Weber and Interpretive Sociology in America

Author(s): Peter Kivisto and William H. Swatos, Jr.

Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 149-163
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120876
Accessed: 17/07/2009 07:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 WEBERAND INTERPRETIVE
SOCIOLOGYIN AMERICA

PeterKivisto*
AugustanaCollege
William H. Swatos,Jr.
Universityof Manitoba

This article examines the role of Weber's methodological writings on verstehende

Soziologie in the constructionof an Americanvariantof interpretivesociology during
the first half of the twentieth century. It thereby illustratesthe connections between
intellectualappropriationandtheacademicinstitutionalizationof competingsociological
schools. After reviewing Weber's generalreceptionin Americansociology, it focuses
on the respective relevance of Weber for symbolic interaction,which developed out of
the Chicago School; Parsonianactiontheory;andthephenomenologicalsocial theoryof
Alfred Schutz. Three conclusions emerge. First, the symbolic interactionistsand their
predecessorsoperatedwith theimplicitassumptionthattheydid notneed Weber.Second,
Weber was not only intellectuallyvaluable to Parsons,but also useful in his quest for
intellectual hegemony. Finally, Schutz, in offering a third, alternativeand competing
interpretationof Weber, served to complicate this strugglebetween the two American
sociological schools.

The relationship between Weber's methodological writings on verstehende Soziologie and

theconstruction of anAmericanvariantof interpretive
sociologyduringthefirsthalfof the
twentiethcenturyconstitutesa particularlycurioustalein the historyof thediscipline.A
reviewof thathistoryfromtheperspectiveof the sociologyof knowledgeillustratesthe
connectionsbetweenintellectualappropriation and the academicinstitutionalization of
competingsociological schools. we
Specifically, focuson three interconnectedissues:the
first,factorsthatcontributedto whatJenniferPlatt(1985)refersto as the "missinglink"
betweenWeberand the ChicagoSchool;the second,the mannerin whichWeberwas
appropriated by andaccordeda privilegedpositionin Parsoniantheory;thethird,therole
playedby Europeanscholarswhomigratedto Americabetweenthewarsin articulating a
Weberian-inspired phenomenological sociology.
Ourargument parallelsBesnard's(1986)discussionof Parsons'suseof theDurkheimian
conceptof anomie.BesnardcontendsthatParsonsignoredtheChicagoSchool'sconceptof
*Directall correspondence
to: PeterKivisto,Department
of Sociology,AugustanaCollege,Rock Island,IL
61201-2210.
The SociologicalQuarterly,Volume31, Number1, pages149-163.
Copyright? 1990by JAI Press,Inc.
All rightsof reproductionin anyformreserved.
ISSN:0038-0253.
150 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 31/No. 1/1990

socialdisorganization,replacingit withanomieinanefforttodiscreditthetheoreticalutility
of theformerconcept.Similarly,we findthatWeber'ssociologicalwritingswerenotonly
intellectuallyvaluableto Parsons,butservedto distanceParsons'ssociologyfromthatof
his Americanpredecessors.This was importantinasmuchas the quest for intellectual
hegemonyrequireddiscreditingthe ChicagoSchoolwhilesimultaneously indicatingthat
Parsonianactiontheoryprovideda new basis for advancingthe science of society. In
essence,ParsonslookedtoWeberandotherprominent European thinkersforthetheoretical
undergirding of his grandtheory,implyingthatthefoundersof Americansociologywere
notcapableof makinga similarcontribution to thisenterprise.

THEGENERALRECEPTIONOF WEBERIN AMERICA:TWO PERIODS

Weber'sworkin relationto Americaninterpretivesociologycannotbe understoodin
isolation,butonlyin termsof theoverallreceptionof Weberiansocialthought.Thissection
sketches, in broad strokes,the manner in which Weber's ideas filteredinto American
sociology.
Accordingto theGermansociologist,DirkKiisler(1988,p. 197),Inspiteof international
researchwhichhasbeengoingon fordecades,no comprehensive accountof thereception
of Weber'swork has hithertobeen presented. A voluminous literature detailsvarious
intellectualconnectionsor comparisons, but,he argues,hasnotresulted a "systematic
in
investigation"of thevariedreceptionsaccordedWeber'sworkovertime.AlthoughKaisler
focuseson theGermanreception,thelackis evenmoreevidentelsewhere.
WhileWeberianscholarshipis a growthindustryat present,andWeber'splacein the
pantheonof "classic founders"of modernsocial scienceis secure,his workhas been
receivedslowly,by fitsandstarts.TalcottParsons(1980)comments,forexample,thatwhile
studyingat the LondonSchoolof Economicsduringthe 1920s,he neverheardWeber's
namementioned.Similarly,Coser(1988,p. xiii) discoveredthatWeberwas "practically
unknown"at theSorbonnein theearly1930s.Bendix(1984,p. 13) didnotencounterthe
workof Weberin Europe;he "discoveredWeber"in his "studentdays" at Chicago,
studyingunderLouisWirth.The Americanparallelsthe BritishandFrenchexperiences
(LassmanandVelody1989,p. 160).Manysociologistsin thiscountryhavebeencontentto
utilizeselectiveportionsof Weber'soeuvrewithlittleconcernfortheoverallthrustof his
intellectualactivity.Thoughthethematiccoreof Weber'sworkhasbeena topicof inquiry
at leastsince KarlLiwith's (1932)comparisonof WeberandMarx,untilrecentlyit has
receivedlittleattentionin Americansociology.A numberof factorscontributed to theway
in whichWeber'sworkwasimportedintoAmerica,thoughtheydiffereddependingon the
particular timeperiod.Forourpurposes,twotimeperiodscanbe distinguished.

