Social Action of Max Weber - Research Paper Example

?Introduction Max Weber was a German philosopher, sociologist, and political economist. He had a profound influence on the discipline of sociology. His influence is seen in social research and formulation of social theory (Encyclopedia Brittanica, n.d.). Weber argued that the societies do not differ on the basis of the products they produce; instead, they are differentiated on the basis of how the individuals view and understand the world and their social surroundings. Weber is regarded as the father of modern social sciences along with Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. Weber was an advocate of methodological anti-positivism and viewed sociology as a non-empiricist discipline that must be studied through interpretive means and subjective explanations that people attach to their actions. Weber was highly inspired by German idealism and specifically by neo-Kantianism. The most significant influence of neo-Kantianism thought on Weber was the idea that reality is basically disorganized and perplexing, with all the balanced order coming from the way in which the individual mind focuses its attention on particular areas of reality and arranges the perceptions that come as an output. Social Action Max Weber viewed sociology as a science of social action. His early focus in sociology revolved around subjective meanings that individuals attach to the actions that they take and their interpretations of concepts within a particular social context (Elwell, n.d.). According to this, Weber categorizes action in four different ways. The following kinds of action can be taken. Zweckrational (the means used to achieve the required goal are rationally chosen). Wertrational (the goal one is trying to achieve might not be rational, but rational ways are used to attain it). Affective action is rooted in the emotional state of an individual instead of rational thinking. Traditional action is the action that is guided or regulated by customs, habits, or traditions. According to Weber, there are many factors in action behind human behavior, and he believed that most of the behavior exercised by individuals is a mix of the above mentioned actions. He advocated that a distinctive shift in the motivation of individual behavior is a distinguishing feature of a modern society (Elwell, n.d.). Major part of his work investigates the factors that gave birth to the idea of rationalization in the western society. Weber believes that social action is an illustration of the use of an ideal type. An ideal type provides the fundamental method for comparative and historical study (Elwell, n.d.). It also helps the researcher when he or she is studying a specific area of the society. This ideal type cannot be a real phenomenon; it is a classic hypothetical example against which the reality could be compared (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). Theory of Rationalization According to Weber, rationalization refers to the increasing human control over the social environment. As per this theory, there are three basic points that are individual cost-benefit analysis, the bureaucratic arrangement of organization, and understanding of reality without searching for explanations in mystery, magic, or supernatural beliefs (Allan, 2005). The process of rational thought is the sensible application of knowledge to arrive at a preferred outcome. It leads to competence, cooperation, efficiency, and power over both the natural and the social surroundings (Elwell, n.d.). It also makes individuals come out as free, as he or she breaks the net of traditional thoughts and illogical belief systems. In his later works on bureaucracy, Weber discusses rationalization in detail. Weber advocates that bureaucracies are goal-defined organizations devised according to rational factors in order to effectively achieve their goals (Elwell, n.d.). The bureaucratic cooperation of the actions of numerous people has become the main structural characteristic of modern societies. As regards the concept of rationalization, Weber stayed doubtful. He saw it as a two-sided phenomenon. On the one hand, rationalization has liberated the humans; on the other hand, it has also brought about dehumanization of individuals. Weber believed that rationalization has transformed humans into parts of machine and has stolen their freedom by caging them into the system of rationality and bureaucracy (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). Although Weber believed that bureaucracies are the most efficient way of achieving organizational goals, red tapes will grow and bureaucratic system will start functioning for its own sake. The white collar class will expand to become the largest group in the society, a group to deal with and create more rules. The individuals would be eventually swamped, and life in these societies would be stifled by an iron cage of bureaucracy (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism He looks deeper within the fact of simultaneous emergence of a specific type of Protestantism, that is Calvinism, and the capitalist mode of production, though he quickly points out that the connection is not a causal one. One did not give birth to the other; instead, they occurred at the same time and complemented each other (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). Weber identifies this as an ‘elective affinity’. It is an ideal example of the requirement to understand all the facets of a culture that constitutes society and makes it work (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). Calvinism advocated that only a few of those who are chosen could enter heaven. Its followers are not sure about who the chosen ones are, so the best way to know was to be honest, hard working, careful, and live a sober life. These qualities happened to fit in well with the ‘spirit’ of capitalism, being a more rational approach to economic organization. Looking to the East and discerning slow or non-existent industrial growth, he wondered if the nature of eastern religions was incompatible with the sort of organization that makes capitalism possible (Barnard, Burgess, & Kirby, 2004). Politics and Government According to Weber, politics is the sharing of power of the state between various groups within a society and political leaders are the individuals that harness this power. Weber identified three basic types of political leadership or domination: traditional, charismatic, and legal domination (Warner, 1991). Weber advocates that every historical connection between rulers and the ruled was comprised of such elements and they can be accessed on the basis of this distinction (Bendix, 1977). He notes that the unsteadiness of charismatic leadership causes it to "routinise" into a more controlled form of domination. In a pure traditional authority, enough resistance to a leader can lead to a traditional revolution. The movement towards rational-legal structure of leadership using a bureaucratic formation becomes inevitable in the end (Ritzer, 2009). Social Stratification Weber developed the three-component theory of stratification. The basic elements, according to Weber, are social class, social status, and political party. Weber formulated a multifaceted approach to social stratification that portrays the relationship among prestige, wealth, and power. According to Weber, social class is based on relationships determined by economical factors. It determines one’s access to material resources. Status, according to Weber, refers to the amount of prestige and honor one enjoys in the society. It depends upon non-economical factors, while political party refers to the connections in the political realm. Conclusion Weber’s impact on the field of sociology was huge. He provided an alternative perspective to view the society in all its essence. He also distinguished between the concept of social behavior and social action. He highlighted the significance of subjective explanation as an important part of understanding of social action. He contributed to the theory of social stratification by attaching importance to social status and party in addition to social class. He highlights the concept of rationalization as factor constituting the society. Weber identified that the significance of subjectivity in social sciences makes formation of infallible, universal laws much more complicated than in natural sciences. References Allan, K. D. (2005). Explorations in classical sociological theory: Seeing the social world. Sage Publications. Barnard, A., Burgess, T., & Kirby, M. (2004). AS level and A level sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bendix, R. (1977). Max Weber: An intellectual portrait. California: University of California Press. Elwell, D. F. (n.d.). The Sociology of Max Weber. Retrieved from /www.faculty.rsu.edu: www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm Encyclopedia Brittanica. (n.d.). Max Weber. Retrieved from britannica.com: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/638565/Max-Weber Ritzer, G. (2009). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots: The basics. McGraw-Hill. Warner, D. (1991). An ethic of responsibility in international relations. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Read More