Abstract
Peter Winch’s critical remarks concerning Max Weber’s interpretive sociology are centered around the notions of “rule” and “rule-following.” While Winch gave credit to Weber for much of his theoretical insight, he nevertheless found his account unsatisfactory for two reasons: its neglect of rules and rule-following in social life, and its apparent reliance on causal explanations. This article attempts to show how Winch might have been less than charitable on both of these accounts: that once one pays close attention to Weber’s concept of a “rule,” and to his ideas concerning “adequate causation,” the two frameworks for interpretive sociology could turn out to be much more similar than it is usually assumed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have