Profile

HOW DOES ONE STUDY

SOCIAL SCIENCE?
Joseph A. Scbumpeter
I n t r o d u c t o r y Note: The a./finities between
S c h u m p e t e r a n d M a x Weber are e v i d e n t in this
lecture, p a r t s o f w h i c h p r e s e n t the a r g u m e n t s
o f Weber's f a m o u s esscO, "'Objectivity' in Social
Science a n d Social Policl," ( 1 9 0 ~ ) D1 a m o r e accessible f o r m . B u t t h a t onl), begins to suggest its
interest. W r i t t e n a l m o s t a c e n t u r y ago f o r an
a u d i e n c e o f non-professionals, this essay still
provides an acute and remarkably contempor a r y i n t r o d u c t i o n to s t u d e n t s b e g i n n i n g to emb a r k on a conrse o f social scientific stad), In
editing it, I h a v e r e t a i n e d Schttmpeter's b r o a d e r
reflections, e l i m i n a t i n g his d a t e d r e c o m m e n d a tions f o r p a r t i c u l a r b o o k s to c o n s u l t on z,aribUS social -scientific disciplines.
First delivered as a lecture in 191 O, lhe esscO,
w a s p u b l i s h e d u n d e r the title Wie studiert man
Sozialwissenschaft? (Czernou,itz, 1910), then in
an e x p a n d e d second edition (Leipz(g, 1915). attd
was reprinted in Joseph A. S c h t t m p e t e r Aufsiitze
zur 6konomischen Theorie eel. E. Schneider a n d S.
Spietboff (Tiibingen, 1952). It is here t r a n s l a t e d
into English f o r the f i r s t time. Jerry Z. Muller
W ~ s e q u e s t i o n "Which d i r e c t i o n for the social
ciences?" is asked w i t h great f r e q u e n c y and
urgency. W h y is that? After all, o n e d o e s n ' t h e a r
physicists asking h o w to study p h y s i c s . T h e i r p a t h
is clear, leading t h r o u g h a w e l l - w r o u g h t c o u r s e
of studies. That p a t h has b e e n c a r v e d by centuries of e x p e r i e n c e , and a n y o n e can e m b a r k on it
w i t h relatively little individual variation. Why are
things different in the d o m a i n of social science?
In p a r t b e c a u s e the social s c i e n c e s are relatively
y o u n g and have n o t s e c u r e d an e s t a b l i s h e d p l a c e
in the e d u c a t i o n a l system. But also b e c a u s e the
i m m e d i a t e , p r a c t i c a l interest of social s c i e n c e att r a c t s so m a n y u n t r a i n e d n e w c o m e r s , so t h a t
w h a t e v e r b e g i n n i n g s of an e s t a b l i s h e d o r d e r have
b e e n m a d e are w a s h e d away. Social s c i e n c e is

young. For a l t h o u g h p e o p l e have t h o u g h t a b o u t

social m a t t e r s since time i m m e m o r i a l , the d o m a i n
of the social s c i e n c e s has b e c o m e a m a t t e r of scientific investigation largely in the last c e n t u r y and
a half [i.e. since the m i d - e i g h t e e n t h century]. Even
today, the c o u r s e of studies in the social s c i e n c e s
has n o n e of the systematic and finished quality
of the natural sciences.
So the question, "How d o e s one study social
science?" is quite justified. But if o n e asks it, o n e
must be p r e p a r e d to follow the answers one might
get. That means giving up the p o p u l a r idea that
o n e can e m b a r k u p o n social scientific m a t t e r s
w i t h o u t having a c q u i r e d any previous k n o w l e d g e ,
w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g o n e s e l f w i t h tools, w h i c h dem a n d serious work. Most p e o p l e d o n ' t bother, and
the result is that a g o o d deal of social scientific
literature has no scientific c h a r a c t e r w h a t s o e v e r ,
and the e n s u i n g general d i l e t t a n t i s m leads to mistrust and d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t . It's u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that
a y o u n g s c i e n c e lacks the e s t a b l i s h e d s y s t e m of
c o n c e p t s , division of labor, and generally acknowle d g e d m e t h o d s that the o l d e r s c i e n c e s have dev e l o p e d over the c e n t u r i e s . But the situation is
m a d e w o r s e by the p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t s that the
social s c i e n c e s arouse, the c r o w n of t h o r n s of
p o p u l a r i t y that they u n d o u b t e d l y wear. They deal,
after all, w i t h us, w i t h ourselves, w i t h our fate,
w i t h h o p e s and fears that t o u c h e v e r y o n e and
i n t e r e s t e v e r y b o d y , and so n o w h e r e are laurels
m o r e c h e a p l y b e s t o w e d . That is p r o b a b l y inevitable and will i m p r o v e o v e r time.
One must be clear then, that one c a n n o t app r o a c h t h e p r o b l e m s o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e une q u i p p e d , and that the a n s w e r s p r o v i d e d by politicians or l a y m e n to social scientific q u e s t i o n s
s h o u l d be a c c o r d e d no g r e a t e r significance than
the m e d i c a l advice of old w i v e s ' tales. It is easy to
b e c o m e c o n v i n c e d of the difficulties of provid-

HOW DOES ONE STUDY SOCIAL SCIENCE?

57

ing a n s w e r s to p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n s ; a n s w e r s w h i c h
o n e c a n really stick to, w h i c h d o n o t lead i m m e d i ately to c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d are n o t s u b j e c t to embarrassingly obvious objections; answers, that is, that
are n o t s t a m p e d b y n a r r o w p r e j u d i c e s o r that d o
n o t vanish w h e n o n e actually seeks to a p p l y them;
a n s w e r s that d o n o t fade away as quickly as the passing m o o d s o r o b s e r v a t i o n s that led us to c o m e u p
w i t h t h e m in t h e first p l a c e . T o p r o v i d e an off-thec u f f a n s w e r to a q u e s t i o n - - s u c h as t h e advisability
of p r o t e c t i v e t a r i f f s - - o n the basis o f unanalyzed facts
is as difficult as attacking a w e l l - e q u i p p e d foe una r m e d , o r as q u a r r y i n g w i t h o u t tools.
Social s c i e n c e is t h e s t u d y o f social p r o c e s s e s :
t h e s c i e n c e o f w h a t h o l d s s t a t e a n d s o c i e t y tog e t h e r , o f w h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e c o n d u c t a n d fate
o f i n d i v i d u a l s a n d s o c i a l classes, in s h o r t , t h e science of man's social existence and development.
To b c a b l e to d i r e c t l y c o n v e y this s o c i a l p r o c e s s
in all o f its m u l t i p l i c i t y w o u l d fulfill o u r g r e a t e s t
a m b i t i o n , if o n l y c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e c o u r s e o f
h u m a n h i s t o r y w o u l d p r o v i d e us w i t h a d i r e c t
e x p l a n a t i o n o f it. But just as n a t u r a l s c i e n c e cann o t s i m p l y p r o v i d e us w i t h a s i n g l e p i c t u r e o f o u r
n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a n d c a n n o t d i r e c t l y l e a d to
t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s u c h a p i c t u r e , so o n e c a n n o t
a i m at s u c h a u n i f i e d r e s u l t in s o c i a l s c i e n c e .
P r o g r e s s in n a t u r a l s c i e n c e c a m e a b o u t o n c e w e
h a d l e a r n e d to t a k e a p a r t a n d a n a l y z e t h e multip l i c i t y o f p h e n o m e n a , t h a t is to say, a f t e r t h e specialization of the natural sciences.The same holds
t r u e for s o c i a l s c i e n c e .
T h e first d i s c o v e r y t h a t o n e m a k e s w h e n o n e
a p p r o a c h e s s o c i a l s c i e n c e is t h a t t h e r e a l m o f social s c i e n c e t o o is d i v i d e d u p i n t o m a n y p a r t i a l
r e a l m s , w i t h m e t h o d s a n d c o n t e n t s t h a t are fund a m e n t a l l y d i s t i n c t f r o m o n e a n o t h e r . T h e r e is, in
p r i n c i p a l , n o s o c i a l s c i e n c e - - o n l y i n d i v i d u a l social s c i e n c e s . A n d t h e s e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s in n o w a y
f o r m a u n i f i e d s t r u c t u r e o r an o r g a n i c w h o l e . T h e y
e a c h a r o s e in r e s p o n s e to s o m e p a r t i c u l a r n e e d ,
a n d t h e y are in n o w a y c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h o n e another. T h e s u m o f all s c h o l a r s h i p d o e s n o t f o r m
an o r g a n i c w h o l e . I n d i v i d u a l d i s c i p l i n e s o f t e n
arise out of contingent questions, they develop
through the influence of the students of some
significant man, and are held together sometimes
by a unity of method, sometimes by a similarity
of content.The same happens with the individual
social sciences. They did not arise through the
logical division of some originally unified realm
o f k n o w l e d g e ; t h e y a r o s e b y c h a n c e so to s p e a k ,
from some particular problem or method which

58

SOCIETY 9 MARCH/APRIL 2003

gave rise to an e v e r g r e a t e r q u a n t i t y o f r e s e a r c h ,
a n d f i n a l l y c a m e t o g e t h e r in a w a y w h i c h d e m a n d e d a s p e c i a l i z e d staff.
T h e o l d e s t a n d m o s t fully d e v e l o p e d social scie n c e is p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y . T i m e a n d again, h o w ever, p a r t i c u l a r s u b d i v i s i o n s o f p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y
g r e w so m u c h t h a t t h e y a c q u i r e d r e l a t i v e self-sufficiency; for example monetary theory, or the
t h e o r y o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l trade. In a d d i t i o n , t h e n u m b e r o f s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c s t u d i e s i n c r e a s e d o f matters which could not be explained by their economic aspects
and which
are relatively
independent of economics. That came to be
t e r m e d "sociology," d e f i n e d as t h e t h e o r y o f t h e
m u t u a l i n t e r - a c t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s a n d bet w e e n g r o u p s o f i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n t h e l a r g e r society. H e r e too, s p e c i a l a r e a s h a v e d e v e l o p e d , for
example the sociology of religion, the sociology
o f l a w ( w h i c h is q u i t e d i s t i n c t f r o m j u r i s p r u d e n c e ) , g r o u p p s y c h o l o g y , a n d so on. As s o o n as
s u c h a s u b - d i s c i p l i n e b e c o m e s i n d e p e n d e n t , it
d e v e l o p s n e w w a y s o f l o o k i n g at things, n e w sets
of problems, a new system of concepts. A new
g e n e r a t i o n o f s c h o l a r s is t r a i n e d w h o h a v e s p e c i a l i z e d in t h e s u b - d i s c i p l i n e a n d a r e m o r e o r less
d i s t a n t f r o m o t h e r s u b - d i s c i p l i n e s . But it is p r e c i s e l y s u c h p e o p l e w h o a d d t h e m o s t to t h e dev e l o p m e n t o f t h e s u b - d i s c i p l i n e .The b e s t a c h i e v e ments, those that are really reliable and worth
t a k i n g m o s t seriously, a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t easily acc e s s i b l e to b e g i n n e r s , w h i l e easily a c c e s s i b l e general surveys will only rarely p r o v e equally satisfact o r y in e v e r y c h a p t e r . W h e n r e a d i n g an o v e r v i e w o f
s o m e discipline, o n e can generally tell w h i c h areas
t h e a u t h o r has w o r k e d in h i m s e l f a n d w h i c h not,
w h e r e h e is a m a s t e r and w h e r e a student.This situa t i o n m a k e s it difficult to p r o v i d e a g e n e r a l l y accessible introduction to a social science, and
m a k e s it i m p o s s i b l e to f i n d an e a s y o n e .
W h e n p e o p l e ask, " H o w d o e s o n e s t u d y s o c i a l
s c i e n c e ? " t h e y o f t e n m e a n , " H o w c a n I find an e a s y
w a y to u n d e r s t a n d t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s ? H o w d o I
s t u d y s o c i a l s c i e n c e quickly? H o w c a n I r a p i d l y
become conversant with their most important
findings? H o w c a n I q u i c k l y b e c o m e c a p a b l e o f
j o i n i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n ? " . . . N o w it is c e r t a i n l y p o s sible to a c q u i r e an o v e r v i e w o f s o m e a r e a o f social s c i e n c e q u i t e painlessly, just as it is p o s s i b l e
in t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . But w h e r e a s o n e s i m p l y
accepts the findings of the natural sciences, one
s h o u l d n e v e r f o r g e t t h a t just r e a d i n g s o m e overv i e w is n o t e n o u g h to b e an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t in
social matters.

My p u r p o s e h e r e is n o t to p r o v i d e s u c h an int r o d u c t i o n to the findings o f t h e social s c i e n c e s ,

b u t r a t h e r an i n t r o d u c t i o n to h o w t h e y s h o u l d b e
studied. In p r i n c i p l e it is q u i t e e a s y to d e f i n e t h e
p r o c e d u r e o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , a n d h o w to arrive at s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e . T h e s o c i a l scie n c e s d o t h e s a m e as t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . T h e y
c o l l e c t f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l a n d t h e n a t t e m p t to disc o v e r r e g u l a r i t i e s , t h a t is, to o r d e r a n d a n a l y z e t h e
m a t e r i a l data.
T h a t d a t a falls i n t o s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s . T h e first
is t h e s u m o f daily e x p e r i e n c e s a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s
t h a t m o r e o r less e v e r y o n e has at his d i s p o s a l . W e
r a r e l y g a t h e r t h e s e c o n s c i o u s l y , life g a t h e r s t h e m
for us. In p a r t t h e y are i n h e r i t e d , in t h a t t h e y are
c o m p r i s e d o f i n h e r i t e d t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s b y virt u e o f w h i c h e v e r y o n e k n o w s , for e x a m p l e , t h a t
"to e c o n o m i z e " m e a n s "to satisfy o n e ' s n e e d s w i t h
t h e s m a l l e s t o u t l a y o f energy." But i n s o f a r as s u c h
k n o w l e d g e is n o t s i m p l y p a r t o f b e i n g b o r n hum a n , it s l o w l y i n c r e a s e s t h r o u g h o u r e x p e r i e n c e
o f life.That is o n e r e a s o n w h y a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f
l i f e - e x p e r i e n c e is r e q u i r e d to b e a really s u c c e s s ful s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t , a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t d o e s n ' t
a p p l y to t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s . To b e sure, t h e basic social facts, s u c h as t h e fact o f s o c i a l b e l o n g ing, are o f t e n so e l e m e n t a r y t h a t o n e c a n u n d e r stand them and their significance without much
a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . But t h a t is n o t a l w a y s t h e
case. To t a k e o n e e x a m p l e : at least s i n c e Karl Marx,
o n e f i n d s it r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t e d , e v e n in s c h o l a r l y
w o r k s , t h a t free c o m p e t i t i o n c r e a t e s " u n r e a l i t y "
in c o m m e r c i a l life, w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t c o m m o d i ties o f p o o r q u a l i t y are p r o d u c e d . C o u n t l e s s facts
c o n f i r m this claim, c o u n t l e s s o t h e r s c o n t r a d i c t it.
H o w v a l i d it is c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e b e e s t a b l i s h e d
b y a r g u m e n t - - f o r t h a t o n e n e e d s life e x p e r i e n c e
and analytic perspective.
In a d d i t i o n to life e x p e r i e n c e , t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s
o f d a t a are history, e t h n o l o g y , a n d s t a t i s t i c s . T h e s e
are sciences of their own with their own trained
p e r s o n n e l . T h e i r m e t h o d s are s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f i c u l t
to r e q u i r e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . A n d n o n e o f t h e s e scie n c e s i n v o l v e m e r e l y g a t h e r i n g facts, t h e y also
shape the material through their forms of present a t i o n , a n d e a c h o f t h e s e d i s c i p l i n e s is i t s e l f in
s e a r c h o f r e g u l a r i t i e s a n d c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n s . In
so d o i n g , h i s t o r i a n s , e t h n o l o g i s t s , a n d s t a t i s t i c i a n s
step into the realm of social science.
W h e n o u r m a t e r i a l has b e e n g a t h e r e d for us
by others, one might imagine that the methods
o f t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e s are o f n o f u r t h e r i n t e r e s t to
us. T h a t is q u i t e w r o n g . In fact, a c e r t a i n u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g o f t h e s e m e t h o d s is n e c e s s a r y for indep e n d e n t w o r k , i n d e e d e v e n for t h o r o u g h study.

T h e r e are t h r e e r e a s o n s for this. First a n d a b o v e
all b e c a u s e t h e h i s t o r i a n , t h e e t h n o l o g i s t a n d t h e
s t a t i s t i c i a n d o n o t p r o v i d e us w i t h all t h a t w e
n e e d , a n d for t h e m o s t p a r t t h e y d o n o t p r o v i d e
t h e d a t a in t h e f o r m t h a t w e n e e d i t . T h a t is w h y a
g o o d d e a l o f t h e w o r k o f e c o n o m i c a n d social hist o r y has h a d to b e d o n e b y e c o n o m i s t s ; t h a t is
w h y s o c i o l o g i s t s h a v e to u n d e r t a k e r e s e a r c h t r i p s
o f t h e i r o w n ; a n d t h a t is w h y e c o n o m i s t s a n d soc i o l o g i s t s o f t e n h a v e to o b t a i n s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a for
t h e m s e l v e s . T h e y a l m o s t a l w a y s h a v e to r e - a r r a n g e
t h e m a t e r i a l p r o v i d e d b y history, e t h n o l o g y a n d
statistics, a n d c o m b i n e it o r c o m p a r e it w i t h o t h e r
m a t e r i a l s . T h a t ' s e s p e c i a l l y so w h e n it c o m e s to
statistics.The statistical bureaus of governments
and organizations that publish their data often
d o n ' t k n o w w h a t is s i g n i f i c a n t , a n d so w e h a v e to
distill o u t o f t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n s t h e facts t h a t are
o f i n t e r e s t for u s . T h a t m e a n s t h a t a p r o p e r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f w h a t h i s t o r i a n s , e t h n o l o g i s t s , a n d statisticians h a v e to tell us r e q u i r e s t h a t w e have s o m e
k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m e t h o d s t h e y u s e . J u s t as s o m e o n e w h o r e a l l y w a n t s to u n d e r s t a n d a p a i n t i n g
has to k n o w s o m e t h i n g a b o u t p a i n t i n g t e c h n i q u e ,
so w e t o o h a v e to u n d e r s t a n d t h e t e c h n i q u e s b y
w h i c h t h e d a t a has b e e n g a t h e r e d a n d g r o u p e d .
We h a v e to p r o v i d e a c h e c k o n t h e w o r k o f
historians, ethnologists and statisticians, because
o f t e n w e h a v e r e a s o n to m i s t r u s t w h a t t h e y h a v e
p r o v i d e d . T h e y d o n ' t m e r e l y report o n w h a t t h e y
find, t h e y shape t h e i r findings as well, a n d b y shaping t h e i r d a t a t h e y t r a n s f o r m it as well. O n e cannot write about history without speaking of cause
a n d effect, w i t h o u t e m p h a s i z i n g s o m e f a c t o r s a n d
r e l e g a t i n g o t h e r s to t h e b a c k g r o u n d . T h a t is alr e a d y a m a t t e r o f social s c i e n c e . A n d i n s o f a r as
t h e h i s t o r i a n is u n t u t o r e d in e c o n o m i c s a n d sociology, h e c a n easily miss t h e mark, m i s t a k i n g sympt o m s for causes, f o r t u i t o u s c o i n c i d e n c e s for causal
contexts. Often he emphasizes quite incidental
m a t t e r s a n d b e l i e v e s h e has m a d e s o m e signific a n t d i s c o v e r y . We t h e r e f o r e h a v e to b e a b l e to
s e e h o w h e c a m e to his c o n c l u s i o n s . We h a v e to
b e a b l e to a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n s " F r o m w h e r e d o e s
h e g e t that? W h a t c o m e s f r o m his s o u r c e s a n d
what has he added?" And we can only do that
w h e n w e u n d e r s t a n d s o m e t h i n g o f his m e t h o d s .
We also n e e d to k n o w h o w t h e r e p o r t s o f t h e ethn o l o g i s t c a m e a b o u t . We h a v e to p a y c a r e f u l att e n t i o n , for e x a m p l e , to t h e n u m b e r o f o b s e r v a t i o n s o n w h i c h a p a r t i c u l a r a s s e r t i o n rests. Such

HOW DOES ONE STUDY SOCIAL SCIENCE?

59

c a u t i o n holds e s p e c i a l l y for statistics, w h e r e the

r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d are o f t e n d e p e n d e n t on t h e
m e t h o d used to o b t a i n them. D e p e n d i n g on the
m e t h o d chosen, o n e can often arrive at diametrically o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n s . It is also essential to
have k n o w l e d g e of the sources and the m e t h o d s
of g a t h e r i n g data. Often statistical data have no
m o r e value than a set of a r b i t r a r y n u m b e r s , at
o t h e r times t h e y are a b s o l u t e l y precise. One has
to k n o w h o w to judge w h i c h is which. Never trust
the data w i t h o u t e x a m i n i n g it, e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e
the a p p l i e d statistical m e t h o d s w h i c h have b e e n
u s e d may be faulty....
Should o n e study social s c i e n c e by diving into
such materials? No. For the u n a n a l y z e d facts are
d u m b . T h e y are the r e s u l t of m a n y c a u s e s a n d
many countervailing forces.They can be e x p l a i n e d
in v e r y d i v e r s e ways. T h e y are u n m a s t e r a b l e as
given.We n e e d to c o n s i d e r them, divide t h e m into
their elements, and form a j u d g m e n t regarding the
f u n c t i o n of e a c h of t h e s e e l e m e n t s . T h a t is to say,
w e must analyze and isolate the various sides of
social p h e n o m e n a . Only t h e n can w e b e g i n to disc o v e r w h a t is essential and w h a t is incidental, only
t h e n does true scientific w o r k that p r o m i s e s to
p r o d u c e valid k n o w l e d g e begin.
It is n o t as if r e a d i n g history, for e x a m p l e , is
w i t h o u t value. It p r o v i d e s us w i t h an i n t i m a t e
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of e v e n t s that m i g h t r e a c h w e l l
b e y o n d the k n o w l e d g e that w e can strictly prove.
It can also lead us to c o n s i d e r causal c o n n e c t i o n s
that w e might o t h e r w i s e overlook. But these are
always of a c o n c r e t e n a t u r e . W e can grasp historically h o w the F r e n c h Revolution, for e x a m p l e ,
g r e w out of the totality of social relations of the
ancien rdgime. But w h e n w e w a n t to k n o w
m o r e - - w h e n w e w a n t to p e n e t r a t e into the individual e l e m e n t s of these social c i r c u m s t a n c e s - w e quickly arrive at i n s u r m o u n t a b l e difficulties.
Were the ideas of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t the effective causes or m e r e l y symptoms of the r e v o l u t i o n
t h a t w a s o c c u r r i n g ? S h o u l d the R e v o l u t i o n be
u n d e r s t o o d as an essentially economic p h e n o m e n o n or as an essentially political one? Did the
state's finances lead to r e v o l u t i o n or not? Historians a n s w e r such q u e s t i o n s often e n o u g h , but t h e y
can n e v e r strictly p r o v e their answers; their answers can at b e s t have the c h a r a c t e r of a p e r s o n a l
insight, of a p e r s o n a l l y p e r c e i v e d general impression. Virtually e v e r y historical a r g u m e n t can be
easily c o n t e s t e d . If the historian tells us, for example, he can p r o v e from the sources that in eve r y case p o l i t i c a l ideas d e t e r m i n e the c o u r s e of

