Max Weber possui duas sociologias? Análise comparativa do esquema conceitual de Sobre algumas categorias da sociologia compreensiva (1913) e Conceitos sociológicos-fundamentais (1921)

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2020-08-18 DOI:10.5007/175-7984.2020v19n45p83

Bruna dos Santos Bolda

引用次数: 1

Abstract

The critical republication of Max Weber’s work, Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe, sparked a debateabout changes and permanence of the Weberian lexicon. An example is a controversy betweenthe essays Kategorien (1913) and Grundbegriffe (1921). Schluchter (2014) argues there wasonly a lexicon refinement without any conception change. Lichtblau (2015) contends there wasan approach change: historical, in 1913; sociological, in 1921. Thus, the objective is to identifyand discuss the analytical implications of the theoretical-conceptual changes made by Weber inKategorien and Grundbegriffe to understand his conception development of Sociology. Therefore,the existence of a micro-macro model of upward causality is recognized in both Kategorienand Grundbegriffe. But, it is necessary to recognize the texts have gone through a process oftheoretical maturation and conceptual improvement to modify the conceptual content of somefundamental categories of the Weberian scheme.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

马克斯·韦伯有两种社会学吗?综合社会学(1913)和社会学基本概念(1921)的概念框架比较分析

马克思·韦伯著作《马克思·韦伯全书》的再版引发了一场关于韦伯词汇的变化和持久性的争论。一个例子是论文《卡特格里安》(1913)和《格伦贝格里夫》(1921)之间的争论。Schluchter(2014)认为只有一个词汇的细化，没有任何概念的改变。Lichtblau(2015)认为有一个方法变化:历史上的，在1913年;社会学，1921年。因此，本文的目的是识别和讨论韦伯在理论概念上的变化对理解韦伯社会学概念发展的分析意义。因此，在格特格里夫和格伦贝格里夫都承认存在一个向上因果关系的微观-宏观模型。但是，有必要认识到文本经历了一个理论成熟和概念完善的过程，以修改韦伯图式的一些基本范畴的概念内容。

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

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty