Prefatory note

When the "Archiv" first appeared half a generation ago, it had an extraordinary appeal, particularly to the younger of us. That this sentiment was in fact shared in broad circles is demonstrated by the success met with by the "Archiv", which - though it was edited by an "outsider" and joined the ranks of older and successful journals in our field - was, within a short period of time, nonetheless able to gain a respected scholarly position and to exercise what must be called a remarkable influence on practical sociopolitical pursuits. How did this come to be? If we were to attempt to answer this question by referring to the editorial talent of the journal's founder, we would still not be in possession of a satisfactory explanation. For beyond doubt as this talent was, it could only express itself in defining the particular quality of the "Archiv". And we are confronted with a different question: What was the nature of this particular quality?

In order to do justice to it, it will above all have to be recognized that, in a certain respect, the "Archiv" created - or at least intended to create - a new type of periodical sociological literature. The "Archiv" was founded as a "special journal": The "specialty" it was intended to cultivate was the "labor question" in the broadest sense.

Now, the "labor question" had previously been cultivated by a number of journals in Germany and abroad, but the step that the "Archiv" took beyond its predecessors was that it placed the problems subsumed under the term of "the labor question" in a universal context, that it grasped the "labor question" in its cultural significance, as the outwardly most distinctly discernible expression of a much broader phenomenal complex: the foundation-toppling process of restructuring that our economic life and with it our cultural existence has experienced due to the advance of capitalism. The task of the new journal was to place the services of science at the disposal of the practical problems resulting from this world-historical fact. This, however, essentially defined the particular quality of the "Archiv".

The new journal became a "special journal" not in terms of its subject matter (like, say, the "Finanzarchiv"), but in terms of its point of view. The field of activity that resulted for it was the treatment of all phenomena of economic and overall social life under the viewpoint of the revolutionary change being wrought by capitalism, and in this connection it was of course the impact of the ongoing reorganization processes on the situation of the working classes and the repercussions emanating from them or from legislation which, above all, were destined to find consideration here.

If the new journal took on the ambiguous and often-abused term "social" in its coat of arms, it was quite correct in doing so in view of the characteristic task it had set itself, provided the word "social" is used in the stringently defined sense which alone contains a guaranty of unequivocalness and precision. In this sense, the word also means less the delimitation of a specific circle of phenomena than the point of view under which the phenomena of economic as well as the remainder of social life is perceived: That is, the alignment of the entirety of individual economic phenomena in terms of a specific economic system, i.e. their perception under the viewpoint of historical conditionality; that is, the uncovering of the causal relations between economic development and all other social phenomena: both consciously restricted to the present, that is to say, to the historical epoch marked by the advance of capitalism.

The characteristic task set for itself by the "Archiv" automatically involved other particular qualities. Obviously, the journal, if it was to fulfill its task, had, without consideration for national barriers, to confront capitalism wherever it was found. For that reason, all nations showing capitalist development were included in its scope of observation from the very onset. This systematic extension to the broadest geographical area possible gave the "Archiv" an "international" character more strongly marked than that of other such journals. Its objective international character grew, for practical reasons, into a personal internationality. From its very first issues, it drew its contributors from the whole of the cultural world, indeed in part, with conspicuous preference, from abroad.

Since, however, the scientific character of the journal was emphasized from the start (it may be that the person of the founder was also of considerable influence here), the contributors came from the onset not only from all over the world but from the camps of all parties as well. The "Archiv" was not only international, it was also the first truly "interfactional" journal of our discipline. -

Aside from the purely scientific recognition of facts, the tasks of the "Archiv" included, from its very inception, the critical pursuit of the development of legislation as one of its principal fields of activity. But value judgments unavoidably played into this practical-critical work; beside social science, social policy was also carried on, at least in terms of the result, and this gives rise to the question: Did the "Archiv", in view of this "practical" criticism, also have a specific "tendency", i.e. did the authoritative contributors represent a specific "sociopolitical" point of view? were they, apart from their common scientific interests, united by a certain measure of concurrent ideals or indeed at least fundamental points of view from which practical maxims could be derived?

