Dichotomy Dichotomy II

Continuing last post, here are some implications of the breakdown of the dichotomy dichotomy for social theory:

Ideal types aren't enough. They define the modes of a sample space, but not the terrain of that space otherwise. How dichotomous (or otherwise clear-cut) is the division of entities between types? Do all (or does each) correspond to a metaphorical line, cylinder, or hill? (Here I'm envisioning a three-dimensional sample space with y as quantity or salience and x and z as some relevant factors... but of course I've chosen this number of dimensions simply because they correspond to concepts most easily apprehended through statistical-visual representation. Any number of conceptual dimensions are possible, and these only increase the need to more carefully articulate a model's terrain.) Or something else? How quantitatively and qualitatively significant are the ideal types with respect to each other?


Dialectic may itself be an ideal-typical relationship between two entities, not a homogeneous phenomenon recurring everywhere. We should expect ideal, material, and ideal-material dialectics to function differently, and we shouldn't presume an equality of influence from each side. More on this later.