In what way can Max Weber George Mead and Alfred Schutz be considered Interpretive Theorists?
I believe that this could turn out to be a really complex
question, since it involves, i think, the already indicative idea
that, first of all, the theoretical splits and convergences between
these thinkers already suggests the interpretative character of the
theorizing itself! Doesn't? I believe i should say that they form a
body of social theory whose guidelines go along very close with the
the belief in the comprehensive method for inquiry and
consequently, a certain type of functioning of the science, that
diverges significantly from the type of knowledge advocated by
positivists. Although, i think i am a little bit justified in not
knowing how to be more precise about this, because their areas of
inquiry diverged significantly - Mead went to bioneurology to
ethics, Weber from theology to indology.