Iranian Journal of Sociology

Abstract The main aim of this paper is formulating a theoretical framework, by getting help from Weber’s approach, to apply it while studying the comparative historical sociology of Iranian society. In the first part of the paper, it is attempted to have a selective review of the theoretical perspective of Max Weber.  In this review, in addition to concentrate on the epistemology of modernity and rationality as the main concepts of Weber’s sociology, we considered some important subjects such as the typology of social actions, the interpretative understanding of social facts and the valuable advice of Weberian ideal types. We think that the interpretative understanding of weber’s approach would help us to extend and deepen our understanding of Iranian comparative historical sociology. To obtain satisfactory methodological and theoretical achievements, we studied Weber’s works critically, examined some works on Iran’s social history, and reviewed our long experience of teaching historical sociology. Therefore this paper has attempted to concentrate on the distinguished Weber’s doctrine of ideal types. For us, this doctrine is still a suitable research guideline to prepare an interpretative analysis in historical sociology on the present Iranian society.
 

Abstract Max Weber and Karl Popper have both written about the logic and methodology of the social sciences. A number of Western scholars have compared the views of these two thinkers on issues related to the methodology of the social sciences. The aim of the present paper is to present a critical comparative analysis of the efficacy of the two models for the methodology of the social sciences by Weber and Popper. There is evidence that suggests that Popper was aware of Weber’s views on the social sciences and its methodological characteristics. It would, therefore, not be farfetched to surmise that Popper has developed his own methodological model for the social sciences in light of what he had perceived to be the shortcomings of Weber’s model. The main argument of the present paper is that Popper’s methodological model for the social sciences provides a much more effective theoretical tool for social sciences researchers than that of Weber’s.
 
 
 

Abstract This short article has attempted to show how the most important term in Weber’s methodology, ideal types had been interpreted incorrectly by the expositors of his ideas. As a result, his ideal type has been limited to only two types: sociological ideal type and historical ideal type. And contrary to what Weber has said Methodology of Social Sciences, these two types are often given a subjective interpretation by the expositors.
 
 

Abstract Max Weber is one of the most important founders of historical sociology. Not only, he emphasized the historical study of social problems, but also he seriously pursued a comparative approach. He developed his work with a focus on capitalism and an emphasis on the process of rationalization. The main point here is that weber sought to reconcile the interpretation with explanation, and specificity with general issues. For him, objectivity in the social sciences was important. In this article, we did three jobs. First, we discussed his efforts to describe, explain, and generalize a phenomenon in historical sociology by examining his methodological works. Second, we examined the main difference between Weber’s point of view and the oriental discourse. Finally, we argued that in order to avoid reducing the Western modernity to construction, one should use Weber’s ideal type - contrary to the theory of discourse.   
 

Abstract Max Weber attempted to link the German idealist tradition to the positivist approach. His methodology examines human behavior in an interpretative manner. For Weber, the behavior is a purely mechanical bodily movement to the individual and has special meaning to him. Only when the individual's behavior is meaningful, rational, and interpretive is its action. The purpose of this article was to examine Weber's methodology and extract its important characteristics to better understand and analyze social problems. To do this, we used a documentary method. The following characteristics of his methodology emerged from our analysis: social and natural phenomena differ in their methods, believing that phenomena are multi-dimensional, focusing on probability and the relationship between micro and macro levels, paying attention to the importance of qualitative and quantitative methods, creating ideal types, examining the factors and consequences of social problems, and using an interdisciplinary approach.
 

Abstract Could we talk about Shariati's reading of Max Weber? Many believe that Shariati was not a sociologist. His work is considered to have had a negative impact on the development of sociological imagination in Iran. Shariati's approach to Weber can be examined in two ways: one is to what extent has Shariati been influenced by Weber and could he be considered as a Weberian sociologist? The second way of dealing with Shariati and his relation to Max Weber could be that Shariati had a "Shariatiesque reading of Weber that was inconsistent with Eurocentric readings? Is Shariati's understanding of Weber consistent with the text or is Shariati's Weber a Shariatiesque construct? Questions like these that deal with hermeneutics need to be analyzed in depth.