Wanderer, Jules J. Interpretive Origins of Classical Sociology: Weber, Husserl, Schutz, Durkheim, Simmel

International Social Science Review, Spring-Summer, 2007 by Michael S. Gibbons

Wanderer, Jules J. Interpretive Origins of Classical Sociology: Weber, Husserl, Schutz, Durkheim, Simmel. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005. 256 pages. Cloth, $109.95.

Wanderer's book, Interpretive Origins of Classical Sociology: Weber, Husserl, Schutz, Durkheim, Simmel, does exactly what is advertised. It opens with a discussion of how the idea arose that interpretation might be separate from objective reality, and still valid. Furthermore, if interpretation might be valid, how does one build a science out of it? Sigmund Freud was building a theory of interpretation of the individual, debunking everyday life. Karl Marx was building a theory of economic interaction that debunked contemporary economics. Functionalism, too, debunked and reinterpreted cultures.

This was the environment of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that cultivated modern sociology. Not only was interpretation a contextual concern, it ends up being central to the quest of sociology. The essential question was: "Exactly what is sociology?" Should the discipline focus on the individual (psychology), transactions between people (economics), or mankind (anthropology, history)?

This debate also drew in early discussions of qualitative or quantitative methods, and is reflected in any qualitative versus quantitative modern-day debate. Can groups be studied as aggregated atoms measured and interacting in certain ways? Or does one need to understand what the units are thinking, meaning, intending? This paradoxical question is the thread that ties the book together. The subject matter of sociology is something larger than the individual but short of metaphysical, and how does one study that something via interpretation?

Wanderer fails to answer any of these questions. He does, however, walk the reader through several classical writers' development of these ideas, and their responses to these questions. Max Weber, for instance, offers Verstehen, but avoids any analyses above the individual. Edmund Husserl offers intersubjectivity, and Alfred Schutz gives us intentional theory, positioning the acting individual within a context of objective interpretations shared by a community. Emile Durkheim provides collective representations and social constructionism, and Georg Simmel gives us his forms. Wanderer discusses in-depth the development of the ideas of each of these thinkers, the way each of them dealt with the problem of interpretation, and how to build a science out of that.

This book is a valuable read for a variety of reasons. For scholars interested in Symbolic Interaction specifically, this book explores the roots of interpretation in the classical sociology authors. Secondly, in an environment where annual meetings host sessions concerning themselves with "The Future of Symbolic Interaction," where rancor between quantitative and qualitative methodology still simmers, it is helpful to remember that interpretation was a part of the discipline from its very beginning.

Wanderer's book is frustrating for what it lacks. It does not offer a solid introduction or conclusion that tells the reader why he is writing it. His analyses and discussions of these authors are well done. However, after the chapter on Simmel, it just ends. Perhaps Wanderer means for Simmel's analysis--on which he spends a good deal of time--to be the final word. It's hard to tell. Simmel's forms are sociological phenomena that address some of these problems dealing with unit of analysis, overly metaphysical group minds, and overly individualistic individual intentions. This is not to say that Simmel's answer is the final word on the issue. Some might interpret his forms to be just a wee bit ephemeral. If Durkheim's conscience collective is too metaphysical, what does one do with Simmel's life force?

How does one interpret Wanderer's lack of an appropriate introduction or conclusion? What did he intend? What does this book mean? It seems that Wanderer might be toying with the reader. This study focuses on intentions, interpretations, and the importance of context in meaning, and for a book about interpretation which is dependent on context to leave this information out--to omit context--seems simply too ironic to be accidental. Overall, Wanderer's book is well-researched, well-cited, and informative. Furthermore, because it brings the canon into the interpretive discussion, I find it to be a useful addition to my library of Herbert Blumer, Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and others. The central irony of a text on interpretation, without its own interpretive information, is quite amusing as well.

Michael S. Gibbons, Ph.D.

Consultant

GfK V2

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania