This Pass or Prepared? is based on the German concept of Verstehen. Frank Elwell named his Weber Page Verstehen. The Verstehen Page is a good introduction to Weber. Follow the directions in our first Weber essay for using Frank Elwell's site.

Read the Weber-related sections in our text, Contemporary Social Problems:

• p. 8
• p. x
• p. . . .

Then skim the first five points (numbered) in Rob Shield's paper, The Dialogical Challenge to Verstehen.

Based on your reading, answer the following questions:

1. What does Verstehen mean?

   One Plausible Answer

   Verstehen is a German word meaning understanding.

2. Why do you suppose Frank Elwell named his Weber page Vershehen?

   One Plausible Answer

   Well, if Verstehen means "understanding," maybe Weber represents "understanding." Maybe he tried to understand the social world, how people related to each other.

3. Is there a problem with the idea of Verstehen in the 21st Century?

   One Plausible Answer

   Well, one of the biggest concerns with the turn of the century is with "political correctness," with the gap between rich and poor, with the privilege that many enjoy because of race, gender, and class. Maybe, because Weber is classical, the "understanding" of the very early 20th Century social world does not suffice today.

   Notice the dates on the Weber quotes in the link: in his own words. Bet you didn't think of that!

4. What do you think Rob Shield means in his 1996 paper, when he says "Verstehen is predicated on synthesis rather than multiplicity." ?

   One Plausible Answer

   Multiplicity sounds like a postmodernist idea of many voices, many perspectives. So that would make sense if Rob Shields is talking about what has changed in a hundred years to mean that we need to update Weber's ideas. Verstehen is predicated on, based on, synthesis. In synthesis we pull many sources together to construct a new whole, a new theory. So Verstehen must be based on pulling many pieces together into one right answer that we could test for its accuracy. That's like positivism. That would give us a single, maybe a universal theory. But postmodernists object to the universal as attempting to suppress the unique. So this must be a modernist/postmodernist kind of argument.

5. What do you suppose Rob Shields means by "Verstehen objectifies the position of Self and obscures it."?

   One Plausible Answer

   Well, first a guess. "Self" is capitalized. So it has major importance here. And there's another clue: "objectifies." One of the major arguments between modernism and postmodernism is over the subject/object question.So what could Rob Shields mean by that? What is the "subject/object" question?

   The subject/object question is related to Foucault's "gaze," in which the "scientist subject" observes the "sophomore/rat/respondent/person" is the object. If Weber were trying to "understand" the "Self" by observing it from his objective viewpoint, that's what some postmodernists would call arrogant and objectifying the people he studied. He could objectify the Self by making the persons he observed into objects, and not hearing or seeing their own positions. There is something arrogant about presuming that you can know another person.

   Why would that obscure the Self? Well, if you are busy drawing your own conclusions, based on your own perspective, which you assume is the right and objective perspective, you might be so distracted by your own perspective that you fail to hear or see important clues to the Selves' perspective. Postmodernists would call that failing to hear their voice or local narrative.

   ---

   ---

   Figurine by Rudiger Appel. Notice that you can see three effects in the animation. Either the Variation on the Kandinsky figurine appears to turn in a clockwise direction, or in a counterclockwise direction, or it appears to open and close. Can you see all three effects? Try. Fascinated? Link to Appel's site and then link to the background he provides. Scroll down until you find a link to background.

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata, June 2000. "Fair Use" encouraged.

---

---