is something that is prevalent, ‘cancel culture’, people are cancelled because they hold a particular opinion. In these scenarios, the argument lies in identity politics and that people arn’t allowed/project a certain opinion because it offends others.
The reason why I bring this up because woke culture seems to be an interesting proposition. It is some form, an inversion of Weber’s thinking. Woke culture ‘cancels’ scientific findings as well. It’s not that it is limited to opinions or social order. If scientific findings present something ‘oppressive’, then they are also neglected.
Given we live in a post-enlightened world, Weber seems to be reasonable than the ‘woke/cancel’ culture. Given the enlightenment supported the approach of scientific thinking, observation, empiricism, we see here that maybe the world is seeing the limits of it. If we live in a society which is no loner christian, or in the shadow of christianity, and we all live with a secular mind, then surely Weber’s idea’s make some sense? I think there is valid logic in reaching this point, however, if we peer slightly deeper, I think we will find something else.
To the second point: What does it mean to suspend one’s own beliefs? Does this mean that we don’t believe in anything? Does that mean we also suspend our belief in science? I think there is a paradox at play here.
Science, is a method (plenty of arguments on the definition of science that we will leave for a later post). There are so many things that exist in reality, in society, that we know within ourselves, that cannot succumb to an empirical form. It’s actually quite funny because sociology, the social sciences, are subjects which are filled, more than other area’s of study, in which we know things happen which we find difficult to empirically prove, or we can prove but only at certain levels (e.g. collectively).
If we are able to analyse empirical data, even the approach to analysis can varied. Is this not including a belief system? We all have approaches when conducting certain analysis, in fact, in many situations, there could easily be more than one ‘scientific’ approach to conducting an analysis. Secondly, if more than one approach exists, and utilising more than one outputs different answers, we investigate the disparity.
Concluding remarks
Value-free sociology in Weber’s thought is an interesting concept. The idea’s of value-freedom and value-relevance make a lot of sense, but certainly inhibiting criticism or the scientific process due to value-relevance seems to be somewhat short-sighted.
Suffice to say Weber’s idea is just not practical, and most importantly, he himself falls prey to it (something we do see A LOT in Weber’s work).
Thinking about this more broadly, giving too much power to the scientific method means we are always in limbo, we are always finding out. I think the use of the scientific method is great, and we have been able progress so much in the sciences, but what about ordinary people. Do they move with science? Are we able to keep up with its progress? To change our lives every few years. I think not. I think for most of us, we know some things, we grow up in a particular way, we’re accepting of some ideals, but to continuously change our world view would be extremely taxing.
I certainly haven’t figured all of it out. This article is an exploration of some the idea’s that I am thinking about and how they relate to the wider world I live in.
Bibliography
[1] : Allen, K. (2004). Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. LONDON; ANN ARBOR, MI: Pluto Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18fs592
[2] : MAX WEBER AND THE ORIGINS OF THE IDEA OF VALUE-FREE SOCIAL SCIENCE . ALLAN N. SHARLIN .European Journal of Sociology .Vol. 15, №2, pp. 337–353
