1. For the philosophy of Malinowski and his egalitarian impact, see I. C. Jarvie, The Revolution of Anthropology (1964). A school of thought, if they merit this honorific title, called the Strong Programme, claims for science the status of both an ideology and the truth. This, of course, is a part of every ideology. So it does not count. All of their output and all the many debates around it have almost no value at all, especially since their writings are often so obscure that it is hard to fathom their meanings.
2. See the concluding remarks in Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,trans. Joseph Ward Swain (1947). See also my Towards A Rational Philosophical Anthropology (1977), for a discussion and a lengthy criticism of both individualist and collectivist reductionism, Ernest Gellner, The Legitimation of Belief (1974) and Cause and Meaning in the Social Science: ed. I. C. Jarvie and Joseph Agassi (1973), and Mario Bunge, Social Science Under Debate: A Philosophical Perspective (1998).
3. See J. W. N. Watkins, “Ideal Type and Historical Explanation,” reprinted in an expanded version in Readings in the Philosophy of Science,ed. Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck (1951, 723–43). He identifies two Weberian ideal-type theories, individualist, and collectivist. The two cannot merge. See my “Bye-Bye Weber”, Phil. Soc. Sci.,21, 1991, 102–9.
4. See Michael Polanyi, Knowing and being (1969),149.
5. Michael Polanyi, op. cit.,Ch. 6. For more details and a critical examination see Chapter 15 of my Science and Society (1981), a volume dedicated to his memory.