Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

STEPHEN D.PARSONSvalue. Then it is the task of the sociologist to be aware of thismotivational situation and to describe and analyse it, eventhough it has not actually been concretely part of theconscious intention of the actor.(Weber 1978:9–10)Weber’s reference to the ‘motivational situation’ does not appear tobe recognised in Lachmann’s account. In Weber’s analysis,understanding the subjective, or intended meaning of any actionrequires a reference to the context, which Weber callsSinnzusammenhang. This is usually translated as ‘meaningcomplex’ or ‘context of meaning’. For example, Weber argues that‘we understand the motive of a person aiming a gun if we know thathe has been commanded to shoot as a member of a firing squad, thathe is fighting against an enemy, or that he is doing it for revenge’(Weber 1978:9). We may know the meaning of any action when weknow the intention it was performed with, but this does not reducemeaning to a solely mental product:For a science which is concerned with the subjective meaningof action, explanation requires a grasp of the complex ofmeaning in which an actual course of understandable actionthus interpreted belongs. In all such cases, even where theprocesses are largely affectual, the subjective meaning of theaction, including that also of the relevant meaningcomplexes (Sinnzusammenhang), will be called the intendedmeaning.(ibid.)Lachmann’s interpretation of Weber is perhaps understandable,given the argument that Weber’s methodological pronouncementstend to reduce the emphasis on ‘meaning complexes’: ‘Weber paidconsiderable attention to the way individual motivation wasembedded in larger complexes of meaning and it was only that hisvital methodological statements appeared to give less weight to thisvital element in his work’ (Albrow 1990:127).However, even if Lachmann’s interpretation of Weber isunderstandable, it is unfortunate. In attending solely to theinterpretation of meaning in terms of the ‘mind of the actor’,Lachmann invites the following comparison with textualanalysis:52