Definitions

Abstract

Abstract Waging a crusade against conceptual ambiguities is not an essential part of a social science based on Weberian principles. However, such a social science must not forswear formal considerations, because setting one’s conceptual house in order might be inevitable in certain circumstances. The necessitating occasion may be a cur­ rent of conceptual confusions or methodological controversies that threaten to interfere with the process of empirical investigation. For this reason Weber himself decided to write on the methodology of social and historical sciences. The subject of this book can espe­ cially benefit from formal delimitations and redefinitions because its central concepts have been subject to both scientific disputes and ideological feuds. Besides, an overhaul and reconstruction of the basic concepts of sociology of intellectuals is indispensable for one of the main purposes of this book: to further stimulate empirical research in the area of Weberian sociology of intellectuals. Of course, methodological considerations are not meant to supplant or guide empirical research. Ideal types, as we have already empha­ sized in the first chapter of this book, are simply “precision instru­ ments. “ They are modest tools; so modest indeed that they do not even require to be inspected for their truth or falsehood but rather for the degree of their usefulness. The set of interrelated ideal types offered here (Table 4.1-4.3) is meant to be of pragmatic use for the practitioners of a Weberian sociology of intellectuals.