One major problem with the classics is that we tend to read too much into them and often overlook the obviuos. There is also a tendency to treat parts of the works of major thinkers as being more authori- tative than other parts, which often results in the dismissal of the latter as stemming from some weakness of the author such as immaturity of thinking, etc. The arguments over the early Marx and latter Marx is an obvious example to that effect. Confusion of similar nature also surrounds the work of Max Weber, in particular his contribution to methodology. This paper examines the fate of the concept of ideal type, a primary contribution of Weberian methodology, and argues that such confusions, to say the least, is totally unnecessary and can be easily remedied.
Weber's exposition of the concept of ideal type in any details was made in two different texts and on two different occasions. The initial formulation of the concept was rendered when Weber took over the joint editorship of the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft