On This Page:ToggleTypes of VerstehenVerstehen in Sociological ResearchVerstehen and Antipositivist SociologyVerstehen in ActionCriticisms
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
In other words, verstehen posits that, in order to truly understand individuals or groups, sociologists must “walk a mile in their shoes.” The term originates from the German word for “understanding.”
Max Weber(1936) used this term to refer to the attempts of social scientists to understand both the intent and context of human action.
Max Weber argued that a sense of empathetic understanding, or “Verstehen,” is crucial to understand human action and social change.
As such, it has been characterized as an “interpretive” or qualitative method of inquiry.
Key Takeaways
Types of Verstehen
Weber (1947) distinguished between two types of Verstehen: the verstehen that resulted from direct observation, and that sociologists can apply when trying to understand the motives that give rise to a particular action.
He called these Aktuelles and erklärendes verstehen, respectively. Someone who observes someone’s emotional state from their body language or facial expression would be employing aktuelles verstehen, while someone using erklärendes, or empathetic understanding would examine why someone is doing an action in the first place.
Aktuelles Verstehen
Aktuelles Verstehen, or “contemporary understanding,” is a variation of the verstehen approach that specifically looks at understanding the explicit actions that people are carrying out.
For example, a sociologist could observe someone’s actions – such as building a house or cooking dinner – as well as their emotional state while doing so, based on body language and facial expression (Ray, 2007).
Erklärendes Verstehen
Nonetheless, Weber did not consider aktuelles verstehen alone to be sufficient in explaining verstehen.
Eklarendes Verstehen, or “explanatory understanding,” is a variation of the verstehen approach that specifically looks at trying to understand the meaning of an act in terms of the motives that have given rise to it.
This could involve understanding historical events, trends, or any other phenomenon that happened in the past. For instance, consider a person who is destroying a house.
Max Weber and Georg Simmel introduced Verstehen as a systematic process in sociology.
There are a number of different ways in which the verstehen approach can be used in sociological research.
One way is through participant observation, where the researcher actually takes part in the lives of the people they are studying. This could involve living in the same community, working the same job, or taking part in the same activities as those being studied.
Another way to use verstehen is through interviews, where the researcher asks questions about people”s experiences and feelings in order to better understand their actions and motivations.
This mode of qualitative data can be combined with traditional quantitative data approaches to create an approach that combines the perspectives of insiders and outsiders in a society (Ray, 2007).
Verstehen and Antipositivist Sociology
Verstehen is widely seen as a rejection ofpositivist sociology, which relies on empirical data and statistical analysis to understand social phenomena.
Many sociologists who subscribe to the Verstehen approach have critiqued positivist sociology for its failure to take into account the complexities of human behavior.
They argue that the positivist approach is reductionist, and that it fails to capture the richness of human experience.
Additionally, proponents of verstehen argue that the approach is more ethical, as it allows researchers to gain a deep understanding of the people they are studying, rather than treating them as anonymous data points.
Positivist 19th-century anthropologists tended to believe that the lack of scientific progress and material wealth in non-European cultures pointed to their primitivity and inferiority.
In this view, the positivist 19th-century observers of non-western civilizations saw long-held cultural traditions as superstition. Anti Positive researchers, meanwhile, took a more sympathetic approach to these cultures, understanding social behaviors in context, rather than comparisons to their own societies (Lewis & Serva, 2022).
Also in contrast to the positive sociologists, anti-positivists used qualitative data, like survey results and statistics.
Although they did not contend that qualitative data could completely replace empirical evidence, they felt that these methods could provide valuable insights into social behavior, and help remove culture. biases that they project onto their own research (Walker, 2011).
One early instance of Weber using Verstehen is in his work,The Protestant Ethic. In the Protestant Ethic, Weber aimed to understand how Protestantism had led to the emergence ofWestern capitalismin 15th and 16th-century Europe.
Weber also studied verstehen from the perspective of how societies can encourage certain types of action. He defined four types ofsocial actions:
Traditional social actionrefers to the actions of individuals within a society that are based on long-standing norms and customs. In other words, traditional social action is based on the idea that people will act in certain ways because that is what they have always done.
One example of traditional social action is the way in which people dress. In many societies, there are specific norms and customs regarding how men and women should dress. These norms and customs are passed down from generation to generation, and as such, they often become quite deeply ingrained in the way people think and behave.
In particular, Weber was interested in the theory that modern societies encouraged “instrumental action.” He believed that people in modern societies are obsessed with efficiency, rather than evaluating whether actions are inherently worthwhile or right – a value-rational action.
This theory of social action both derives from and is encouraging of the verstehen approach, as it attempts to deconstruct why people are motivated to carry out certain behaviors.
Criticisms
It is never possible to truly put yourself into the shoes of another person, therefore we cannot really know or understand their motives.
The verstehen approach has been critiqued for a number of reasons. Some argue that it is impossible to completely understand another person”s mental state, and that the approach therefore relies on too much speculation.
For instance, Bakhtin and MacCannell (1986) counter that it is arrogant and conceited to attempt to interpret the significance of one”s culture”s symbols and customs through the terms of another culture, especially when that culture sees themselves as superior.
Others argue that the approach is subjective, and that different researchers will interpret the same data in different ways. Additionally, some have argued that the verstehen approach actually reinforces stereotypes, as it relies on generalizations about groups.
That is to say, an individual may be completely unaware of how their actions and experience tie-in to the greater beliefs and movements of society.
The critics of erklärendes verstehen argue that some level of interpretive understanding is necessary in evaluating behavior on a broader level (Ray, 2007).
References
Dilthey, W. (1977).Descriptive psychology and historical understanding. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
Ekström, M. (1992). Causal explanation of social action: the contribution of Max Weber and of critical realism to a generative view of causal explanation in social science.Acta Sociologica, 35(2), 107-122.
Harrington, A. (2000). In defence of verstehen and erklaren: Wilhelm Dilthey’s ideas concerning a descriptive and analytical psychology.Theory and Psychology, 10(4):435-452.
Herva, S. (1988). The genesis of Max Weber’s verstehende soziologie.Acta Sociologica, 31(2):143-157.
Lewis, M., & Serva, C. (2022).Interpretive Sociology and Verstehen.
Martin, M. (2000).Verstehen: The uses of understanding in social science.Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
MacCannell, D. (1986).From the Sociology of Symbols to the Sociology of Signs: Toward a Dialectical Sociology.
Oakes, G. (1977). The verstehen thesis and the foundation of Max Weber’s methodology.History and Theory, 16(3):11-30.
Outhwaite, W. (1976).Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. Holmes and Meier, Teaneck, NJ.
Parsons T. (1937,1968]).The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.
Parsons T. (1978).Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: The Free Press.
Ray, L. (2007). Verstehen. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Walker, K. (2011). Weber: Antipositivism & Verstehen.EARLY THEORISTS & THE SCIENCE OF SOCIETY, 123.
Tucker, W. (1965). Max Weber’s Verstehen.Sociological Quarterly, 6(2):157- 166.
Weber, M. (1930).The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner”s Sons(reprint 1958).
Weber, M. (1936).Social actions.
Weber, M. (1947).The theory of social and economic organization. The Free Press, New York, NY.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard UniversityCharlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
