Verstehen in Sociology: Empathetic Understanding

Origin & Thinkers

Max Weber was a central figure in shaping Verstehen into a core sociological tool.

He argued that it was difficult, if not impossible, to fully explain social behavior using only the standard scientific methods applied in the natural sciences.

Such methods, he believed, overlooked the powerful role of culture, meaning, and values in shaping human action.

In his 1904 classic The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber illustrated the interpretive approach by examining how certain Protestant beliefs – particularly Calvinist ideas about work, discipline, and wealth – helped lay the groundwork for modern capitalism.

To grasp this link, one must interpret the subjective meanings and motivations that guided people’s actions, not just observe outcomes.

For Weber, the task of sociology was to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects it produces.

This required sociologists to imaginatively place themselves in the actor’s position in order to uncover the values, beliefs, and attitudes that underpinned behavior.

Key Characteristics of the Interpretive Tradition

• Focus on Meanings and Motives: Interpretivists are primarily concerned with the subjective meanings people attach to their behaviour. The goal is to understand individuals’ motives and perspectives, rather than just recording outward actions.

• Qualitative Methods: This approach favours qualitative research techniques such as in-depth interviews, participant observation, and ethnography. These methods reveal the symbolic worlds people inhabit. For example, a symbolic interactionist—drawing on Weber’s ideas—might use participant observation at a political rally to see how protesters use signs, chants, and symbols to communicate.

• Emphasis on Interaction: Interpretive sociology stresses that analysing everyday interactions is essential for understanding meaning. By examining face-to-face exchanges and symbolic communication, researchers uncover how reality itself is socially constructed.

Types of Verstehen

Although Weber did not formalize a rigid typology, he distinguished between two complementary forms of understanding that operate within interpretive sociology.

These reflect different levels of depth in grasping human action.

Direct observation provides the raw description of social life, while empathetic interpretation supplies the insight into motives and meanings.

Together, these two dimensions transform sociological data into a fuller understanding of social action – linking visible behavior with the inner worlds that drive it.

1. Direct Observational Understanding (Aktuelles Verstehen)

This is the immediate recognition of what someone is doing, simply by observing their behavior.

It answers the “what” of an action.

For example, if we see someone chopping wood, we can directly understand that the act of chopping is taking place.

In sociological research, this aligns with field observation or recording interactions, such as watching teacher–pupil exchanges in a classroom or noting the visible features of a protest.

While essential as a first step, this level stops short of uncovering the reasons or motives behind the behavior.

2. Empathetic or Motivational Understanding (Erklärendes Verstehen)

This is the deeper level of interpretation that seeks to answer the “why” behind an action.

It involves uncovering the subjective meanings, intentions, and values that guide behavior, requiring the researcher to adopt the actor’s perspective.

For example, Paul Willis’s study of working-class boys went beyond observing classroom rebellion to interpret why they rejected school norms – linking their actions to cultural identity and future aspirations.

Weber’s own work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, illustrates this approach by showing how Calvinist beliefs about work and salvation shaped economic conduct.

Verstehen in Sociological Research

The Verstehen approach is foundational to a philosophy of anti-positivism, which posits that social researchers should strive for subjectivity to accurately represent social phenomena.

This led to research methods aimed not at generalising or predicting – as is traditional in science – but at systematically gaining an in-depth understanding of social worlds

Sociologists who follow this approach, often called Interpretivists or Interpretive sociologists, believe that to understand human behaviour, one must see the world through the eyes of the individuals being studied.

People give meaning to their actions and define situations in particular ways, and these interpretations guide their behaviour.

Discovering and interpreting these subjective meanings is therefore essential for a true sociological understanding.

1. Challenging Positivist and Structuralist Approaches

Positivist sociologists argue that research should mirror the natural sciences, relying on statistics and quantifiable measures to identify patterns.

However, Verstehen highlights the limits of this method: official statistics often reflect social constructions rather than objective realities.

For instance, crime rates are shaped by decisions made by victims, police, and courts, not just by actual criminal acts.

Structuralist perspectives such as functionalism and traditional Marxism also risk overlooking human agency by portraying individuals as passive products of social systems.

In contrast, research inspired by Verstehen – like Paul Willis’s study of working-class boys – shows that people actively interpret and respond to their circumstances.

Willis found that students created an anti-school subculture rather than simply accepting their destined roles, underscoring the importance of understanding lived meanings.

2. Providing a Basis for Qualitative Research

Verstehen underpins qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and participant observation, which are designed to capture the richness of social life.

These methods allow researchers to access the insider’s perspective:

• In-depth interviews give respondents the freedom to express their views in their own terms, making it possible to uncover subtle motives and experiences.
  
  Nicola Ingram’s study of working-class boys, for example, relied on interviews to reveal how students interpreted the cultural tensions between their home backgrounds and school expectations.

• Participant observation places researchers directly into a social world, offering insights that surveys or experiments might miss.
  Classic ethnographic studies of classrooms, gangs, or police culture illustrate how this method reveals the day-to-day meanings that shape social interaction.

3. Enhancing Validity and Depth

A key contribution of Verstehen-driven research is its emphasis on validity – the accuracy and truthfulness of data.

By prioritizing meaning over measurement, interpretive approaches generate detailed, context-rich accounts that capture the lived experiences of participants.

Such insights are often invisible in numerical datasets but are crucial for understanding how people navigate their social worlds.

Examples

The practice of Verstehen requires researchers to go beyond detached observation and instead immerse themselves in the perspectives of those they study.

In sociology, this often means using qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, participant observation, and ethnography.

Below are some key studies that illustrate how researchers have “put themselves in others’ shoes” to uncover the subjective meanings that shape social action.

---

1. Dunne & Gazeley (2008): Understanding Teacher Perceptions

Dunne and Gazeley investigated how teachers’ assumptions about pupils were influenced by social class.

They relied heavily on in-depth interviews with teachers, supported by classroom observations carried out by trainee teachers embedded in the schools.

• Why it shows Verstehen: Teachers may hesitate to discuss class bias openly due to a desire to appear professional.
  
  By building rapport and creating a safe conversational environment, the researchers gained access to teachers’ unspoken assumptions and anxieties.
  
  Observations of teacher–pupil interactions allowed them to compare expressed views with actual behaviour, strengthening validity.

• Insight gained: The study revealed that teachers’ perceptions were shaped by class-based stereotypes, often affecting how they disciplined and supported students.
  
  These findings highlighted the role of subjective interpretation in classroom dynamics.

---

2. Nicola Ingram (2009): Class Identity in Schools

Ingram examined the experiences of working-class boys in two different types of schools—one grammar, one secondary.

She used group discussions followed by individual interviews to capture both shared meanings and personal reflections.

• Why it shows Verstehen: Ingram’s insider status as a local teacher who knew the boys and their families allowed her to develop deep trust.
  
  This reduced barriers between researcher and subjects, making the boys more willing to share honest insights about identity and belonging.

• Insight gained: Ingram uncovered the tensions boys faced when navigating grammar school expectations while maintaining working-class identities.
  
  Their accounts showed education was not simply imposed on them; they actively interpreted it through the lens of their social backgrounds.

---

3. Paul Willis (1977): The ‘Lads’ and Counter-School Culture

Willis’s landmark ethnography Learning to Labour followed twelve working-class boys (“the lads”) in a Midlands school, combining participant observation, group discussions, and interviews over a prolonged period.

• Why it shows Verstehen: Willis immersed himself in the boys’ everyday world—both in classrooms and leisure spaces—to experience school life from their perspective.
  
  This allowed him to understand how they created meaning around resistance.

• Insight gained: Willis demonstrated that the lads were not passive victims of schooling but active agents who constructed an anti-school culture as a way of asserting identity and autonomy.
  
  Their rejection of authority was meaningful to them, even though it ultimately reproduced their working-class position in the labour market.

---

4. Laud Humphreys (1970): The Tearoom Trade

Humphreys investigated anonymous sexual encounters between men in public toilets, using covert participant observation by adopting the role of a “watchqueen” (lookout).

He later tracked some participants through licence-plate numbers, interviewing them under false pretences.

• Why it shows Verstehen: Humphreys entered the social setting by adopting a recognized insider role, which gave him access to interactions that outsiders could not have witnessed.
  
  He sought to understand the participants’ meanings and unspoken rules, such as signals for initiating contact.

• Insight gained: His study revealed that many of the men engaging in these encounters were married and identified as heterosexual, challenging stereotypes of homosexuality at the time.

• Ethical issue: While rich in insight, Humphreys’ methods raised serious concerns about deception, consent, and privacy—highlighting the tension between methodological depth and ethical responsibility.

---

5. Harold Garfinkel (1967): Breaching Experiments

As the founder of ethnomethodology, Garfinkel used “breaching experiments” to reveal the invisible rules of everyday life.

He asked his students to deliberately violate social norms, such as treating their parents’ home as if they were paying tenants.

• Why it shows Verstehen: By acting as “outsiders” to everyday norms, the students experienced firsthand how deeply ingrained expectations structure ordinary interactions.
  
  Observing people’s shocked reactions made the tacit rules visible.

• Insight gained: The experiments showed that social order is sustained through shared, taken-for-granted understandings.
  
  By “breaking” reality, Garfinkel was able to reveal the fragile, negotiated nature of social norms that usually remain hidden.

---

6. Sudhir Venkatesh (2008): Gang Leader for a Day

Venkatesh, a graduate student, initially attempted to study life in a Chicago housing project with a questionnaire but soon realised this approach was inadequate.

He spent around seven years living in the community and shadowing members of the Black Kings gang, combining participant observation with informal conversations and immersion in everyday life.

• Why it shows Verstehen: Venkatesh abandoned detached, survey-based methods in favour of experiencing the world through residents’ and gang members’ eyes.
  
  By embedding himself in their routines, he gained an insider’s understanding of their relationships, risks, and survival strategies.
• Insight gained: His research revealed the complex social organisation of the community, including informal economies, gang leadership structures, and reciprocal ties between residents and gang members.
  
  These insights would have been invisible through questionnaires or quantitative data alone.

---

7. William Foote Whyte (1943): Street Corner Society

Whyte’s classic ethnography explored the lives of Italian-American young men in Boston’s North End.

He lived in the neighbourhood for several years, spending time with gangs and community groups, often “just hanging around” and listening.

• Why it shows Verstehen: By immersing himself in the rhythms of Cornerville life, Whyte was able to learn the answers to questions he would not have known to ask in formal interviews.
  
  His prolonged presence and rapport with informants like “Doc” allowed him to see the group’s world from within.
• Insight gained: Whyte uncovered the importance of friendship networks, loyalty, and informal leadership in structuring neighbourhood life.
  
  His study showed how these social ties governed behaviour in ways that outsiders could easily overlook.

---

8. Laud Humphreys (1970): Tearoom Trade

Humphreys studied anonymous sexual encounters between men in public restrooms, a hidden and stigmatised practice at the time.

He acted as a “voyeur-lookout” (or “watchqueen”), a recognised role within that setting, to gain trust and observe behaviour directly.

• Why it shows Verstehen: By taking on an insider role, Humphreys was able to see and interpret the unspoken signals, rules, and expectations that guided these interactions.
  
  His approach gave him access to meanings and practices inaccessible through questionnaires or detached observation.
• Insight gained: Humphreys challenged stereotypes by revealing that many of the men were married, identified as heterosexual, and lived otherwise conventional lives.
  
  His findings reshaped understandings of sexuality and deviance, though his covert methods sparked enduring ethical debate.