The FirstPeriod
The firstperiodencompassesWeber'sreceptionduringhis lifetime.This is also when
of sociologyweremadeandconsolidationof the
majorstridesin the institutionalization
process-via the creationof the American SociologicalSociety and the emergenceof
ChicagoandColumbiaas majorcentersforthediscipline-metwithpartialsuccess.Figures
suchasFranklin Giddings,EdwardAlsworthRoss,AlbionSmall,WilliamGraham Sumner,
WilliamIsaacThomas,andLesterFrankWardprofoundlyshapedthescienceof society.
 Sociologyin America
Weberand Interpretive 151

ThesewereWeber'scontemporaries. Thoughthe sociologytheycreated,in its diverse

articulations, hada distinctivelyAmerican casttoit (Kivisto1987;VidichandLyman1985;
Swatos1984;Seidman1983),theywerereceptiveto contemporary currentsin European
thought.Indeed,a numberhadsojournedto Europe,particularly Germany,to studydevel-
opmentsin the social sciences.WhilenonestudiedwithWeber,in partbecausehe was
unabletoresumeteachinguntillongafterhisbreakdown (herenewedhis teachingactivities
in 1918,at theUniversityof Vienna),theyshouldhavebeenawareof himandhiswork.He
was sufficientlyknown,forinstance,to be invitedto delivera paperat the 1904Congress
of ArtsandSciencesin St. Louis.(Bulmer[1984,p. 34] andDibble[1975,p. 3] claimthat
Smallextendedthe invitation;Coser[1971,p. 239], thatHugoMunsterberg did so; and
Weber[1975]andMommsen[1987]supportthelatter.)The6migr6scholarMunsterberg
andWeberwerewellawareof eachother.Theformerborrowedfromthelatterindesigning
a surveyof industrial relations,while,in RoscherandKnies,Weberextensivelycriticized
thesocialpsychologyof Munsterberg.
It is, therefore,somewhatsurprisingthatWeberwas mentionedonly infrequentlyin
journalsandbookswrittenduringthistime.Noneof his workswerereviewedin nordidany
of his writingsappearin translation in theAmericanJournalof Sociology,despitethe fact
thathis friendsandcolleaguesSimmelandTdnniesservedat the timeas advisoryeditors
(Tiryakian1966).WhileGumplowicz, Ratzenhofer, andSimmelwereoftencited
Schaiflle,
by Americansociologists,Weberwas not.The lackof directcontactbetweenWeberand
Americanstudentscan accountonly in partfor this situation.Perhapsthe American
sociologistwho knewWeber'sworkbestwas W.E.B.DuBois(theymetduringWeber's
1904trip),buthis marginality in thedisciplineas a wholepreventedhimfromeffectively
introducing Weberto a largeraudience.Similarly,thatWeber'sworkwasnotyettranslated
is onlya partialexplanation, sincethisheldgenerallyforotherGermansociologistsas well.
Of greatestimportancewas the incompatibility betweenWeber'sconceptionof the
science of society and that harboredby scholarsin America.First,Weberwas not a
system-builder ata timewhenmanyAmericansociologistswereintenton buildinga grand
theoretical systemsforthediscipline.Americansociologists,forthispurpose,drewheavily
uponSpencerand,to a lesserextent,ComteandtheGermanorganicistSchaiflle.Second,
Weber'sinterdisciplinary proclivitieswerenotconduciveto thoseconcernedwithestab-
lishing a distinctniche in the academy.In fact,at leastuntilhis visit to theUnitedStates,
Weberperhapswaslargelyidentifiedby Americansas aneconomist.Weber,himself,may
havedefinedhis workas historicalratherthanprimarilysociological.Third,Weberwas
decidedlyanti-evolutionary at a timewhenevolutionarythinkingcast a spell over many
prominentsociologists.Finally,thepessimismthatcoloredWeber'sworksimplydid not
resonatewithintellectuals participatingin theoptimismof "theAmericancentury."

The Second Period

The secondperiodbeginswithWeber'sdeathandextendsto mid-century. Duringthis
but
time,certaincontinuitieswiththefirstperiodareevident, there were also newdevelop-
mentsin theresponseto Weber.As theChicagoSchoolbeganto consolidateas the most
important centerfor the discipline(Bulmer1984;Matthews1977),the lackof interestin
Weber,initiallyat least,exacerbated.JeffreyAlexander(1987,p. 21) attemptsto explain
partof thereasonfortheneglectof Weberwhenhewritesthatduringthisperiod,"American
152 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Vol. 31/No. 1/1990

sociologyin generalandChicagosociologyin particular were,by andlarge,alarmingly

atheoreticaland deeply empiricist."While one can challengehis characterization of
Chicagosociologistsas atheoretical,theiremphasiswasclearlyon empiricalresearch,not
onthesystematicdevelopment of theory(Mullins1973,p.45), thisdisinclinedthemtosever
theoryconstructionfrom empiricalresearchin the manner,for instance,of Parsons.
However,anotherfactorwas important:The ChicagoSchool was in criticalrespects
ahistorical,whichcompoundedits lack of interestin Weber.Conversely,the empirical
concernsthatpreoccupied theChicagoSchool-the dynamicsof thecontemporary cityand
racerelations-werenotcentralforWeber.TheWeberianpreoccupation withpoliticsand
religiondid not strikea responsivechordwith Park,his colleagues,or his students.
Regardingthe formertopic,it is a notinfrequent complaintthatthe ChicagoSchoolwas
remarkably seen
apolitical, clearly in its ecologicalanalysesof the metropolis.In termsof
thelatter,Chicago-trained
sociologists notenterintotheProtestant
did ethicdebate,though
Americantheologiansand historiansdid so just a few years afterthe initialGerman
publicationof Weber'sthesis(Forsyth1910;Liebersohn1988,p. 95).
Thissituationwouldchangebythe1930s,inpartabettedbythegrowingaccesstoEnglish
translationsof Weber'swork,beginningwith economistFrankKnight'sproductionof
GeneralEconomicHistoryin 1927 andTalcottParsons'stranslationof TheProtestantEthic
andtheSpiritof Capitalismin 1930(Hinkle1980,p. 311).Interestin Weberalsoevolved
as Americanscontinuedto studyinGermany; thoughhe wasalreadydead,theynonetheless
cameunderthe influenceof his thought.Two notableinstancesare HowardBeckerand
TalcottParsons(Gerth1982,p. 209). The formerwouldreturnandproducea numberof
publications explicatingtheidealtypeandhistoricalsociology(Becker1933,1934;Becker
andBarnes1952).The latterwould,in his watershedpublication, TheStructureof Social
Action(Parsons1937),treatWeberas of paramount importance inhisownefforttoconstruct
thebasisfora grandtheoretical synthesis.
Hadthesebeentheonlycontributing figures,anAmericanvariantof Weberiansociology
mighthaveemerged.However,Hitler'sascendance to powerin 1933resultedin theexodus
of numerousGermanintellectualsto the UnitedStates.Collectivesettlementsof these
6migr6scholarswereestablishedattheNewSchoolforSocialResearch(RutkoffandScott
1986) and, to a lesserextent,ColumbiaUniversity.In Weberianscholarship,namesof
importance included,at the formerinstitution,EmilLederer,AdolphLowe,KarlMayer,
AlbertSalomon,AlfredSchutz,andHansSpeier;and,at thelatter,TheodorAdorno,Max
Horkheimer, HerbertMarcuse,PaulLazarsfceld, andAlexandervonSchelting.Figureswho
foundacademichomeselsewherethroughout thecountryincludedTheodoreAbel,Reinhard
Bendix,CarlFriedrich,HansGerth,andPaulHonigsheim.Theinfluenceof someof these
scholarswas largelylimitedto theirexilic institutions,while for othersit extendedwell
beyondto thedisciplineat large.
of Weberianthought,no oneassessmentcame
Due to themultiplicityof interpretations
to dominateAmericansociology'sunderstanding of Weber.Whenthisis compounded by
theslow andhaltingtranslation of WeberintoEnglish,it is notsurprisingthat,as H. Stuart
Hughes (1975, p. 31) writes, "The Weberianattitudepermeatedsocial thought by slow
capillaryaction." A fruitfuldialoguebetweenWeberiantheoryandthe Americanempirical
researchtraditionwas sought by some, the relationshipbetween Paul Lazarsfeldand his
American colleagues constituting perhaps the most obvious instance of this attempted
Weberand Interpretive
Sociologyin America 153

