Wilhelm Dilthey's essay of 1894, Ideas Concerning a Descriptive and Analytical Psychology, is the locus classicus for the distinction between `understanding' and `explanation', or Verstehen and Erklaren, in the 19th-century German tradition of hermeneutics and the Geistes-wissenschaften. This article discusses the distinction Dilthey draws there between `explanatory' psychology, based on subsumption of the behaviour of individuals under general laws, and `interpretive', or `descriptive and analytical', psychology, based on disclosure of the uniqueness of individual case-histories. It defends his conception against the objections of the Neo-Kantian philosophers Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert and the experimental psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, as well as neo-positivist writers such as Theodore Abel. The article also argues more generally that Dilthey's dichotomy of `spirit' and `nature' still articulates a fundamental methodological difference between the sciences, despite our contemporary recognition of the importance of interpretation in both the natural and human sciences.
Abel, T. (1976). The operation called Verstehen. In T. McCarthy & F. Dallmayr (Eds.), Understanding and social inquiry (pp. 81-92). Evanston, IL: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1948.)
2.
Apel, K.-O. (1984). Understanding and explanation: A transcendental-pragmatic perspective (G. Warnke, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1979.)
3.
Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, herneneutics, and praxis. Oxford: Blackwell.
4.
Dilthey, W. (1914-1982). Gesammelte Schriften (19 vols.): Vols. I-XII (G. Misch, B. Groethuysen, H. Nohl, & O. Bollnow, Eds.). Stuttgart: Teubner. Vols. XIII-XX: H. Johach, F. Rodi, & H.-U. Lessing, Eds.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
5.
Dray, W. (1958). Laws and explanation in history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Dreyfus, H. (1980). Holism and hermeneutics. Review of Metaphysics, 34(1), 3-23.
7.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1896). Über erklärende und beschreibende Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 9(2), 161-205.
8.
Ermarth, M. (1978). Wilhelm Dilthey: The critique of historical reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method (W. Glen-Doepel, Trans.). London: Sheed & Ward. (Original work published 1960.)
10.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. (Original work published 1981.)
11.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1927.)
12.
Hempel, C. (1994). The function of general laws in history. In M. Martin & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 43-53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1942.)
13.
Hesse, M. (1980). In defence of objectivity. In Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science (pp. 167-186). Brighton: Harvester. (Original work published 1972.)
14.
Hiley, D. , Bohman, J., & Shusterman, R. (Eds.). (1991). The interpretive turn: Philosophy, science and culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
Lamiell, J.T. (1998). `Nomothetic' and `idiographic': Contrasting Windelband's understanding with contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 23-38.
16.
Makkreel, R.A. (1977). Dilthey: Philosopher of the human studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Makkreel, R.A. (1983). Dilthey und die interpretierenden Wissenschaften: Die Rolle von Erklären und Verstehen. Dilthey-Jahrbuch, 1, 57-75.
18.
Makkreel, R.A. , & Rodi, F. (1989). Introduction. In Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works (Vol. 1, pp. 3-43). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
Mos, L.P. (1998). On methodological distinctions: Nomothetic psychology, or historical understanding. Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 39-57.
20.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. London: Routledge.
21.
Rickert, H. (1986). Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Reclam. (Original work published 1899.)
22.
Riedel, M. (1978a). Hermeneutik und Erkenntniskritik. In Verstehen oder Erklären? Zur Theorie und Geschichte der hermeneutischen Wissenschaften (pp. 64-112). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. (Original work published 1970.)
23.
Riedel, M. (1978b). Zwischen Positivismus und Historismus: Über den Ursprung des Gegensatzes von Erklären und Verstehen. In Verstehen oder Erklären? Zur Theorie und Geschichte der hermeneutischen Wissenschaften (pp. 113-133). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. (Original work published 1977.)
24.
Rodi, F. (1983). Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Dilthey-Forschung. Dilthey-Jahrbuch, 1, 87-98.
25.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Rossi, P. (1994). Weber, Dilthey und Husserls Logische Untersuchungen. In G. Wagner & H. Zipprian (Eds.), Max Webers Wissenschaftslehre: Interpretation und Kritik (pp. 199-223). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
27.
Taylor, C. (1980). Understanding and human science. The Review of Metaphysics, 34(1), 25-38.
28.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin. (Original work published 1904.)
29.
Weber, M. (1968). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (J. Winckelmann, Ed.). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. (Original work published 1922.)
30.
Weber, M. (1978). Die Protestantische Ethik II: Kritiken und Antikritiken (J. Winckelmann, Ed.). Gutersloh: Gutersloher. (Original work published 1907-1911.)
31.
Windelband, W. (1998). History and natural science (J. Lamiell, Trans.). Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 5-22. (Original work delivered 1894.)