60

SOCIETY 9 MARCH/APRIL 2003

events, that p r o v e s nothing. Because w h a t is ref l e c t e d in the s o u r c e s are the expressed, that is,
even in the best case, t h e conscious motives of
a c t i o n s . But q u i t e o t h e r p h e n o m e n a m a y ultim a t e l y be b e h i n d t h o s e c o n s c i o u s , e x p r e s s e d
motives. N e i t h e r can the c o m p a r i s o n of a numb e r of r e v o l u t i o n s p r o v i d e an e x a c t c o n c l u s i o n .
For in each individual case t h e r e is a m i x t u r e of
the various e l e m e n t s that m a k e up a "revolution,"
and in such varying d e g r e e s that we can almost
n e v e r see h o w t h e y causally affect one another.
T h e c o n c r e t e c o n s t e l l a t i o n of c i r c u m s t a n c e s
n e v e r r e p e a t s itself and t h e r e f o r e t h e c o n c r e t e
results are always different. At most, the historian can have an eye for the n e c e s s i t y of things,
allowing him to a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e individual instances, w h e n he feels w h a t he cannotprove.That
makes for greatness in a historian, but even t h e n
his j u d g m e n t s c a n n o t have scientific reliability.
T h e y are m o r e like the c r e a t i o n of an artist than
the results of a scientist.
All of this might give the i m p r e s s i o n that t h e r e
are no e n d u r i n g truths in the realm of the social
sciences. Historians and l a y m e n do in fact incline
to this view. Things change: in o n e c o u n t r y the
i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r o t e c t i v e tariffs are f o l l o w e d by
e c o n o m i c flourishing, in a n o t h e r country, not. In
o n e c o u n t r y free trade leads to collapse, in ano t h e r to an e c o n o m i c upswing. In o n e c o u n t r y
political f r e e d o m p r o v e s itself a success, leading
to the h i g h e s t cultural attainments; in a n o t h e r it
fails and leads to social d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ( c o m p a r e ,
for e x a m p l e , England and G r e e c e ) . W h e r e are the
lasting, g e n e r a l truths? The a n s w e r has a l r e a d y
b e e n indicated. Certainly the facts, as w e p e r c e i v e
t h e m in day to day reality, s h o w only o n g o i n g
change. But the natural w o r l d a r o u n d us also displays u n e n d i n g multiplicity. We w o u l d n e v e r arrive at c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e w e to d e s c r i b e e v e r y
individual stone that w e have ever o b s e r v e d . We
have to dissolve p h e n o m e n a into their e l e m e n t s
and c o n s i d e r e a c h of these elements. Only t h e n
do w e see the o t h e r w i s e invisible regularities. So,
too, in the social sciences.
That is called e n g a g i n g in "theory." Only then,
as we have said, d o e s real social scientific w o r k
begin. The g a t h e r i n g of facts is only p r e l i m i n a r y
labor, a l t h o u g h an a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y preliminary w h e r e the facts are not yet available. But even
w h e r e the facts have b e e n p r o v i d e d by other, ind e p e n d e n t b r a n c h e s of k n o w l e d g e , t h e r e is a distinction. E c o n o m i c s (and to a lesser degree, sociology) rests in p a r t on material that is sufficiently

s e c u r e t h a t t h e e m p h a s i s o f its s t u d y a n d r e s e a r c h
is o n t h i n k i n g t h i n g s t h r o u g h c o n c e p t u a l l y ....
H e r e t h e r e are s c i e n t i f i c s t r u c t u r e s f o u n d e d o n a
f e w g r a n d e l e m e n t a r y facts. In o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d
t h e m , o n e has to l e a r n to t h i n k t h e o r e t i c a l l y , to
d e v e l o p a s e n s e for s c i e n t i f i c a b s t r a c t i o n s ....
O n e m u s t i m p r e s s u p o n all b e g i n n e r s in t h e
social sciences the importance of learning the
craft o f s c i e n c e . O t h e r w i s e o n e n e v e r gains real
insight, b u t r e m a i n s m i r e d in d i l e t t a n t i s m , w h i c h ,
w h i l e it m a y b e q u i t e e n t e r t a i n i n g , c a n n e v e r a v o i d
e l e m e n t a r y m i s t a k e s . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e scientific s t u d y o f s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a is p r e c i s e l y t h a t
it t e a c h e s u s t o s e e w i t h a s h a r p e r e y e t h a n
w o u l d o t h e r w i s e b e p o s s i b l e . T o e n g a g e in p o l i t i c s , s c i e n c e is as l i t t l e n e c e s s a r y as t h a t t h e
extras who play the king's entourage on stage
w e a r r e a l d i a m o n d s a n d p e a r l s (as M a c a u l a y
puts it).The politician needs success: he wants
to move the masses. For that he needs short,
a b s o l u t e , a n d s t r i k i n g p h r a s e s . H e is d r i v e n b y
n e c e s s i t y t o d i s p l a y d i s d a i n for s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e - t h a t is w h a t his d r i v e for s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n
r e q u i r e s . W e s t u d y s o c i a l s c i e n c e p r e c i s e l y bec a u s e w e s e n s e t h e frailty o f t h o s e p h r a s e s . A n d
w e t h e n h a v e to l e a r n t h e craft a n d t e c h n i q u e o f
s c h o l a r s h i p , f o r t h a t is w h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e
conclusions of scholarship from the slogans we
h e a r a r o u n d us.
... A n o t h e r t h i n g t h a t m u s t b e i m p r e s s e d u p o n
t h e b e g i n n e r is t h a t t h e s t u d y o f t h e s o c i a l scie n c e s d e m a n d s a h e a v y s a c r i f i c e f r o m us. At t h e
threshold of social science, we must leave a
piece of our selves behind, namely our social
i d e a l s , o u r o p i n i o n s o f w h a t is g o o d a n d d e s i r able. No other science demands this sacrifice
o f us. F a c e d w i t h t h e l a w s o f n a t u r e , o u r w i s h e s
s i l e n c e t h e m s e l v e s . F o r w h e t h e r w e l i k e it o r
n o t - - t h e s t o n e w i l l a l w a y s fall to e a r t h . To t h e
l a y m a n , it a p p e a r s t h a t t h i n g s are e n t i r e l y differe n t w h e n it c o m e s t o t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . S o c i a l
relations?--surely
we can alter them easily,
p e r h a p s s h a p e t h e m a c c o r d i n g to o u r w i s h e s .
H e r e , t h e r e f o r e , is it n o t a m a t t e r o f i n d i f f e r e n c e if w e s u p p o r t e x i s t i n g s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s o r
n o t ? C e r t a i n l y n o t . But o n e o f m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t
e f f e c t s o f s t u d y is t h a t o n e g r a s p s t h e n e c e s s i t i e s o f s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a , t h a t o n e s e e s t h a t in
t h e s o c i a l r e a l m t o o an i n e x o r a b l e l o g i c r u l e s
w h i c h o n e i g n o r e s at o n e ' s p e r i l . A n d o n e m u s t
understand the "what" and "why" of things before
o n e i n t e r v e n e s in t h e m . S c i e n c e p r o v i d e s us w i t h
this " w h a t " a n d " w h y . " W h a t lies b e y o n d t h a t var-

ies f r o m p e r s o n to p e r s o n . E v e r y o n e has his o w n

s o c i a l w o r l d , his o w n s o c i a l ideals, e v e r y o n e dec i d e s for h i m s e l f w h a t h e w o r s h i p s a n d w h a t h e
d i s d a i n s . H e r e t h e r e are n o e x a c t a r g u m e n t s ; h e r e
t h e r e a l m o f s c i e n c e s t o p s . W h a t w e feel, w h a t
w e value, p e r h a p s n o o t h e r m a n feels a n d v a l u e s ,
a n d c e r t a i n l y all m e n d o n o t s h a r e o u r f e e l i n g s
a n d values. H o w t h e n c a n o n e m a k e o n e ' s o w n
wishes into the criteria of judgment? Science can
give us f o u n d a t i o n s for o u r p o l i t i c a l j u d g m e n t b y
h e l p i n g us to u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t h i n g s
t h a t w e w a n t to j u d g e . But t h e h i g h e s t p r i n c i p l e s
o f j u d g m e n t lie in r e g i o n s t h a t are n o t a c c e s s i b l e
to s c i e n c e .
W h i l e s c i e n c e c a n n o t e r e c t social ideals, t h e
i d e a l s t h a t a c t u a l l y i n f l u e n c e p e o p l e s in t h e i r social r e l a t i o n s c a n i n d e e d b e o b j e c t s o f s c i e n t i f i c
r e s e a r c h . W h a t w e c a n n o t d o is s i m p l y j u d g e t h e
i d e a l s o f t h o s e w e s t u d y b y o u r o w n . T h a t is difficult: for u n c o n s c i o u s l y o u r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , o u r
e x p e r i e n c e s , a n d o u r i n t e r e s t s i n f l u e n c e o u r scie n t i f i c w o r k . We o f t e n j u d g e m a t t e r s f r o m o u r
s t a n d p o i n t w i t h o u t e v e n b e i n g c o n s c i o u s o f it.
T h a t is w h a t l a y m e n a n d p o l i t i c i a n s do. But w e
h a v e to t r y to e m a n c i p a t e o u r s e l v e s f r o m this tyra n n y o f o u r selves. We h a v e to e m p a t h i z e w i t h
the motives of other people, with their position,
their interests.
A n o t h e r t h i n g to k e e p in m i n d : E v e r y o n e und e r s t a n d s t h e n e c e s s i t y o f this s o r t o f e m p a t h y to
one degree or another. Few people who research
t h e life c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f w o r k e r s w i l l fail to t r y
to e m p a t h i z e w i t h t h e w o r k e r ' s t h o u g h t s . But
f e w e r p e o p l e u n d e r s t a n d t h a t it is just as n e c e s s a r y a n d difficult for t h e o b s e r v e r to e m p a t h i z e
with the circumstances and thoughts of those
s o c i a l s t r a t a t h a t s t a n d above his s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c l e v e l . T h i s h o l d s t r u e e v e n for p r o f e s s i o n a l
s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e a r e a o f s o c i a l
p o l i c y . T h e s c h o l a r u s u a l l y b e l o n g s to t h e m i d d l e
class. He s t u d i e s t h e w o r k e r a n d his c i r c l e w i t h
l o v e a n d o f t e n a r r i v e s at an a d m i r a b l e , i n t i m a t e
u n d e r s t a n d i n g . But w h e n it c o m e s t o v i e w i n g
the heights of industrial society he brings no
such sympathy, more often a narrow-minded
a v e r s i o n . H e e x p e n d s far l e s s r e s e a r c h a n d far
less objectivity on discovering how these
people think.Their income seems unjustifiably
l a r g e to h i m , t h e i r style o f life a p p e a r s as i m m o r a l
l u x u r y . W e a r e p a s t t h e t i m e w h e n it w a s t h o u g h t
n e c e s s a r y to e x p r e s s m o r a l c o n d e m n a t i o n o v e r
t h e c a n n i b a l i s t i c m o r e s o f s o m e A f r i c a n t r i b e . But
t h e s a m e m o r a l i z i n g p r o p e n s i t y c o n t i n u e s to r e i g n

HOW DOES ONE STUDY SOCIAL SCIENCE?