synthesis.As thedisciplinedividedincreasingly intosubspecialties, Weber'sworkwasused

eclecticallywithlittleregardtoitasa totality.Some American students of sociologybecame
familiarwithWeber'sworkintheGermanoriginal;forexample,CharlesPageanda number
of otherColumbiaUniversitygraduatestudents(manyof whomwouldbecomeprominent
figuresin thediscipline)wereintroduced to WirtschaftundGesellschaftby Alexandervon
Schelting(Page1982,p. 27). However,mostAmericansocialscientistsreliedon transla-
tions;theywaiteduntil1968fora completetranslation of theabove-mentioned volume.
A consequenceof theway thatWeber'sideasfilteredintoAmericansociologywas that
itwasverydifficulttodetermine withanyprecisionthedegreeorextentof impacthisthought
hadin shapingAmericandevelopments. Clearlyaspectsof his workbeganto be utilized
during the 1950s and 1960s, producing rapidlyexpandingbodyof literature
a devotedto
Weberianthemes.Thethreetopicsthatreceivedby farthemostattentionwerebureaucracy,
charismaticauthority(witha considerableamountof this workdevotedto the issue of
legitimacyin newly-established post-colonialnations),andthe Protestantethicthesis.In
eachinstance,butperhapsmostevidentlyin thelast,muchof thisresearchwasconducted
in anahistoricalmannerquiteatvariancewiththethrustof Weber'sworkon thesethemes.
Despitetheinterpretive effortsof notonlyvariouspreviously-mentioned 6migr6scholars
butalsoAmerican-born one
scholarssuchas C. WrightMills, figure came to standaloneas
the majorexegete advancingthe importanceof Weberianthought: Talcott Parsons
(Mommsen1989, p. 181). Since Parsons'sgrandtheoreticalefforts were viewed with
suspicionby thoseinterestedin promotingempirical-especiallyquantitative-research,
his locationat Harvardwasprobablycrucial:it removedhimfromthecriticismshe likely
wouldhaveencountered in moreestablisheddepartments elsewhere.Nonetheless,he was
persistently forcedto wrestlewiththerelationship of theorytoquantitative research,andhis
alliancewithStouffercan be seen in thislight.All of this,of course,furthercomplicates
Parsons'srelationship to Weber.
Giventhe hegemonyof Parsoniantheoryin thepost-warperiod,manyotherWeberian
scholarscame to advancetheirown interpretations of Weberin contradistinction to the
portrait offered by Parsons, who began his careerby engaging the classics in behalf of a
voluntaristictheory of action that would overcome the deficiencies of positivism,
ulititarianism, andidealism.Whilehis readingof andattitudetowardWeberis notalways
clear, it is certainthathe was convincedthatthe mainorientation of Weber'sworkhada
markedaffinitywithhis own. Thisexegeticalbias,not surprisingly, fostereda particular
of
kind critiqueof Parsons:as Alexander (1987,p. 119)notes, "It is onlynaturalthatwhen
the criticscame to challengeParsons'stheorythey would challengehis readingsof the
classicsin turn."Duringtheapproximately fourdecades encompassing theriseandfallof
the structural-functionalist paradigm,criticspersistentlysought to illustrate ratherwide
divergenceswhereParsonsfoundconvergenceamongtheclassicfigures of the discipline
(Popeet al. 1975).Repeatedeffortsweremadeto "de-Parsonize Weber"duringthisperiod
(Cohenet al. 1975).
Parsonszealouslysoughtto reshapethetheoretical matrixof sociologyandto create(in
part,in conjunction withcolleaguessuchasClydeKluckhohn, GordonAllport,andEdward
Shils)anintegratedsocialscience.His single-mindedness andapparentimperviousness to
criticism(see Homans1984,p. 323) appearedto be impelledby his Puritanicalunder-
standingof vocation:his errandinto the intellectualwildernesswas to createa new
154 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 31/No. 1/1990

conceptualcityon thehill.Duringthe 1960sandupto his deathin 1977,theattackson his

workintensified,capturedin Gouldner's(1970)studyof thediscipline's"comingcrisis."
Neartheendof Parsons'slife,thenewexegeteandsystem-builder,AnthonyGiddens(1976),
woulddeliverthe eulogyat the funeralof structural-functionalism.
The resultof this, in
termsof Weber'sthought,wasan efflorescenceof scholarship devotedto reassessinghis
corpus.

INTERPRETIVE IN AMERICA
SOCIOLOGY
Withinthis contextAmericaninterpretivesociology arose.Threeprincipalschools of
thoughtcanbe distinguished: whichdevelopedoutof theChicago
(1) symbolicinteraction,
School;(2) Parsons'sactiontheory;and(3) a phenomenological approachperhapsmost
closely identifiedwith the 6migr6scholar,Alfred In
Schutz. this section,each schoolis
reviewedbrieflyin aneffortto locatetherelevanceof Weberforeach,as wellas to indicate
therelationships amongthem.

