『アルヒーフ』創刊前後再考

【『客観性』論文の位置をめぐって】

抄録

  ,,Die »Objektivität« sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis“ written by Max Weber appeared in the first number of ,,Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik“100 years ago. Although we already know that Weber argued the concept of “Idealtypus” in the paper, we scarcely know why he had to write the paper and ask what the “objectivity” was. Therefore, the circumstances at the birth of ,,Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik“should be investigated.

  ,,Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik“ was originally ,,Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik“ that was edited by Heinrich Braun. The first issue of this archive was published in 1888 especially for labor problem. After its 18th issue in 1903, Braun sold it to Edgar Jaffé because he devoted himself to politics and wanted to keep the archive's character purely scientific. He was elected to German Congress. Jaffé, Weber and Werner Sombart became the new editors and they renewed the name and the principle of the archive.

  Weber wrote the new principle in the first number in 1904. He inherited basic principles form Braun's archive, and kept the scientific character as before. However, he decided to change principles on two points. First of all, he showed that the new archive should give much more space for critical works, because the main role of Braun's archive was gathering materials of labor problem. Secondly, he aimed to find out “the cultural significance of capitalism” and insisted that this was the most important role of the archive.

  In addition, the “objectivity” was facing a serious crisis because of “the two schools of economics”, the German historical school and the Austrian school. Though they were opposite to each other, both of their theories were emanative. Weber regarded them as pseudo-objective theories. When Weber started to edit the new archive and changed its character from Braun's, modern capitalism brought about not only labor problem but also other serious and huge problems. At the same time, as the “objectivity” was in danger, he thought that he should write the steady method to argue the “cultural significance of capitalism.” This is why he wrote the paper and dedicated his life to studying it.