Abstract
This article addresses the issue of how to theorize with the help of the classics in sociology; and it is pointed out that the main difficulty involved is that Weber et al have told us next to nothing of how they actually produced their analyses. We are left with trying to search written statements for some clues; and there are not many of these. Furthermore, written statements represent a distinct universe of their own, meaning by this that some things can be said in a written form and others not. While the advantages of having something in a written form are clear, much of what goes into theorizing is of a nature that is hard to express in a written form. Several suggestions for how to theorize with the help of the classics can nevertheless also be found in the article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