The ChicagoSchool
W.I. Thomaswas the firstimportantfigurefromthe ChicagoSchoolto subsequently
influencethe developmentof symbolicinteraction. of the conceptof the
His articulation
"definitionof the situation"becamea touchstonefor those intenton establishinga
situationalsociologythatsoughtto investigatethewaysin whichsubjectiveandobjective
factorscontributetoa socialactor'sdefinitionof thesituation(Thomas1929).Inso viewing
thetaskof sociology,Thomas'sapproach evincesobvioussimilaritiesto thatof Weber.As
Rochberg-Halton (1986,p. 44) observes:

Thomas's two-sided concept of situation as the configurationof conditioning factors

that are selectively defined by the person and thatshape behavior... reveals a concern
somewhat similar to Weber's concept of action as subjectively intended meaning
oriented to a conditioning "outer world" of objects and processes of nature and as
meaning determinedthroughobjectively rationalmeans.

Despitethis similarity,it is clearthatWeberianthoughtdid not enterinto Thomas's

sociologicalformulations. Thisis the case in spiteof thefact thatThomasreadGerman,
studiedin Germany the
during academicyear1888-1889,andtraveledextensivelythrough-
outEuropeat variouspointsin his life. Hisearliestpublishedworkreflectshis immersion
in the fields of folk psychologyandethnology,fieldshe exploredintensivelyduringhis
studiesat Gottingenand Berlin.Such interestswere quiteat variancewith the central
thematicconcernsanddisciplinary groundings of Weber.
Even in his monumental studyon ThePolishPeasantin EuropeandAmerica(1918-
1920), hailedin 1938 by the Social Science ResearchCouncilas the most important
sociologicalbookwrittenduringthetwentiethcentury,Weberdoesnotenter.Thisabsence
is surprising, in part,becauseThomas'scollaborator on thestudy,FlorianZnaniecki,was
an 6migr6scholarfamiliarwithcontemporary currentsin Germanscholarship.
The book
usedpersonaldocumentsto getatthelivedexperienceof Polishimmigrants andinso doing
Weberand Interpretive
Sociologyin America 155

providedan importantmethodologicalexamplefor interpretivesociology. While not

Blumer,thebookis, Norbert
withoutitsproblems,ratherharshlyassessedin 1938byHerbert
Wiley(1986,p. 34) convincinglyargues,

completely hermeneuticand interpretivein what it does, i.e., in its logic-in-use. Such

notions as the following arepresent,operatively,in the book: thatreality is constructed
interactivelyas well as individually,that a level of interactionintervenesbetween and
connects attitudesand values, thatinteractionproceeds within concentriccircles of life
worlds ..., and that selves "ground" the validity of attitudes much as societies
'"ground"the validity of values.

Thomasappearsto have developedhis approachto sociologicalinquiryeclectically,

thoughtheimprintof Americanpragmatism in general,andtheworkof DeweyandMead
inparticular (despite occasional disclaimers
byThomas),undoubtedly constituted themajor
philosophical grounding for his His
thought. approachprovided a basis for an interpretive
sociology in fundamentalways untouchedby Weberand by the particularities of the
Rickertain debateoverthedifferencesbetweenthehumanandthenaturalsciencesthatso
profoundlyengagedhim(Oakes1988).
GivenThomas'somniverousintellectualinterests,his neglectof Weberis perplexing,if
forno otherreasonthanthatWeber'sappliedsociologyon thesituationof workersin East
ElbianGermanyhadrelevancefor the studyof the Polishpeasant.However,even more
perplexingis thecaseof RobertPark.
Considerable attentionhasfocusedonParkinrecentyears(Matthews1977;Bulmer1984;
Lal 1987;Smith1988;Rauschenbush 1979).LikeThomas,he studiedin Germanyandhe
knewGerman.He was sufficientlyfluentto writea Germanthesis,MasseundPublikum.
During1899he attendedSimmel'slectures.Heremainedin Germanyfouryears,returning
to Harvardin 1903 (theseyearsessentiallycorrespondwiththosewhenWeber'smental
breakdown tookits heaviesttool).
Martindale (1960)arguesthatPark'sheartbelongedto Simmel.Whilethisis perhapsan
overstatement, it is thecase thatSimmeldidprovideParkwithhis only formaltrainingin
sociology. was, accordingto Levine (1985, p. 112), somethingof an "ambivalent
It
encounter"; nevertheless Parkfoundinit "abasicwaytothinkaboutsociety... byapplying
the notionof forms of interaction."For Park,the focus on interactionresolvedtwo
dilemmas.First,it providedanalternative to sociologicalreductionism, as actorswerenot
deemedmereeffectsof powerfulexternalsocialforces.Second,it did limitsociology
not
to an ideographic level. Sociologywascapableof beinga nomotheticscience.
Parkwas interestedchieflyin advancingsociologyas anempiricalscience,carryingon
Thomas'swar against"armchairsociology."To thatend he engageda generationof
graduatestudentsto studymyriadaspectsof contemporary urbanlife. In contrast,he cared
littleaboutdevelopinga coherentgeneraltheoretical system.Indeed,twostrandsof theory
permeatehis workin an uneasyrelationship: one is ecological,the otheris interpretive.
While spaceprecludesa detaileddiscussionof his interpretive sociology,one example
sufficesto illustrateSimmel'simpact.
In "Behind Our Marks" (1950), Park's analysis of race relations views race
156 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 31/No. 1/1990
QUARTERLY

phenomenologically andlinksinteractionat the individuallevel to racedynamicsat the

