Constructive Typology in the Social Sciences

HE CALL of the Esoteric. The preliterate often uses word and number magic; so do we, even when we think ourselves ultra-modern. Some social scientists, for example, intone a ritual composed largely of sacred sounds such as "natural," "quantitative," "operational," "objective," and "correlation," and rise in wrath when some hardened skeptic asks, "What does it mean ?" Of genuine science, instrumental in origin and goal, these ritualists have no comprehension. They flock to highly esoteric discussions of conceptual integration or of factor analysis, for example, in order to acquire the feeling of exaltation, of salvation, that comes through participation in a lofty, half-understood ceremony. But let it be clearly understood that to the genuine scientist who wields his tools withfull awareness of their uses and limitations none of these strictures apply. He is no high priest, to be sure, and he has no key to the cosmos, but in spite-or perhaps because-of this, he merits the most profound respect. Criticism of the Word and Formula worshippers is a preamble necessary to the task of setting forth, clearly and plainly, what is meant by "constructive typology." (I shall strive to be understandable even to the point of using analogies and of dispensing with the usual footnote ritual passing for scholarship. Those interested in more intensive study are referred to the appended bibliography and to my presentations, under such headings as "construct," "type," and "ideal-typical," in Barnes and Becker, Social Thoughtfrom Lore to Science.') The Particular and the General. This problem has long plagued social scientists of every description. Even the inveterate "other-things-beingequal" generalizer can scarcely fail to be aware that the society he is examining at the moment is unique in spite of all resemblances to other societies. Yet we are seldom content with a mere collection of unrelated data, for not only do we wish to apprehend the unique, but as social scientists we also want to make generalizations. If sociology, in particular, means anything at all, it means the ability to say wherein the society in question is like other societies and wherein it differs from them. More is involved here than is apparent at first glance. Instance the orthodox monographic historian sworn to Ranke's dictum that his task is to