This was in fact the case, and in a certain sense the success of the journal rested precisely on this uniform character. Namely, for the reason that this practical "tendency" was, in its decisive points, nothing other than the result of certain insights into the historical sociopolitical situation that had to be reckoned with. It was, in other words, based on common theoretical views on the actual presuppositions from which, in the face of the irrevocably given historical situation, any attempt to perform practical sociopolitical work had to proceed. In other words, it rested on convictions entirely independent of personal wishes. These insights, from which the journal's "tendency" resulted, related chiefly to the following points:

1. that capitalism was a result of a historical development which could no longer be made undone and must thus be accepted as such and back beyond which, to the patriarchal foundations of ancient society, there was no return;

2. that therefore the ancient forms of the social orders, which had corresponded to those patriarchal foundations, are forced, whether we like it or not, to make way for new ones able to adapt to the altered conditions of economic life. This led in particular to the insight that the integration of the proletariat, once it had been created as a class by capitalism and had attained consciousness of its specific historical character, into the cultural community of modern states as a new independent element had become an imperative problem confronting all government policy;

3. that social restructuring, to the extent that it aimed at assuming the form of legislative intervention, could only be the outcome of a step-by-step, "organic" transformation of historically transmitted conditions and institutions, in which process the assistance of scientific knowledge of the historically given situation could not be dispensed with.

These fundamental views are also common to the new editors of the "Archiv". If this is expressly stated here, it of course does not at all mean that these views stand above or beyond criticism in the columns of our journal. It simply means that we are accompanied by those insights in the practical criticism expressed in the journal alongside the scientific work it contains and that in this we are at one with the previous contributors to the "Archiv". To the extent that social policy is at all practiced in the "Archiv", this will, in the future as well, be "Realpolitik" within the framework of the state of affairs unalterably given.

The new editors are, however, of the opinion that the situation today, as opposed to the manner in which the "Archiv" attempted to do justice to its task in the first years of its existence, requires an alteration in two regards and intend to take this altered situation into account in giving shape to the journal.

To begin with, the area covered by the "Archiv" must be expanded in general, which has until now been undertaken only tentatively and from case to case. Today, our journal will have to regard the historical and theoretical knowledge of the general cultural significance of capitalist development as the scientific problem to the service of which it is dedicated. And precisely because the journal itself will proceed and must proceed from a clearly defined point of view: that of the economic conditionality of cultural phenomena, it will not be able to avoid remaining in close contact with the neighboring disciplines of general political science, legal philosophy, social ethics, with investigations in social psychology and the research areas normally subsumed under the heading of sociology. Specifically, we shall follow the scientific movement in these fields at length in our systematic literature reviews. We shall have to devote particular attention to those problems which are usually designated as socio-anthropological, i.e. the questions as to the repercussions of economic conditions on the shaping of ethnic selection on the one hand and as to the influence exerted by hereditary physical and psychic qualities on the economic struggle for existence and on economic institutions on the other hand. We also wish to make our contribution to surmounting, in the future, the dilettantish character by which the treatment of these borderline questions between biology and social science has until now been marked.

The second alteration concerns a shift in the form of treatment.

When the "Archiv" was founded, the most important task the editor had in mind for it to fulfill was collecting material. And this was without doubt based on a for that time entirely correct thought: the creation of an organ which collected both scattered social-statistical data and the rapidly accumulating social laws and published them in a clearly organized form. For science and practice, that was at that time the primary and most urgent need, for such an instrument of collection had been lacking until then. But our times are moving on rapidly. Since the foundation of the "Archiv" in 1888, nearly a dozen journals have been created whose exclusive function is precisely to collect such material. Above all, the governments of nearly all civilized nations have created official organs to publish social-statistical data: England the "Labour Gazette" (since 1893), France the "Bulletin de l'office du Travail" (since 1894), Belgium the "Revue du Travail" (since 1896), Austria the "Soziale Rundschau" (since 1900), Germany the "Reichsarbeitsblatt" (since 1903). Aside from these, most countries possess private collections: Germany the "Soziale Praxis" (since 1892), the "Arbeitsmarkt" (since 1897); France the "Questions pratiques de legislation ouvrière" (since 1900), etc. And the "Bulletin" of the "Internationale Vereinigung für gesetzlichen Arbeiterschutz" (since 1902), the "Annuaire de la legislation du Travail" (published by l'Office du Travail de Belgique, since 1897) and others more have provided for the nearly complete publication of legislative material.

This has meant a complete change of the situation. On the one hand, the need no longer exists to place a scientific journal like the "Archiv" in the service of the pure collection of material accomplished so well by those amply funded and efficiently operating publications. We shall - which, incidentally, has already been accomplished in an increasing measure - limit the publication of social-statistical reports and in many cases be able to curtail the literal reproduction of legal texts, which have until now been accorded broad space, in favor of exhaustive critical reports on the sense and meaning of laws and, in particular, of proposed legislation. On the other hand, a new and important task has developed: through scientific synthesis to, as it were, endow with life the practically limitless material being accumulated in the organs named above. The hunger for social facts, which still inspired the best scholars half a generation ago, has, with the renaissance of philosophic interest in general, also been followed by a hunger for social theories, and one of the main future tasks of the "Archiv" will be to endeavor to satisfy this hunger. We shall have to apply ourselves much more vigorously both to a discussion of social problems in philosophical terms and to the form of research in our field referred to in the narrower sense as "theory": the formulation of distinct concepts. For as far removed as we are from the opinion that the task at hand is to force the wealth of historical life into formulae, the more decidedly we are convinced that only distinct and unambiguous concepts can prepare the ground for research aiming at exploring the specific significance of socio-cultural phenomena.

But today no organ that did not provide fundamental clarity on the relationship between theoretical concepts and reality by means of epistemological-methodological discussions would be able to cultivate social theory in a manner in line with the demands of stringent work of a scientific nature. We shall therefore constantly pursue the scientific work of epistemology and methodology. And by opening the New Series of the "Archiv" with an article by one of the editors, who discusses these problems at length, we wish, for our part, to state our intention to participate in these fundamental discussions in the long term as well.

The editors

Translated by Paul Knowlton

Fuldastrasse 45

D-1000 Berlin 44 (FRG)

The future assessment of capitalism as a or the (?) foundation stone of Weber's writings?

Eike Durin

Free University of Berlin

The future assessment of capitalism as a or the (?) foundation stone of Weber's writings?

Abstract

In the "Geleitwort" (prefatory note), which has not been re-published since it appeared in 1904 when the "Archiv für Soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik" was taken over by its three new editors, the editors, who included Max Weber, set forth the "policy" they intended to pursue in and with the "Archiv". Of significance are their statements on the development of capitalism and the tasks that fall to "science" in this context of revolutionary change. The article attempts to demonstrate that a close connection exists between the assessment of the future chances of capitalism and Weber's works as a whole. This connection is exemplified for the segments of his works for which it might least be expected, his essays on the theory of science.

The future assessment of capitalism as a or the (?) foundation stone of Weber's writings?^R

In 1904, Werner Sombart, Max Weber and Edgar Jaffé took over the "Archiv für Soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik" in its 19th year of publication, changed its name to "Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik" and wrote a joint prefatory note on it. As far as I know, this prefatory note has not been reprinted since then. According to information provided to the author on November 15, 1989, by the publisher Georg Siebeck (Verlag J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tübingen), the text (presented here in English translation) will be reprinted (in German) only in several years time within the context of the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe (MWG I/7) currently in the process of being published.

Since the text is at least available in German, a translation of it into English has a number of objectives: Beside the Japanese language, in which a major part, if not the main part, of the discussion on Max Weber is being conducted, English is the language which is at the same time internationally most widely in use and in which, for instance in comparison with German-language publications, the greatest number of misinterpretations and faulty interpretations of Max Weber have been formulated.¹ There are certainly several reasons for this, of which only one is the fact that many of Weber's texts are difficult to impossible to procure, even in German, to say nothing of English. The translation and comments presented here have, among other things, the aim of here providing a contribution to diminishing the grounds for misinterpretation.

In my opinion, the the substance of the text to be commented on here possesses a key position in two respects:

- It rests on assessments of the future whose topicality has not waned, but continues to grow.²

- It forms - and this is the thesis represented here - the central and pivotal point for the better part of Max Weber's writings.

For the editors, Sombart, Weber and Jaffé, the axiomatic point is the continuing expansion of capitalism.³ And in this connection Max Weber's preoccupation with this subject can be traced back as far as his first publications. At first, capitalist development played, thematically, only a subordinate role. In the studies on agricultural and industrial workers, the impacts of and interactions with capitalist development have already assumed a central role. The studies on the sociology of religion then turn nearly exclusively on the reasons for the emergence of modern capitalism, on the question as to why here and not there, and on future chances for capitalism to expand. It cannot be ruled out that Weber took over from Marx⁴ the assumption that modern capitalism would expand on a worldwide scale. As opposed to Marx, however, Weber was a nationalist and imperialist⁵ and against any and all revolution, at least in Germany. In this connection Weber did not merely reject revolution on personal grounds and for the concrete situation of his times, but also objected in general terms to any deterministic or law-like interpretation of history, e.g. of the type that sees historical stages proceeding from primitive society via slaveholder, feudal and capitalist societies to a socialist or communist social order through revolution.

It can, on the other hand, not be ruled out that here Max Weber, as a person who consciously desired to live his life as a member of the bourgeoisie, was, with his assumption on the inevitability of capitalist development, himself also promoting, as a member of a class or status group, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But here is not the place to delve into these and other questions which reach deep into Max Weber's personality and would be in need of lengthy discussion.

My intention here is to establish connections with the significant portions of his writings, where they are apt to be most vehemently disputed by most Weber commentators: connections with his writings on the theory of science.

Here, a brief reference to the editorial activity first of his wife Marianne and later of Johannes Winckelmann will prove inevitable. Both Marianne Weber and Johannes Winckelmann as well as Talcott Parsons for the English-speaking world provided for the dissemination of Weber's texts, without which Weber might still slumber unread and unedited in the stacks of libraries - just as other interesting authors of his day do. All three, however, in part falsified Weber's writings, or at least distorted them and encouraged misinterpretations.⁶

In our case, the editorship of Marianne Weber and Johannes Winckelmann is of significance to the extent that writings like "Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft" (1922) and "Soziologische Grundbegriffe" (1921) were included in the "Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre", whereas the "Geleitwort" presented here was not. The first two studies have, according to Weber's own criteria, nothing to do with the subject matter of the volume mentioned;⁷ they are, however, in keeping with the interest of the editors, more suited to imputing a "timeless" character to Weber's works, to stamping him as an "immortal" classic.

It may therefore not be a matter of chance that the "Geleitwort" presented here in translation was not included in the volume. The "Geleitwort" is topical, contains future-oriented assessments, albeit of an epochal nature, and is thus of course nevertheless in danger of becoming - in Max Weber's words (1919, p. 14) - "obsolete". But, in Max Weber's sense, the statements on capitalist development made in the "Geleitwort" are of a more long-term nature than those contained in "Soziologische Grundbegriffe", a study written by him as a textbook, which has, over the decades, been built up into a myth (Schluchter 1989).

Now to the "Geleitwort" itself: Not all of the statements made here in reference to the development of the journal, the emergence of new journals and the changes the editors regard as necessary in consequence of these considerations are of interest in this connection. Significant, however, are all of the views set out here that establish relationships between the assessment of economic development, the self-defined task of the cultural and/or social sciences and the continuing methodological discussion regarded as necessary in this context. The following positions can be distilled from Weber's many-sided argumentation; the positions are to begin with conceived as tasks for the "Archiv", but they can also be found in other key passages of Weber's own scholarly writings. This point will, in part, be re-addressed below.

1. The position proceeds from a point of view, from a value-oriented point of view.

2. This point of view is, at least in part, the result of the insight into an unalterably given historical situation.

3. Scientific work places

a) knowledge of the given historical situation in the service of a gradual reorganization of society to the extent that it aims at taking on the form of legislative intervention, and generally extends its service

b) to the problem of the historical and theoretical knowledge of the general cultural significance of capitalist development.

What, for Weber and his co-editors, can no longer be made undone, what is "unalterably" given, what is "entirely independent of personal wishes", is the development of (modern) capitalism. And the objective is - if social policy is to be pursued at all - to pursue realpolitik on the groundwork provided by this unalterably given state of affairs. For our purposes, it is of little significance that the role of the proletariat as a newly created class and the support offered it by "science" is focussed on here. Looking further into this decision would here lead too far into Weber's empirical studies on the question of the agricultural and industrial workers, which, for their part, were investigated by Weber in terms of the view-points of "inevitable" capitalist development in connection with national and imperialist motives. One must bear the following in mind as an unshakable axiom: Capitalist development is inevitable, not to be made undone, and the "Archiv", at least, is intended to place its efforts in the service of perceiving and recognizing this development. The following statement made by Weber may serve here as an indication that he can neverthless by no means be seen as a representative or an advocate of capitalist development: "(the) economic order ... (which) ... today shapes with overwhelming force the life-style of all individuals born into this machinery - not only of those directly engaged in economic employment - and which, perhaps, will continue to shape it until the last hundredweight of fossil fuel has ceased to glow." (1905, p. 108).

This quotation is simply cited as one of many possible instances refuting the not infrequently expressed view that Weber was a proponent and supporter of capitalist development.

In the same volume of the "Archiv", within the framework of the "objectivity essay" (1904, p. 35), Weber again speaks of capitalist development and the necessity of affirming it as a precondition for being able to support the working masses both in material and in intellectual terms.

But these statements again occur in connection with taking over the editorship of the "Archiv". In other words, it might be objected that we are confronted here only with segments of the editors' publishing policy for the "Archiv". For this reason we will be unable to avoid referring, with undue brevity, to the fusion of the notion of modern capitalist development with the concept of rationalization.

Weber was only too familiar with the ambiguity of the concept "rational", himself used the term in various meanings and pointed out - as always in such connections - that using it depended on the point of view involved. What was rational from one point of view, he stated, must be judged as irrational from another (1920, p. 35, note 1). But worldwide and throughout the past centuries, above all in the West, rationalization processes have been observed - even if these processes did not proceed simultaneously in the individual areas concerned - which in their result, the economic sphere, culminate in the "most fateful power of our life, capitalism" (1920, p. 4), with the repercussion intimated above for the lives of all.

Irrespective of how the question as to the relationship of the "process of rationalization" and the "process of disenchantment" to modern capitalism in Weber's writings is answered: Modern capitalism is in any case the economic form which can - seen from the view-point of profitability, i.e. the "rational" utilization of capital - be associated with a maximum of formal rationality. And both, modern capitalism and the (general) process of rationalization, have instrumentally rational thinking in common, including with reference to man, who is an element of "calculation" and thus an object of utilization. And precisely on this point the "objectivity essay" states (1905, p. 25): "Any thoughtful reflection on the last elements of meaningful human activity is first of all bound to the categories of 'ends' and 'means'". Weber employs what he so fears in the social sphere, in historical development, the development of a "cage of bondage", be it within the scope of continuing bureaucratization or, e.g., rational appraisal and utilization of the worker in modern capitalism, as a basic element in the framework of his methodological pronouncements. Be it said in passing: He likewise employs the same categories as a matter of course within the framework of the studies on agricultural and industrial workers briefly mentioned above, against the background of the world market and his own nationalist persuasions. And this ends-means relation can also be found again as the basic element in his essay entitled "Über einige Kategorien der verstehenden Soziologie", which appeared in 1913. He sees instrumentally rational behavior as the measure of "Verstehen"; for him, the maximum degree of evidence is possessed by "instrumentally rational interpretation" (1913, p. 254). Even if Weber here, as in the case of the "objectivity essay", makes numerous qualifications, describes divergent cases and exceptions in order to avoid doing violence to the diversity of reality or to qualify it by means of a theoretical approach, the ends-means relation and the instrumentally rational interpretation are and remain the crucial and pivotal issue of his methodological pronouncements, including the concept of "Verstehen".