61

in s c i e n c e , e v e n if it is in a m o r e r e f i n e d a n d less
o b v i o u s form.
Let us e m a n c i p a t e o u r s e l v e s f r o m this. Let us
keep apart science and politics, knowledge and
w i s h e s . O n l y w h e n w e d o so d o w e a p p r o a c h
p r o b l e m s in a s c i e n t i f i c spirit, o n l y t h e n d o w e
really g e t b e y o n d d i l e t t a n t i s m a n d p o p u l a r slogans.
T h a t d e m a n d s g r e a t s p i r i t u a l d i s c i p l i n e , w h i c h is
o n l y a c h i e v e d w i t h difficulty. If o n e has o n l y p r a c tical goals, o n e n e v e r a t t a i n s t h a t s p i r i t u a l discip l i n e . But if o n e a c h i e v e s t h a t s p i r i t u a l d i s c i p l i n e ,
t h e n o n e b e g i n s to a p p r o a c h c l o s e r to t h e t r u t h
a b o u t reality....
Let us t u r n to t h e s t u d y o f t h e o r y . T h e first t h i n g
to k e e p in m i n d w h e n s t u d y i n g t h e o r y is t h a t
t h e o r y c a n o b v i o u s l y n e v e r p r e s e n t a p r e c i s e pict u r e o f r e a l i t y . T h a t is t r u e in t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s
as w e l l , a n d e v e r y o n e u n d e r s t a n d s this w i t h o u t
b e i n g p u t off b y it. T h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , b y c o n trast, still h a v e to s t r u g g l e w i t h t h e fact t h a t laym e n l o o k to t h e m for i m m e d i a t e a n s w e r s to p r a c tical q u e s t i o n s o f s o c i a l life. It lies in t h e n a t u r e
o f e v e r y s c i e n c e o f a t h e o r e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r t h a t it
takes the individual elements of the phenomenon
w i t h w h i c h it is c o n c e r n e d a n d t r a c k s all o f t h e i r
c o n s e q u e n c e s ; at t h e s a m e t i m e , it m a k e s a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h e x c l u d e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f o t h e r elem e n t s . In this s e n s e o n e c a n say t h a t t h e t h e o r e t i cal s o c i a l s c i e n c e s p o r t r a y o n l y t e n d e n c i e s w i t h i n
social reality, a n d n e v e r c o m p l e t e social reality. F o r
e x a m p l e , t h e y d e a l w i t h e c o n o m i c a c t i o n as if
t h e r e w e r e n o o t h e r k i n d s o f a c t i o n . By t h a t t h e y
d o n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e r e a r e n o o t h e r k i n d s o f action. Similarly, I c o u l d say t h a t e v e r y p a r t o f m y
b o d y h a s a t e n d e n c y to fall to t h e floor, w h i c h is
n o t t h e s a m e as a s s e r t i n g t h a t I ' m a c t u a l l y in t h e
p r o c e s s o f falling. W h y is it t h a t p e o p l e d o n o t
o b j e c t to s u c h f o r m s o f e x p r e s s i o n in t h e n a t u r a l
sciences, but get very defensive about the same
m e t h o d s in t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s ? It's s i m p l y a result o f t h e fact t h a t w e are a c c u s t o m e d to s u c h
p r o c e d u r e s in t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s , w h i c h w e t a k e
for g r a n t e d , b u t w h i c h w e are n o t y e t a c c u s t o m e d
to in t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s .
H e r e is a n o t h e r d i f f i c u l t y o f w h i c h s t u d e n t s o f
s o c i a l s c i e n c e s h o u l d b e c o m e aware. T h e struct u r e o f e v e r y s c i e n c e c h a n g e s o v e r t i m e , b u t event u a l l y e v e r y s c i e n c e r e a c h e s a s t a g e in w h i c h it
establishes the working assumptions and the main
c o n c e p t u a l a p p r o a c h e s for all s c i e n t i f i c w o r k . T h a t
is n o t y e t t h e c a s e in t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s : t h e i r
s k e l e t o n is still in t h e p r o c e s s o f f o r m a t i o n a n d
a l t e r s r a p i d l y ; as a result, t h e a p p r o a c h e s a n d as-

