Interpretivism

Origins

Interpretivism has its roots in the German intellectual traditions of HERMENEUTICS and PHENOMENOLOGY, in particular in the work of Max Weber (1864–1920) and Alfred Schütz (1899–1959). Like Dilthey before them, they sought to establish an objective science of the subjective with the aim of producing verifiable knowledge of the meanings that constitute the social world. Their attention focused on the nature of meaningful social action, its role in understanding patterns in social life, and how this meaning can be assessed.

Rather than trying to establish the actual meaning that a social actor gives to a particular social action, Weber and Schütz considered it necessary to work at a higher level of generality. Social regularities can be understood, perhaps explained, by constructing models of typical meanings used by typical social actors engaged in typical courses of action in typical situations. Such models constitute tentative HYPOTHESES to be tested. Only social action that is rational in character, that is consciously selected as a means to some goal, is regarded as being understandable.

According to Weber (1964, p. 96), subjective meanings may be of three kinds: They may refer to the actual, intended meanings used by a social actor; the average or approximate meanings used by a number of social actors; or the typical meanings attributed to a hypothetical social actor.

Drawing on Dilthey, Weber distinguished between three modes of understanding: two broad types—rational understanding, which produces a clear intellectual grasp of social action in its context of meaning, and empathetic or appreciative understanding, which involves grasping the emotional content of the action—and two versions of rational understanding, direct and motivational understanding. Direct understanding of a human expression or activity is like grasping the meaning of a sentence, a thought, or a mathematical formula. It is an immediate, unambiguous, matter-of-fact kind of understanding that occurs in everyday situations and that does not require knowledge of a wider context. Motivational understanding, on the other hand, is concerned with the choice of a means to achieve some goal.

Weber was primarily concerned with this motivational form of rational action. He regarded human action that lacks this rational character as being unin-telligible. The statistical patterns produced by quantitative data, such as the relationship between educational attainment and occupational status, are not understandable on their own. Not only must the relevant actions that link the two components of the relationship be specified, but the meaning that is attached to these actions must also be identified.

...