macro-level. Hecontendsthatsocietieswherethesignificanceof racialidentityis greatforce
personsto weartheirracelikea mask,makingit impossibleformembersof anotherraceto
seethepersonas anindividual. Underlying thisanalysisis Park'sappropriation of Simmel's
insightregardingtheimportance in humaninteraction of readingthe faceof theother.The
interpretive workof everydaylife entailsan ongoingassessmentandadjudication of the
motivesandintentionsof others,possibleonly whenthe faceof theotheris a transparent
text.Whenoccludedby a racialmask,suchunderstanding is impossible.Thus,in societies
so characterized, racerelationsat themicro-levelareproneto tensionandconflict.
Inherstudyof intellectualinfluenceson Park,Lengermann (1988,p. 364;cf. Platt1985)
reports that Simmel is the figure he cites most frequently, followed by Sumner,Thomas,
andSpencer.Whileonefindsinfrequent referencestoWeberinPark'slaterwritings,clearly
Weberdid not play a role in shapingPark'sconceptionof the sociologicalenterprise.
Simmel'sformalsociologyattractedParkbecauseit was seen as providinga basis for a
generalizable science.Simmelaccomplished thisby divorcingsociologyfromhistoryin a
mannerthatwasquiteat oddswithWeber'sproject,whichattemptedto providethebasis
fora genuinelyhistoricalsociology.Theconsequencewasa markedde-historicizing thrust
to Park'ssociologyin particular andto theChicagoSchoolin general.
WithHerbertBlumer,we see thedistillationof themajortheoreticalpreoccupations of
theChicagoSchoolandtherefinement andfurtherdevelopment of aninterpretive
sociology
whichin 1937he dubbed"symbolicinteractionism." Of interestherearethe antecedent
sociologistsmostimportant to Blumer.Inthisregard,Blumer(1969,p. 3) is helpfulinsofar
as he citesa numberof thinkersdeemedto be instrumental in shapinghisown sociological
perspective: Thomas,Park,Sumner,James,Baldwin,Dewey,Mead,Znaniecki,andCooley.
All are Americans,exceptfor Znaniecki.Thus,Blumerrepresentsa distinctivebrandof
interpretive sociologythatis notinformed,atleastdirectly,byEuropeanthinkers.Weberis
referredto only infrequently in Blumer'swritings(for thatmatter,this is the case with
Simmel,also).
ThatBlumerdid not explicitlyinvokeWebershouldnot be construedas an indication
thattheworkof thetwodidnotresonatein key respects(Hammersley1989,p. 40). In the
firstplace,botharguedthatthemethodsappropriate tothehumansciencesshouldbeapplied
witha sensitivityto thecontingencies of humanaction.Blumercontendedthattheconcepts
andtheoriesof thesocialsciencesshouldbe "sensitizing,"theirpurposebeingto cull out
andofferinterpretations of primaryorderinterpretations of socialreality.Thus,heopposed
attempts to construct grand theories that claim to be both universalandcontext-free.But
this is not to suggestthatsymbolicinteractionism is hostileto theoryand is primarily
concernedto describeinteraction at themicro-level.Indeed,as Lyman(1987,p. 6; see also
Lyman1984andFineunpublished) indicates,Blumeriansymbolicinteractionism is "nei-
ther anti-theoretical,purely ideographic,inherently subjective, nor confined to
microecologicalinvestigations.... " Blumer'sviewpointwas very similarto Weber's,
whichopposedeffortsto createan immutable theoreticsystem.Webersawidealtypes,for
instance,as transientandcontingent.Thisview resulted,accordingto Fitzhenry(1986,p.
148),in a "certainminimalism"andtentativeness in "hisformalconceptualstructure."
It is ironicthatthe similaritybetweenWeberianandBlumeriansociologyshouldbe so
Weberand Interpretive
Sociologyin America 157

longobscured.To explicatethis,at leastin part,we exploretheappropriation

of Weberby
Parsons.

ParsonianActionTheory
ThesameyearthatBlumercoinedtheterm"symbolicinteractionism," TalcottParsons
published his first majorwork, The Structureof Social Action (1937). Therein Parsons
employedthe thoughtof a varietyof Europeanscholars-but especiallythe writingsof
Marshall,Pareto,Durkeim,andWeber-to articulatea voluntaristic theoryof actionthat
wouldovercomethelimitationsof utilitarianism andyetfindroomforrationalactionwithin
the parametersof societaland culturalconstraints.He soughtto indicatean incipient
convergencein thethoughtof theseclassicfigures.Thathe discussedWeberlastsuggests
Weber'speculiarimportance to him.
Indeed,Parsonsexpresseda lifelonginterestin Weber,beginningin the 1920s,whenhe
publishedanessayon Weberandtheriseof capitalismandtranslated TheProtestantEthic
andtheSpiritof CapitalismintoEnglish,andextendingto someof his lastwritings,where
he soughtto reappraise his ownthought.
Of relevancehere is Parsons'suse of Weber'sverstehenmethod,which he saw as
providinga crucialbasisfor analysesof the individualsocialactor:its conceptof inten-
tionality,orvoluntarism, providedanalternative to thesociologicalreductionism of behav-
iorism.
ExtendeddebatehasensuedconcerningParson'sparticular interpretationof Weberian
verstehen.In part,the exegesisis impededby ambiguitiesin Weber.However,another
difficultyis thatParsonsdid not merelyseek to explicateWeber,but used him in the
construction of his own theoreticaledifice.Of importance hereis the centralityof value
consensusin Parsons'sthought,for thisis directlyat oddswithWeber,whoseportraitof
valueconflictis actuallysimilarto thatof Blumer.
Weber'semphasison rationalsocialactionwasreinforcedin Parsons,resulting,as Alan
Sica(1988)indicates,in a theoretical devaluationof theirrational.
Thisis rathersurprising
in Parsonsgiven the prominencehe accordedto Pareto,but it nonethelessresultsin
bracketingout of consideration a significantspectrumof socialaction.Some arguethat
Parsonsmisconstrued Weberfromthestart,perhapsduetofaultytranslations, andthusgave
verstehenan undue"psychologicaltwist" (Munch1975, p. 61; see also Graber1975).
Others,beginningwithScott(1963),contendthathowevertrueto WeberParsonsmayhave
beenin 1937,heprogressively abandoned hisactiontheoryinfavorof functionalism, a social
structuralapproach,or systems theory,all of which are much more congruentwith
Durkheimian thoughtthanwithWeberiantheory.
Recently, Jonathan Turner(1988,p. 73, pp. 134-135)hasarguedthatWeberandParsons
shareda commonproblem:theiractiontheorieslacked"a modelof interaction."Turner
notesthatParsons"appearsto havebeenunaware"of bothSchutz'searlyanalysisof this
problemandthe "relevantworkof GeorgeHerbertMead."Indicatingthe valueSimmel
shouldhavehadforParsons,TurnerrecallsParsons'sdecisiontoexcludeSimmelfromThe
Structure of SocialActionbecausehe "didnot'fit' intotheschemethathe wasproposing."
Fromourperspective, of interestinParsons'svariousresistances totheoreticalincorporation
is theissueof intellectual competition.Simplyput,Schutzrepresented a directchallengeto
158 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 31/No. 1/1990
QUARTERLY