62

SOCIETY 9 MARCH/APRIL 2003

s u m p t i o n s c h a n g e f r o m d e c a d e to d e c a d e a n d v a r y
f r o m a u t h o r to a u t h o r in t h e s a m e p e r i o d . If o n e
is n o t to b e l e d astray, o n e m u s t t h e r e f o r e ascertain t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h lie b e h i n d a p a r t i c u lar line o f analysis, o t h e r w i s e o n e m i g h t f i n d s e e m i n g c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t d o n ' t in fact exist. Take,
for e x a m p l e , t h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r p r o t e c t i v e tariffs. S o m e a u t h o r s c o n c l u d e t h a t f r e e t r a d e p r o v i d e s t h e o p t i m a l r e s u l t p o s s i b l e u n d e r t h e circ u m s t a n c e s f o r all n a t i o n s b e t w e e n w h i c h it
o c c u r s . T h a t is in f a c t n o t u n t r u e , g i v e n a n u m b e r o f p r e c o n d i t i o n s . But o n e c a n a l s o c o m e t o
the conclusion that under a different set of preconditions one or another nation might do bett e r w i t h p r o t e c t i v e tariffs. T h e r e is n o c o n t r a d i c t i o n h e r e , as l o n g as o n e c a n s p e c i f y t h e
r e l e v a n t p r e c o n d i t i o n s in e a c h c a s e : in f a c t it
i n d i c a t e s k n o w l e d g e , s c i e n t i f i c results.To b e sure,
t h e lay p e r s o n w h o is n o t u s e d to a b s t r a c t c h a i n s
o f t h o u g h t s e e s o n l y t h a t o u r t w o i m a g i n e d authors contradict one another, that one maintains
t h a t f r e e t r a d e is m o s t a d v a n t a g e o u s , t h e o t h e r
p r o t e c t i v e tariffs. But it is o n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t goals in s t u d y i n g p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e to g e t bey o n d this p r i m i t i v e s i t u a t i o n a n d to e m a n c i p a t e
oneself from the charges against social science
t h a t are m a d e b y t h e s u p e r f i c i a l . In t h e p r o c e s s ,
o n e c o m e s to s e e t h a t o n e c a n n o t s i m p l y r e c o m m e n d free-trade o r p r o t e c t i v e tariffs for e v e r y t i m e
a n d p l a c e , b u t also t h a t o n e c a n q u i t e satisfactorily determine their preconditions and consequences.
Lastly, let t h e b e g i n n e r k e e p in m i n d t h a t a n y
p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r y is n e v e r valid in itself, b u t is always a part of a theoretical structure and can only
b e u n d e r s t o o d as s u c h . O n e c a n n o t g r a s p a part i c u l a r p r o p o s i t i o n o u t s i d e o f its t h e o r e t i c a l framew o r k a n d d i s c u s s it as s u c h . O n e h a s to u n d e r s t a n d it in its r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e o t h e r links o f
t h e c h a i n to w h i c h it b e l o n g s . T h a t is p a r t o f und e r s t a n d i n g t h e o r y . If a t h e o r y is really to o f f e r us
s o m e t h i n g w o r t h w h i l e , w e h a v e to b e c o m e acc u s t o m e d to its c h a i n o f r e a s o n i n g , as any p h y s i cist w o u l d t a k e for g r a n t e d . W h e n o n e first r e a d s
a t h e o r e t i c a l w o r k , o n e w i l l at first f i n d h a l f o f it
o b v i o u s a n d h a l f o f it i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . O n l y aft e r a g o o d d e a l o f w o r k d o t h e i n d i v i d u a l argum e n t s r e a l l y b e g i n to m a k e s e n s e to us a n d r e a l l y
b e g i n to c o n t r i b u t e to o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f reality. O n l y w h e n w e h a v e b e c o m e p r a c t i c e d in
theory does the contemplation of social reality
t e a c h us s o m e t h i n g . O n l y t h e n d o t h e facts b e g i n
to s p e a k to us.

On Joseph Schumpeter by Jerry Z. Muller:

As r e a d e r s o f t h e m a j o r w o r k s o f J o s e p h
S c h u m p e t e r (1883-1950) will know, he was a man
of b r o a d learning and trans-disciplinary interests.
That range and d e p t h was already evident in a
series of w o r k s he p r o d u c e d by his earl}, thirties,
including a b o o k on e c o n o m i c t h e o r y published
in 1908, his path-breaking Theo O, of Economic
Development of 1911, and a short b o o k on the
history and future of the social s c i e n c e s p u b lished in 1915, Vergangenheit und Z u k u n f t der
Soziahvissenschaften. T h e latter b o o k r e m a i n s
too little k n o w n ; r e m a r k a b l e in its r a n g e and
insight, it i n c l u d e s a deft analysis of the centrality o f t h e S c o t t i s h E n l i g h t e n m e n t in t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t of m o d e r n social science. Like the
essay translated above, it began as a lecture to an
organization of social-scientifically interested amateurs in Czernowitz, a small university t o w n at
the eastern fringe of the Habsburg empire, w h e r e
S c h u m p e t e r taught from 1909 to 1911.A few years

later, he w o u l d join Max Weber on the editorial

board of the Archit, ftir Sozialwissenschaft und
Sozialpolitik, in its day p e r h a p s the m o s t significant journal of social science in the world.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS

Allen, Robert Loring. Opening Doors:The Life and Work
of Joseph Schumpeter, two volumes. New
Brunswick, NJ and London:Transaction, 1991.
Schumpeter, JosephA. Vergangenheit und Zukunft der
Soziaht,issenschaften. Munich and Leipzig, 1915.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. The Economics and Sociology
of Capitalism, ed. Richard Swedberg. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Jer O, z. Muller is professor of history at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D C, and
author, most recently, o f The Mind and the Market:
Capitalism in Modern European Thought.

T r a n s a c t i o n m o u m s the loss o f a g o o d friend and f o u n d i n g m e m b e r o f its editorial b o a r d

PETER M. BLAU
February 7, 1918 - March 12, 2002
"Scientific theories are ideally formulated in logical terms as deductive systems o f interrelated
propositions that imply empirically testable predictions. On the other hand, unless some, and perhaps
ideally all, theoretical terms are abstract, theories cannot logically imply truly new predictions in
quite different substantive matters. For abstraction implies generality, and its degree implies generality's
scope .... There is truth in the Baconian conception that the distinctiveness o f science rests on its
grounding in empirical observations, which distinguishes it from mere logical reasoning and
mathematics as well as metaphysical speculations and superstitions. I learned already in graduate
school o f the important role of research in constructing as well as testing theory; but I tended to
neglect it in my early enthusiasm for deductive theorizing."
- Introduction by Peter M. Blau to the Transaction edition of Crosscutting Social Circles.
Author of:
The Organization of Academic Work (1994)
Crosscutting Social Circles, with Joseph E. Schwartz (1997)
Exchange and Power in Social Life (1985)

t ran sact io n

TRANSACTION PUBLISHERS
RUTGERS--THE STATEUNIVERSITYOF NEW JERSEY
PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY 08854-8042

HOW DOES ONE STUDY SOCIAL SCIENCE?

63