Weber (2 of 3) goes on to explain the "large in the small" by claiming universal significance for a localized phenomena. His view is inherently Eurocentric, focused on a single social, economic and political event or shift, and ignores the fact that what is culturally unique may not be universally significant. The argumentative style and the content of his text is almost entirely meaning-driven, with the encounter between the text (in this instance Protestantism and its doctrine and dogma) and the individual as the driving force in social organization and economic activity. examining two different religio-cum-social systems and their development economically, with the substitution Anderson, with a modern argument from a new approach to meaning, believes that the problem of aggregation does not confront a theory at the level of society -- a departure from other modern and classical theorists, for whom some level of aggregation was essential. Anderson joins with Weber in comparing cases but not abstractions -- and thus departing from Marx and Schumpeter. Using case examples, sets of cases are examined. Schumpeter's argument is from individuals, concerning what action accomplishes rather than what drives action or what it means. He almost agrees with Marx on meaning (and its lack of significance), but debates the viability of "class interest" and calls it little more than a meaning supplied by an individual and not an explanation (Schumpeter, p. 154). He aggregates by means of selection (a Darwinian method). Schumpeter (p. 107) shares with Marx the difficulty of a non-experimental analysis or "station" and hence he admits that "there is no way of proving, beyond the possibility of doubt, their adequacy to produceathe observed development of output." Barbara Geddes, another "modern," offers a theory of costs and benefits and was influenced by Schumpeter with respect to her identification of four types of political "entrepreneurs (Geddes, 1 of 6). The |