Parsons'sanalysisof Weber,whileMeadandSimmelweretheoretically centralto leading

figurescoming out of theChicagoSchool.
The presentreappraisal of Parsons(Alexander1978;Bourricaud1981;Miinch1987)
reflectsthe "currentinterregnum" in contemporary socialtheory(Wiley1985).Parsonian
thoughtmayno longerbe hegemonic,butneitherhasit beenconsignedto thedustbinsof
intellectualhistory.Itremainsoneof manycompetitors in thesociologicalmarketplace.
WhenParsonswas themostimportant theoristin thesociologicaluniverse,he operated
with proselytizingzeal in an ecumenicalfashion.Ethnicallyand politicallymarginal
studentswerewelcomedintothefold.Competingtheorieswereadjudicated withpatrician
generosity.His strategywasto facilitatetheinclusionof individualsandideas;channelsof
communication werealwaysopen(thisis nottosuggestthatgenuinedialoguewaspermitted,
as will be seen below in the case of Schutz).Thus,an interestingexchangetookplace
betweenParsonsandBlumeras a resultof theclaimby Jonathan TurnerthatParsonsand
the symbolicinteractionists were in fundamental agreementconcerningtheirviews on
personality, social and
action, organization. Parsons's (1976)commentonTurnerexpressed
essentialagreementwiththisclaim.Incontrast,Blumer(1976)arguedthatthedifferences
wereconsiderable: whereassymbolicinteractionism studiedtheprocessesof interaction,
Parsonian functionalism wasonlyinterested in theproductsof interaction. Furthermore, the
formerwas inductive;thelatter,deductive.
ThisexampleclearlyindicatesParsons'sdesireto be inclusive.Others,likeCoser(1976,
p. 157),directlyassaultedsymbolicinteraction forits "intellectualLuddism."Parsons,in
contrast,patientlyattempted to indicatethatthevirtuesof interactionism couldbe seenin a
morepristinearticulation in hisownwritings.Itis important toremember thecontextof this
exchange.Parsonian thought,thoughunderattackfromseveralquarters, andespeciallyfrom
conflict-oriented sociologists,hadthreedecadesearliertriumphed oversymbolicinterac-
tionism.Blumerandhisdescendants hadbeenconsignedto theroleof theloyalopposition.
Theywerenotthelikelycandidates to usurpParsonsfromhis throne.Thus,notonlycould
Parsonsaffordto be generous,butsuchwasprobablya wise defensivemaneuver.
Priorto thisovertureto symbolicinteractionists (andthisis especiallyevidentin hisearly
publications)Americansociologistsdidnot factorintoParsons'sworkin any significant
way. In the questfor hegemony,it was essentialthatthe workof the ChicagoSchoolbe
devalued.It was alreadybeingchallengedby quantifierswho consideredits empiricism
insufficientlyrigorous.Ogburn,who hadmovedfromColumbiato Chicago,pressedto
replacethe ethnographic methodwithstatisticalanalyses.Parsons,by contrast,soughtto
replaceChicago'stheory,not its methodology.His tacticfor questioningthe adequacyof
its theoreticalorientation was to operateas if suchtheorydid notexist.No critiqueof the
Chicago School was ever offered,no explicitassessmentof its strengthsandweaknesses
presented.Hamilton(1983, p. 81) refersto this as "Parsons'sbenigndisregardof the
pragmaticandsymbolicinteractionist traditionsin Americansocialtheory."In outcome,
hiscourseof actionwasmoredamning:theelementsneededforhistheoryconstruction had
tobe imported, Americansociologypriortohisarrivalon thescene,to histhinking,existing
in a kindof theoretical void.

Schutzand PhenomenologicalSociology
Parsonsrespondedsimilarlyto AlfredSchutz.Schutzwantedto createan interpretive
Weberand Interpretive
Sociologyin America 159

sociologyexplicitlygroundedin theworkof WeberandHusserl.He wasdeeplyimmersed

in theintellectuallegacyof Weberand,whenhe arrivedin Americaas an 6migr6scholar,
soughtcontactwithAmericanscholarswho sharedhis interest.In particular, Schutzsaw
Parsonsasa "fellowWeberian whograspedhissociologyof understanding" (Wagner1983,
p. 75). Schutzinitiateda correspondence withParsons,whoin 1940invitedhimto present
a lectureat Harvard. This encounterprovedfrustrating for Schutz:fromhis perspective,
Parsonsshowedno interestin seekingto rectifyandclarifyvariousambiguitiesin Weber's
interpretive sociology.Moreover,whenSchutzofferedcollegiallyintendedcriticismsof
Parsons'sown work,he was met withsilence.Whiletheircommunication continuedfor
sometime(Grathoff1978),Schutzultimately concludedthatParsonswasunwillingto enter
intogenuinedialoguewithhim.Furthermore, whenParsonsturnedhisattentionto systems
theory in the 1950s,Schutz lost interestin the Parsonian project,forthis approachstruck
himas an abandonment of thecentralityof interpretation,whichhe sawas thehallmarkof
Weber'swork.
Parsons'scourtesytowardSchutzwhile simultaneously remainingimperviousto the
latter'scriticismscanbe understood in termsof theirrespectiveintellectuallocations.Atthe
timeoftheirencounter, Parsonsclearlyhad"arrived."Hehadestablished himselfasa major
forcein thedisciplineandwasalreadysurrounded by a coterieof graduatestudents.Hehad
also forgedrelationships withkey figuresat Harvardin othersocialsciences-part of his
planto constructanoverarching theoretical framework forthesocialsciences.Meanwhile,
Schutzwasa doublymarginalized intellectual:
notonlywashe locatedacademically outof
the mainstream, at thatbastionof iconoclasticthought,theNew School,buthis position
therewas part-time.He survivedfinanciallyby workingin a bank.Thesecircumstances
madeit impossibleforSchutztobe a significantchallengertoParsons.Thus,Parsonscould
respondto Schutzwitha kindof civil inattentiveness.
It is peculiarthatSchutzianphenomenology wasneverengagedin a seriousor sustained
dialogue with symbolic interactionism. Should thishavehappened, Weber'sthoughtwould
havemadecontactwiththatof theAmericanprogenitors of symbolicinteractionism. It is
notclearwhySchutzexhibitedso littleinterestin suchanexchange.Similarly,theconverse
lackof interestby symbolicinteractionists is perplexing,thoughFine(1988,p. 31) suggests
atleasta partialexplanation whenhearguesthatthe"interactionist perspectiveis at its core
socialandrelational,whereasthephenomenological approachemphasizesthe individual
construction of theworld,a worldof discreteandseparateactors.As a result,interactionists
feel uncomfortable with the writingsof Schutzwhose conceptof relationsare (sic) at-
tenuated."In consequence,untilthe 1960s,an Americanintellectualtradition,on theone
hand,anda European counterpart influencedby Weber,on theother,remainedremarkably
alooffromeachother.

