What Can We Learn from History?: Competing Approaches to Historical Methodology and the Weberian Alternative of Reflexive Understanding

Abstract

The historical turn in political science has yielded numerous innovations in historical methods, but little in terms of systematic engagement with historical methodologies, understood as the logics of inquiry underlying historical analysis. The lack of engagement with historical methodologies has led to a narrowing of the space for historical inquiry, as scholars are often presented with a binary choice between realist and poststructuralist approaches, with the question of objectivity serving as the intractable divide. To the extent that scholars have carved out a middle ground, it has rested on contextualist approaches, though these too have been vulnerable to the critique of objectivity. In this article, I articulate the principles of a fourth position, rooted in the methodology of Max Weber and the idea of reflexive verstehen (understanding), a mode of investigation which seeks an empathetic understanding of historical subjectivities while foregrounding the researcher’s subjective orientation to the inquiry. The Weberian alternative, I argue, navigates a unique path around the gauntlet of scientific objectivity. It offers the possibility of historical understanding that is rooted in subjective understanding, but by virtue of submitting to a process of evaluation and incorporating an element of reflexivity can claim the status of scientific knowledge. It also enables an “event” driven approach to historical inquiry that expands where we can look for historical knowledge. In doing so it both improves the quality of historical understanding and increases its scope.