Between Florian Znaniecki’s humanistic coefficient and the explanation of human action in the Poznań methodological school

Abstract

DEFINITION OF THE TERM: The aim of this article is to compare Znaniecki’s conception of the explanation of human action with analogous approaches developed within the Poznań methodological school. The analytical framework for this discussion is provided by debates within the humanities at the turn of the twentieth century, which may be represented through the opposing conceptual pairs of naturalism versus anti-naturalism and nomotheticism versus idiographism. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TERM: The point of departure is a presentation of Max Weber’s classification of human action, which emerged from the aforementioned debates, together with an analysis of Florian Znaniecki’s concept of the humanistic coefficient and his understanding of the status of the humanities. DISCUSSION OF THE TERM: Within the Poznań methodological school, three conceptions addressing human activity were developed: Jerzy Kmita’s model of humanistic interpretation, Jerzy Topolski’s model of integral explanation, and Leszek Nowak’s generalised model of the rational individual. The idealisational status of these conceptions raises the question of their empirical adequacy in explaining human action. SYSTEMATIC REFLECTION WITH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the principle of rationality is widely employed as an explanatory premise in the social sciences, the rational model of the individual does not appear to possess universal applicability. For example, restrictions on freedom in totalitarian systems deprive individuals of the possibility of choice and compel them to accept an imposed system of values. A promising avenue for further research would involve the analysis of social systems in which constraints on individual choice operate in less visible, yet no less effective, ways, such as through the shaping of linguistic and consumer habits, or through restrictions on economic freedom.