---

The Broader Lesson

Across these studies, researchers practised Verstehen by immersing themselves in social worlds, building trust with participants, and interpreting meanings from the inside.

Whether through rapport, immersion, covert roles, or norm violations, these methods all highlight that sociology cannot be reduced to external observation alone – it must uncover the subjective experiences that drive human action.

Criticisms

The main criticisms of Verstehen are that it is too subjective, focuses too much on small-scale interactions, and lacks the scientific rigour of quantitative approaches.

1. Neglect of Macro-Level Social Structures

Critics from functionalist and Marxist traditions argue that Verstehen looks too closely at individual meanings and overlooks the powerful social forces that shape behaviour.

• Functionalist critique: Functionalists, following Durkheim, stress the importance of social facts—external forces like laws, norms, and the collective conscience.
  
  They argue that by focusing on personal meanings, Verstehen ignores how these wider structures constrain individuals.

• Marxist critique: Marxists see society as shaped by class conflict and ruling class ideology. From this view, subjective meanings are not always “real” but often shaped by false consciousness.
  
  Verstehen risks taking people’s explanations at face value, without recognising the deeper power structures and inequalities influencing them.

2. Lack of Scientific Objectivity and Rigour

Positivist critics argue that sociology should mirror the natural sciences by being objective, reliable, and generalisable.

• Subjectivity vs. objectivity: Because Verstehen depends on the researcher’s empathy and interpretation, findings may be biased and hard to replicate.
  
  For example, participant observation often relies on the researcher’s personal qualities, reducing reliability.

• Validity and generalisability: Small-scale, qualitative studies may provide depth but cannot easily be applied to wider populations.
  
  There is also a risk of researchers “going native,” losing objectivity by identifying too closely with their subjects.

• Ignoring deterministic forces: Positivist and structuralist approaches argue that behaviour is shaped by external forces – like economic systems, institutions, or even environmental stimuli in psychology.
  
  From this perspective, focusing on subjective meanings misses the larger forces that actually determine behaviour.

References

Dilthey, W. (1977). Descriptive psychology and historical understanding. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

Dunne, M., & Gazeley, L. (2008). Teachers, social class and underachievement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(5), 451–463.

Ekström, M. (1992). Causal explanation of social action: the contribution of Max Weber and of critical realism to a generative view of causal explanation in social science. Acta Sociologica, 35 (2), 107-122.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Harrington, A. (2000). In defence of verstehen and erklaren: Wilhelm Dilthey’s ideas concerning a descriptive and analytical psychology. Theory and Psychology, 10 (4):435-452.

Herva, S. (1988). The genesis of Max Weber’s verstehende soziologie. Acta Sociologica, 31 (2):143-157.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom Trade: A Study of Homosexual Encounters in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine.

Ingram, N. (2009). Working-class boys, educational success and the misrecognition of working-class culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 421–434.

Lewis, M., & Serva, C. (2022). Interpretive Sociology and Verstehen.

Martin, M. (2000). Verstehen: The uses of understanding in social science. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.

MacCannell, D. (1986). From the Sociology of Symbols to the Sociology of Signs: Toward a Dialectical Sociology .

Oakes, G. (1977). The verstehen thesis and the foundation of Max Weber’s methodology. History and Theory, 16 (3):11-30.

Outhwaite, W. (1976). Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. Holmes and Meier, Teaneck, NJ.

Parsons T. (1937,1968]). The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.

Parsons T. (1978). Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: The Free Press.

Ray, L. (2007). Verstehen. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.

Walker, K. (2011). Weber: Antipositivism & Verstehen. EARLY THEORISTS & THE SCIENCE OF SOCIETY, 123.

Tucker, W. (1965). Max Weber’s Verstehen. Sociological Quarterly, 6 (2):157- 166.

Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. New York: Penguin Press.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Charles Scribner”s Sons (reprint 1958).

Weber, M. (1936). Social actions.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. The Free Press, New York, NY.

Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.