CONCLUSION
Froma presentistperspective,whereWeber'sintellectualheritagelooms largeover the
sociologicalhorizon,it is at timesdifficultto appreciate
theslowandfitfulincorporation
of
WeberintoAmericansociology.Yet,as hasbeensuggestedabove,thereceptionof Weber
in generalcanaptlybe characterized by whatPaulHonigsheim(1968,p. 142)refersto as
"Americaneclecticism."This articlehas focusedon the variedreceptionof Weber's
160 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 31/No. 1/1990
QUARTERLY

interpretivesociology,andhassoughtto illustratenot only threedifferentresponses,but

especiallythose factorsthatmitigatedeffortsto appropriate Weberinto an established
Americantraditionof interpretivesociology. Simply put, Blumerand his immediate
predecessors andheirsoperatedwiththeimplicitassumption thattheydidnotneedWeber.
Parsons,by contrast,neededWeber;in part,we haveargued,he neededto importWeberto
indicatethe theoreticaldeficienciesof Americansociologyin generalandof the Chicago
School in particular.Schutz(like a numberof other6migr6scholars)complicatedthis
strugglefor intellectualhegemonyby offeringa distinctlyEuropeanreadingof Weber.In
so doing,he helpedestablisha morecosmopolitanAmericansociology.Buteven in this
present"interregnum" by a greateropennessto competing
in sociology,characterized
theoreticaltraditionsthanwas the case in the past,remarkably little has been done to
explicateand to the
comprehend significance of boththe and
similarities differencesbetween
Weber'sverstehende Soziologie andAmerican sociology.
interpretive

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlierversionof thisarticlewaspresentedat theMidwestSociologicalSocietyMeet-
ings, St. Louis, 1989. We would like to thankRobertAntonio,KennethColburn,Jr.,
HorstHelle,GiselaJ. Hinkle,MaryMoore,andRichardOwsleyfor theircommentsand
theiradvice.In addition,we are indebtedto threeanonymousreviewersfor theirmost
usefulsuggestionsandvariousfactualcorrections.

REFERENCES
Alexander,JeffreyC. 1978. "Formaland SubstantiveVoluntarismin the Work of Talcott Parsons."
AmericanSociological Review 4: 177-198.
. 1987. TwentyLectures: Sociological Theory Since World War II. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
Becker, Howard. 1933. "The Field and Problemsof HistoricalSociology." Pp. 18-34 in The Fields
and Methodsof Sociology, edited by L.L. Bernard.New York:Ray Long and RichardSmith.
------. 1934. "CulturalCase Study and Ideal-TypicalMethods." Social Forces 31: 224-245.
Becker, Howard,and HarryElmerBarnes. 1952. Social Thoughtfrom Lore to Science. Vol. 3. New
York:Dover Publications.
Bendix, Reinhard.1984. "What Max Weber Means to Me?" Pp. 13-24 in Max Weber's Political
Sociology, edited by RonaldGlassmanand VatroMurvar.Westport,CT: GreenwoodPress.
Besnard,Philippe.1986. "The Americanizationof Anomie atHarvard."Pp. 41-53 in Knowledgeand
Society, edited by HenrikaKuklickandElizabethLong. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Blumer, Herbert.1969. SymbolicInteractionism.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
. 1976. Commentson Turner's"Parsonsas a Symbolic Interactionist."Sociological Inquiry
44: 59-62.
Bourricaud,Francois.1981. TheSociology ofTalcott Parsons. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Bulmer, Martin.1984. The Chicago School ofSociology. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Cohen, Jere, LawrenceHazelrigg, and Whitney Pope. 1975. "De-ParsonizingWeber:A Critiqueof
Parsons'Interpretationof Weber's Sociology." AmericanSociological Review 40: 229-241.
Coser, Lewis. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought.New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
- . 1976. "Sociological Theory from the Chicago Dominance to 1965." Annual Review of
Sociology 2:145-160.
Weberand Interpretive
Sociologyin America 161

. 1988. A Handful of Thistles: Collected Papers in Moral Conviction. New Brunswick, NJ:
TransactionBooks.
Dibble,Vernon.1975.TheLegacyofAlbionSmall.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Fine,Gary.1988."Macrointeractionism:BeyondtheMacro-Micro Linkage."Paperpresentedatthe
annualmeetingof theMidwestSociologicalSociety,Chicago.
. Unpublished.
"SymbolicInteractionismin thePost-Blumerian
Age."
Fitzhenry,Roy. 1986. "Parsons,Schutz,andthe Problemof Verstehen."Pp. 143-178 in Talcott
ParsonsonEconomy andSociety,byRobertJ.HoltonandBryanS.Turner.London:Routledge
andKeganPaul.
Forsyth,P.T.1910."CalvinismandCapitalism." Contemporary Review97: 728-741;98: 74-87.
Gerth,Hans.1982."TheReceptionof MaxWeber'sWorkin AmericanSociology."Pp.208-217 in
Politics, Character,and Culture:Perspectivesfrom Hans Gerth,edited by JosephBensman et
al.Westport,
CT:Greenwood Press.
Giddens,Anthony.1976."Functionalism:
Aprisla Lutte."SocialResearch43: 325-366.
Gorman,RobertA. 1977.TheDualVision.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Gouldner,Alvin. 1970. The ComingCrisis of WesternSociology. New York:Avon.
Graber,Edith.1975. "Interpretive
Sociologyis Not Partof Psychology."SociologicalInquiry45:
67-70.
Grathoff,Richard,ed. 1978. The Theoryof Social Action: The CorrespondenceofAlfred Schutzand
TalcottParsons.Bloomington, IN:IndianaUniversityPress.
Hamilton,Peter.1983.TalcottParsons.London:Tavistock.
Hammesley, Martyn. 1989. The Dilemma of QualitativeMethod:Herbert Blumer and the Chicago
Tradition.
London:Routledge.
Hinkle, Roscoe. 1980. FoundingTheoryofAmericanSociology: 1881-1915. London:Routledgeand
KeganPaul.
Homans,George.1984.Comingto MySenses.New Brunswick,
NJ:Transaction
Books.
Paul.1968.OnMaxWeber.EastLansing,MI:MichiganStateUniversityPress.
Honigsheim,
Hughes, H. Stuart.1975. The Sea Change: The Migrationof Social Thought,1930-1965. New York:
Harper& Row.
Janowitz,Morris, ed. 1966. W.I. Thomas on Social Organizationand Social Personality. Chicago:
Universityof ChicagoPress.
Kisler, Dirk. 1988. Max Weber:An Introductionto HisLife and Work.Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Kivisto,Peter.1987."Sociologyas a Vocation:A Weberian
Analysisof theOriginsandSubsequent
Development of AmericanSociology." Journal
British of Sociology38: 112-120.
1987."BlackandBlueinChicago:RobertE.Park'sPerspective
Lal,BarbaraBallis. onRaceRelations
in UrbanAmerica, 1914-44." BritishJournal of Sociology 38: 546-563.
Lassman,Peter,andIrvingVelody.1989.MaxWeber's"Scienceas a Vocation."Winchester,
MA:
UnwinHyman.
Lengermann,PatriciaMadoo.1988. "RobertE. Parkand the TheoreticalContentof Chicago
Sociology: 1920-1940." Sociological Inquiry58: 361-377.
Levine,DonaldN. 1985.TheFlightfromAmbiguity.
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Liebersohn,Harry.1988. Fate and Utopia in GermanSociology, 1870-1923. Cambridge,MA: MIT
Press.
Ltwith,Karl.1932."MaxWeberundKarlMarx."Archivfr Sozialwissenschaft67:53-99, 175-214.
Lyman,StanfordM. 1972. TheBlackAmericaninSociological Thought.New York:CapricornBooks.
- . 1984."Interactionism
andtheStudyof RaceRelationsattheMacro-Sociological
Level:The
Contribution
of Herbert
Blumer."SymbolicInteractionism 7(1):107-120.
- . 1987."SymbolicInteractionism
andMacro-Sociology: A ReviewEssay."Unpublished.
162 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 31/No. 1/1990
QUARTERLY

