Weber’s and Sorokin’s Analytical Treatment of the Russian Revolutions

E. Ozhiganov
{"title":"Weber’s and Sorokin’s Analytical Treatment of the Russian Revolutions","authors":"E. Ozhiganov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2019-2-120-137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The roots and dynamics of the Russian collapse of 1917–1918 provide an occasion for considering the question of the lessons that modern sociology can draw from the “sociology of revolution” of Max Weber and Pitirim Sorokin. This paper reviews the relevance of the approaches demonstrated by Weber’s “understanding sociology” and Sorokin’s “sociology of factors” on the testing ground of the emergency and confrontation of various forces of the Russian political scene in 1917–1918. Neither Weber nor Sorokin set forth methodological guidelines for their analysis of the Russian revolutions and this paper does not intend to reconstruct their views on the basis of the comparative taxonomies of their categories and concepts. This paper identifies the reasons for the opposing assessments which Weber and Sorokin gave for the causes of the Russian Disorder of 1917–1918 and the consequences they have for their claims to comprehend the revolutionary situation. The paper highlights the circumstances that prompted them to free themselves from obligations to their own theories and to use the authority of science to promote plans for Westernization, i.e. the proposed reconstruction of the political and state institutions of Russia on the model of the leading Entente states. The paper shows that the limits of the Weberian analytical vision of the Russian political scene were due to his consideration of the events in Russia mainly through the question of Russia’s further participation in the World War I and its consequences for imperial Germany, while Sorokin’s views were constrained by the fact that he represented Russian political positivism and Russian political masonry.","PeriodicalId":128581,"journal":{"name":"The Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2019-2-120-137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The roots and dynamics of the Russian collapse of 1917–1918 provide an occasion for considering the question of the lessons that modern sociology can draw from the “sociology of revolution” of Max Weber and Pitirim Sorokin. This paper reviews the relevance of the approaches demonstrated by Weber’s “understanding sociology” and Sorokin’s “sociology of factors” on the testing ground of the emergency and confrontation of various forces of the Russian political scene in 1917–1918. Neither Weber nor Sorokin set forth methodological guidelines for their analysis of the Russian revolutions and this paper does not intend to reconstruct their views on the basis of the comparative taxonomies of their categories and concepts. This paper identifies the reasons for the opposing assessments which Weber and Sorokin gave for the causes of the Russian Disorder of 1917–1918 and the consequences they have for their claims to comprehend the revolutionary situation. The paper highlights the circumstances that prompted them to free themselves from obligations to their own theories and to use the authority of science to promote plans for Westernization, i.e. the proposed reconstruction of the political and state institutions of Russia on the model of the leading Entente states. The paper shows that the limits of the Weberian analytical vision of the Russian political scene were due to his consideration of the events in Russia mainly through the question of Russia’s further participation in the World War I and its consequences for imperial Germany, while Sorokin’s views were constrained by the fact that he represented Russian political positivism and Russian political masonry.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
韦伯和索罗金对俄国革命的分析
1917-1918年俄国崩溃的根源和动力提供了一个机会来考虑现代社会学可以从马克斯·韦伯和皮提林·索罗金的“革命社会学”中吸取教训的问题。本文回顾了韦伯的“理解社会学”和索罗金的“因素社会学”所展示的方法在1917-1918年俄罗斯政治舞台上各种力量的紧急和对抗的试验场上的相关性。韦伯和索罗金都没有为他们对俄国革命的分析提出方法论指导方针,本文也不打算在他们的范畴和概念的比较分类法的基础上重构他们的观点。本文确定了韦伯和索罗金对1917-1918年俄国动乱的原因给出的相反评估的原因,以及他们声称理解革命形势的后果。本文强调了促使他们从自己的理论义务中解脱出来的环境,并利用科学的权威来推动西方化计划,即按照主要协约国的模式重建俄罗斯的政治和国家机构。本文认为,韦伯对俄国政治场景的分析视野的局限性在于,他主要通过俄国进一步参与第一次世界大战及其对德意志帝国的影响的问题来考虑俄国发生的事件,而索罗金的观点则受到他代表俄国政治实证主义和俄国政治砌体的事实的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Protestant Ethic in the Russian Context: Peter Struve and Sergey Bulgakov Read Max Weber (1907–1909) The Soviet Version of Modernity: Weberian and Post-Weberian Perspectives From Weberian Bureaucracy to Networking Bureaucracy Max Weber and the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany; or, Why Bolshevism Had No Chance in the West Max Weber and the Great War: Personal Opinions and Essays as Historical Sociology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1