Type Methodology and Type Myth: Some Antecedents of Max Weber's Approach*

Abstract

The methodological proposals of Windelband, Knies, Schmoller, Menger, Simmel, Dilthey and Rickert are surveyed and compared. Two difficulties in the writings are identified: the strict division which is urged (or accepted) between science and history, and the tendency to treat societies as “social wholes,” which have an autonomous existence and are self‐developing.