Martindale,Don. 1960. TheNature and Typesof Sociological Theory.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Matthews, Fred. 1977. Questfor an AmericanSociology: RobertE. Park and the Chicago School.
Montreal:McGill-Queen'sUniversityPress.
Mommsen, Wolfgang. 1987. Interviewwith William H. Swatos, Jr.,September6.
. 1989. ThePolitical and Social Theoryof Max Weber.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Mullins, Nicholas. 1973. Theories and TheoryGroups in ContemporaryAmericanSociology. New
York: Harper& Row.
Munch, Peter. 1975. " 'Sense' and 'Intention' in Max Weber's Theory of Action." Sociological
Inquiry45: 59-65.
Mtinch, Richard.1987. TheoryofAction. London:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Oakes,Guy. 1988. Weberand Rickert:ConceptFormationin the CulturalSciences. Cambridge,MA:
MIT Press.
Page, Charles. 1982. Fifty Yearsin the Sociological Enterprise.Amherst,MA: Universityof Massa-
chusettsPress.
Park, Robert E. 1921. "Sociology and the Social Sciences." AmericanJournal of Sociology 26:
401-424.
---. 1950. Race and Culture.New York:The Free Press.
Parsons,Talcott. 1937. The Structureof Social Action. Vols. 1 and 2. New York:McGraw-Hill.
-. 1976. Commentson Turner's"Parsonsas a Symbolic Interactionist."Sociological Inquiry
44: 57-59.
- . 1980. "The Circumstancesof My Encounterwith Max Weber."
Pp. 31-43 in Sociological
Traditionsfrom Generationto Generation,edited by RobertK. Merton.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Platt,Jennifer.1985. "Weber's VerstehenandtheHistoryof QualitativeResearch:The Missing Link."
British Journal of Sociology 36: 448-466.
Pope, Whitney, Jere Cohen, and Lawrence Hazelrigg. 1975. "On the Divergence of Weber and
Durkheim:A Critiqueof Parsons' ConvergenceThesis." AmericanSociological Review 40:
417-427.
Rauschenbush,Winifred. 1979. RobertE. Park. Durham,NC: Duke UniversityPress.
Rochberg-Halton,Eugene. 1986. Meaning and Modernity.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Rutkoff, PeterM., and William B. Scott. 1986. New School: A History of the New School for Social
Research. New York:The Free Press.
Scott, John Finlay. 1963. "The ChangingFoundationsof the ParsonianAction Scheme." American
Sociological Review 28: 716-735.
Seidman, Steven. 1983. Liberalism and the Origins of European Social Theory. Berkeley, CA:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Sica, Alan. 1988. Weber,Irrationality,andSocialOrder.Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Smith, Dennis. 1988. The Chicago School: A Liberal Critiqueof Capitalism.New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Swatos, William H., Jr. 1984. Faith of the Fathers:Science, Religion, and Reformin the Development
of EarlyAmericanSociology. Bristol, IN: WyndhamHall.
Thomas,W.I. 1929. "The BehaviorPatternandthe Situation."Pp. 1-15 in Personalityand the Social
Group,edited by ErnestW. Burgess. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
- . 1951. Social Behavior and
Personality.New York:Social Science ResearchCouncil.
Thomas,W.I., andFlorianZnaniecki.1918-1920. ThePolish Peasant in EuropeandAmerica. 5 vols.
Boston: RichardG. Badger.
Tiryakian,Edward.1966. "A Problemfor the Sociology of Knowledge:The MutualUnawarenessof
Emile Durkheimand Max Weber." ArchivesEuropdennesde Sociologie 7: 330-336.
Turner,Jonathan.1988. A Theoryof Social Interaction.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.
Vidich, ArthurJ., andStanfordM. Lyman.1985.AmericanSociology: WorldlyRejectionsofReligion
and TheirDirections. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
 Sociologyin America
Weberand Interpretive 163

Wagner,Helmut R. 1983. AlfredSchutz:An IntellectualBiography.Chicago: Universityof Chicago

Press.
Weber,Marianne.1975. Max Weber:A Biography.Translatedandeditedby HarryZohn. New York:
Wiley.
Wiley, Norbert. 1985. "The CurrentInterregnumin American Sociology." Social Research 52:
179-207.
. 1986. "EarlyAmericanSociology andThePolish Peasant." Sociological Theory4: 20-40.
•-