Abstract
The aim of this paper is an analysis of the different standpoints of Parsons and Schutz concerning Weber’s suggestion that sociological explanations have to include the subjective point of view of the actors, the Cartesian Dilemma that the actor’s consciousness is not accessible to the researcher, and the Kantian Problem that theories are necessary in order to interpret sensory data, but that there is no guarantee that these theories are true. The comparison of Schutz’s and Parsons’s positions shows that Parsons’s methodology is na?ve and unsuitable for a sociological analysis. But although Schutz’s methodological standpoint is much more reasonable, it is also problematic, because it excludes highly abstract social “facts” such as social systems from the research agenda. Parsons can deal with such highly abstract facts, despite the drawback that with his methodology the truth content of theories cannot be judged.
Highlights
Christian EtzrodtReceived November 19th, 2012; revised December 20th, 2012; accepted December 31st, 2012
Around 1938, the editor of the British journal Economica, Friedrich August von Hayek, invited one of his former students, Alfred Schutz, to write a review of Talcott Parsons’s The Structure of Social Action (1937)
It is nearly impossible to experience these facts at this level of abstractness. Examples of such “facts” are the “cultural system” or “god.” As a result of the impossibility of experiencing these “facts” directly, it is impossible to verify or to falsify hypotheses about these “facts.” But if you cannot prove the existence of a “fact,” it becomes a question of belief in the “fact.”
Summary
Received November 19th, 2012; revised December 20th, 2012; accepted December 31st, 2012. The aim of this paper is an analysis of the different standpoints of Parsons and Schutz concerning Weber’s suggestion that sociological explanations have to include the subjective point of view of the actors, the Cartesian Dilemma that the actor’s consciousness is not accessible to the researcher, and the Kantian Problem that theories are necessary in order to interpret sensory data, but that there is no guarantee that these theories are true. The comparison of Schutz’s and Parsons’s positions shows that Parsons’s methodology is naïve and unsuitable for a sociological analysis. Schutz’s methodological standpoint is much more reasonable, it is problematic, because it excludes highly abstract social “facts” such as social systems from the research agenda. Parsons can deal with such highly abstract facts, despite the drawback that with his methodology the truth content of theories cannot be judged
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
