Book contents
- Max Weber and International Relations
- Max Weber and International Relations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Max Weber and International Relations
- 3 Weber’s Search for Knowledge
- 4 The Production of Facts: Ideal-Typification and the Preservation of Politics
- 5 Max Weber’s Power
- 6 International Organizations and Bureaucratic Modernity
- 7 Decolonizing Weber: The Eurocentrism of Weber’s IR and Historical Sociology
- 8 Weber’s Tragic Legacy
- Index
- References
4 - The Production of Facts: Ideal-Typification and the Preservation of Politics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- Max Weber and International Relations
- Max Weber and International Relations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Max Weber and International Relations
- 3 Weber’s Search for Knowledge
- 4 The Production of Facts: Ideal-Typification and the Preservation of Politics
- 5 Max Weber’s Power
- 6 International Organizations and Bureaucratic Modernity
- 7 Decolonizing Weber: The Eurocentrism of Weber’s IR and Historical Sociology
- 8 Weber’s Tragic Legacy
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Max Weber and International Relations , pp. 79 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Abbott, Andrew. “Transcending General Linear Reality.” Sociological Theory 6, Fall (1988): 169–86.Google Scholar
Aronovitch, Hilliard. “Interpreting Weber’s Ideal-Types.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42, no. 3 (September 1, 2012): 356–69. doi:10.1177/0048393111408779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Yemima. “Explanation and Description: Wittgenstein on Convention.” Synthese 115, no. 1 (April 1, 1998): 99–130. doi:10.1023/A:1005016201213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derman, Joshua. Max Weber in Politics and Social Thought: From Charisma to Canonization. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Drysdale, John. “Weber on Objectivity: Advocate or Critic?” In Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered, edited by McFalls, Laurence H., 31–57. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Duvall, Raymond. “Ideal Types.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, edited by Jones, R. J. Barry, 703–04. London: Routledge, 2001.Google Scholar
Easton, David. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process. Translated by Jephcott, Edmund. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, 2000.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court, 2000.Google Scholar
Goddard, Stacie E. and Nexon, Daniel H.. “Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 11, no. 1 (2005): 9–61.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. “The Paradox of Social Science: Weber, Winch, and Wittgenstein.” In Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered, edited by McFalls, Laurence H., 58–88. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. London: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Critical Humanism: Theory, Methodology, and Battlestar Galactica.” In Battlestar Galactica and International Relations, edited by Kiersey, Nicholas J. and Neumann, Iver B., 18–36. Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Making Sense of Making Sense: Configurational Analysis and the Double Hermeneutic.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peri, 264–80. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2006.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Rationalizing Realpolitik: U.S. International Relations as a Liberal Field.” In Professors and Their Politics, edited by Gross, Neil and Simmons, Solon, 267–90. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Klimova, Sveta. “Weber’s Interpretive Project and the Practical Failure of Meaningful Action.” European Journal of Social Theory 15, no. 2 (May 1, 2012): 261–78. doi:10.1177/1368431011423599.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. “Reply to My Critics.” Qualitative and Multi-method Research 12, no. 2 (2014): 16–19.Google Scholar
McAdam, Douglas, Tarrow, Sidney, and Tilly, Charles. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M. “The Death of the Object: Fin de Siècle Philosophy of Physics.” In Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences, 1870–1930, edited by Ross, Dorothy, 128–51. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy, ed. “Modernist Social Science in the Land of the New/Old.” In Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences, 1870–1930, 171–89. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Brian C. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. “Morgenthau in Context: German Backwardness, German Intellectuals and the Rise and Fall of a Liberal Project.” European Journal of International Relations 13, no. 3 (September 1, 2007): 299–327. doi:10.1177/1354066107080124.Google Scholar
Shotter, John. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Shotter, John “‘Now I Can Go On’: Wittgenstein and Our Embodied Embeddedness in the ‘Hurly-Burly’ of Life.” Human Studies 19, no. 4 (1996): 385–407.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, George, ed. The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. “International Communities, Secure or Otherwise.” In Security Communities, edited by Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael, 397–412. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John A. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Wæver, Ole. “Waltz’s Theory of Theory.” International Relations 23, no. 2 (2009): 201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. “Die ‘Objektivität’ Sozialwissenschaftlicher Und Sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis.” In Gesammelte Aufsätze Zur Wissenschaftslehre, edited by Flitner, Elizabeth, 146–214. Potsdam: Internet-Ausgabe, www.uni-potsdam.de/u/paed/Flitner/Flitner/Weber/, 1999.Google Scholar
Weber, Max “Kritische Studien Auf Dem Gebiet Der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik.” In Gesammelte Aufsätze Zur Wissenschaftslehre, edited by Flitner, Elizabeth, 215–90. Potsdam: Internet-Ausgabe, www.uni-potsdam.de/u/paed/Flitner/Flitner/Weber/, 1999.Google Scholar
Weber, Max The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Kalberg, S.. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, 2002.Google Scholar
Weber, Max Wissenschaft Als Beruf • Politik Als Beruf. Edited by Mommsen, W. J. and Schluchter, W.. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. “The Law and the Facts: Presidential Address, Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.” The American Political Science Review 5, no. 1 (February 1911): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6
- Cited by