This, however, is not a chance correspondence. According to Weber, science is not possible without evaluation, it would be as good as senseless (1904, pp. 54-55); evaluation provides the point of view from which science is pursued and at the same time defines the choice of the problems with which "science" deals.⁹ For its part, the "object" of scientific treatment determines the "methods" and "means", including the conceptual apparatus in terms of usefulness and success with regard to the question and problem from which an explanation of a phenomenon was sought. That is to say, if Weber assumes capitalist development as an inevitable fate of the future, this development must of needs also determine the methodological instruments of the sciences dealing with it. The circle is closed.

The discussion on the consequences of linking modern capitalism, rationalization and "science" may begin or begin anew.⁸⁰ That at least Max Weber was aware of the "relativity" and the transience of any and every approach, including his own, as a component of the "cultural sciences" may be substantiated with the aid of the last paragraph of the "objectivity essay" (1904, p. 87). That a sketchy analysis of the relationships of his writings to his fundamental assumptions on the future of capitalism, like the one provided here for one direction - that of his methodological essays - is in Weber's sense, is substantiated by his many and various statements in his first essay on Roscher (1903, p. 3, note 1; p.23, note 2; p. 33, note 2; p. 41). In this essay Weber several times points to the manner in which Roscher's theoretical positions are also conditioned by his fundamental - in this case religious, but religious in a sense specific to Roscher - views and notes that knowledge and analysis of them represent, for their part, a precondition for analyzing his "method".

Literature

Baumgarten, Eduard. 1964. Max Weber. Werk und Person. Dokumente ausgewählt und kommentiert von Eduard Baumgarten. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Hennis, Wilhelm. 1987. Max Webers Fragestellung. Studien zur Biographie des Werkes. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck. Translation (1989): Max Weber, Essays in Reconstruction, trans. by Keith Tribe. London: Allen and Unwin.

Käsler, Dirk. 1979. Einführung in das Studium Max Webers. Munich: Verlag Ch. Beck. Translation (1988): Max Weber. An Introduction to his Life and Work, trans. by Philippa Hurd. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Käsler, Dirk. 1989. "Der retuschierte Klassiker. Zum gegenwärtigen Forschungsstand der Biographie Max Webers". In: Weiß (1989, pp. 29-54.).

Kivisto, Peter, William H. Swatos jr. 1988. Max Weber. A Bio-Biography. New York/Westport/London: Greenwood Press.

Murvar, Vatro. 1983. Max Weber Today - An Introduction to a Living Legacy: A Selected Bibliography. Max Weber Colloquia and Symposia at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Brookfield, WI.

Popper, Karl, R. 1971. Das Elend des Historizismus. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Translated from: K.R.P. 1960. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Schluchter, Wolfgang. 1989. "`Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft` - das Ende eines Mythos". In: Weiß (1989, pp. 55-89).

Sombart, Werner, Max Weber, Edgar Jaffé. 1904. "Geleitwort". Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik 19: I-VII.

Tenbruck, Friedrich H. 1989. "Abschied von der `Wissenschaftslehre`?". In: Weiß (1989, pp. 90-115).

Weber, Max. 1903. "Roscher und Knies und die logischen Probleme der historischen Nationalökonomie". Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich (ed. G. Schmoller) 27: 1181-1221.

Weber, Max. 1904. "Die `Objektivität` sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialer Erkenntnis". Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik 19: 22-87.

Weber, Max. 1905. "Die protestantische Ethik und der `Geist' des Kapitalismus. II. Die Berufsidee des asketischen Protestantismus". Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 21: 1-110.

Weber, Max. 1913. "Über einige Kategorien der verstehenden Soziologie". Logos 4: 253-294.

Weber, Max. 1917. "Der Sinn der `Wertfreiheit` der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften". Logos VII: 40-88.

Weber, Max. 1919. Wissenschaft als Beruf. Munich/Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.

Weber, Max. 1920. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, I. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Weber, Max. 1921. Soziologische Grundbegriffe. Grundriß der Sozialökonomik, Abteilung III, Part I, Chapter I, §§1-7. Tübingen.

Weber, Max. 1922. "Die drei Typen der legitimen Herrschaft. Eine soziologische Studie". Preußische Jahrbücher 187: 1-12.

Weiß, Johannes (ed.). 1989. Max Weber heute. Erträge und Probleme der Forschung. Frankfurt/Main: Surkamp.