Max Weber as a Philosopher of the Social Sciences and His Idealistic Vision - Case Study Example

 Introduction Society is formed when a group of people comes together with common interests and objectives. The social relations are important aspects of the society and during a social change these relations and social practices are also vulnerable to alteration and modification. Social change is a part of the reality that has to be addressed by any social or economic theory. Internationalization of the world was one of the salient features of the late twentieth century in terms of production, trade finance, technology, communications, education and culture. (Haferkamp and Smelser, 370) This essentially heralded the beginning of the postmodern era. Postmodernism refers to the application of developments in critical theory, architecture, art, culture and literature. Modernism encompassed a series of cultural movements that came up from the changes in Western society. However certain models or worldviews of great scholars tend to live through and capture all the changes. Max Weber was one such philosopher of the social sciences whose idealistic vision cannot be denied at any point of time. Thus, one of the leading social theorists till date, Max Weber is a prime engineer of the social science in the topical time. Weber’s contributions to the academic streams such as sociology and public administration cannot be overlooked. His views significantly helped in reforms of the law, economics, politics and even in the studies of religion. He established himself as one of the key theorists who founded the grounds of modernity through his works, “rationalization thesis” and the “Protestant Ethic thesis” (Kim). The ground that provides a platform for Max Weber in the arena of social theory is the fact that he worked towards the problems and issues of the modern society. This has brought him together even in the current age and hundred years after their deaths. The paper will discuss some thoughts of Weber on the issues, which affect the modern society from aspects of economics, politics and also sociology. Weber on Capitalism, bureaucracy and the modern society Weber’s related the notion of capitalism with religion in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He puts across the point that capitalism has been inspired by the religious movement known as Calvinism where God decided the damnation and salvation of spirits according to his will. According to Protestant notion the work ethic was most important and this centered on the urge towards achieving economic success, the determination to put forward hard work and not being too self-indulgent. Hence these ethics provided a base that reflected the “spirit” for capitalism. (Weber and Parsons, 155-157; Parkin, 41) These also provided the justification for not spending the profits on other activities and therefore reinvesting them into business and thus leading to “rational investment”, a term well acquainted in the modern world. According to Parkin, Weber had one strong and one weak thesis. The strong thesis speaks in favor of Calvinism being the causal factor behind capitalism while the weak thesis point out that Calvinism supported the growth of capitalism. The strong thesis took place when a change was brought about in the field of religious thought. The weak thesis proclaims that the changes in religious thoughts have removed all hindrances in the path of growth of capitalism or “legitimizing’ it. (Parkin, 43) Weber conceptualizes that capitalism emerged in Western Europe unless it was exported to countries like China and Japan with the help of invasion or colonization. He has taken similar other economies as the control in his analysis. However according to Mill certain institutions cannot be compared to one another against a single social backdrop. According to Parkin, the social cultures present in the economies taken as control by Weber are different from that present in the European economies. Therefore the east and the west could not be compared. According to Mill, psychological perspectives were very important. Weber bases his analysis on idealistic viewpoint instead of understanding the psychological background for a person’s action. Weber often places two concepts under the same roof where there is no psychological association between the components. For instance while talking of bureaucracy he brings together the concepts of division of labor as well as that of subordination by the authority. These two concepts are not connected psychologically because the division of labor might as well be collectively organized and hence there is no connection with the authoritarian form of governance. Although labor division does depend on authoritarianism, yet the concepts cannot be placed side by side without any further analysis. Weber uses the idealist type of approach, which is supposed to be an abstraction of the Prussian type of authoritarian government. While Marx explains capitalism by assuming that some historic collection of wealth has already taken place through forceful confiscation, Weber explains it on the basis of competitive advantage which one market might have over the other. If a group of people become efficient and systematically moves towards earning money then the others who are les careful and ambitious will become their inferiors or employees to serve their needs. When an authoritarian body possesses the productive resources, it automatically possesses the laborers. This is due to the advantageous position the authority is in. The management is therefore in a superior bargaining position on the grounds of possessing the resources and enjoying control over the capital and finances. Hence no forceful acquiring of laborers is necessary. However under exceptional conditions such kind of capitalism might occur and Weber too acknowledges that. (Kilcullen) Max Weber carries on the criticism of capitalism as he approaches the work ethics of the modern era in terms of religious sentiments. He claims that financial pursuit, which had been born out of religious work ethics, has currently become the new religion; “man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.” (Weber and Parsons, 53) As studied above, according to him the spirit of capitalism was born out of “the spirit of Christian asceticism” (Weber and Parsons, 155). He however, repeats some of the sentiments of Marx as he says that work was now devoid of its religious and ethical meaning. He expresses his sentiments regarding the fact that this appeared as an irrational approach to life itself, especially when he considers, “the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudemonistic… admixture” (Weber and Parsons, 53). Weber presented the religious view of the modern man by indicating money been designated as its new god who is a demanding. People work even harder such that they might earn the ever-powerful dollar and thus discontent result because people living in a certain period always run after the illusive money. According to Weber, “since ascetism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history.” (Weber and Parsons, 181) here again, he reflects some of Marxist views because even he suggests that object (money) takes on the power (since people run after it) since man allows it. This happens only within the realm of capitalism. Weber also points to the power of bureaucracy as a means by which community action is transformed into societal action. (Scaff, 1269-86) If the state is supposed to exit then the dominated also should obey the order of the state and thus the powerful remained ever powerful and the dominated was always dominated. Bureaucracy implies a set of norms prepared and documented at a desk and meant for everyone to follow. This echoes Marx’s view on the political influence over the perpetual state of inequality, “The restricted character of political emancipation immediately appears in the fact that the state can free itself of a limitation without the human being truly being free of it, in the fact that the state can be a free state without the man being a free man.” (Marx and O’Malley, 34) Bureaucracy is not any classification of governmental structure but it is a means through which the other forms exercise their power. Weber pointed out that each bureaucratic body has some connections with the other levels of the society. It has its self-interests to fulfill and can function properly only when someone is there to provide direction to the policies framed by the body and provide support to the bureaucrat. There is always a superior body above the bureaucracy. This concept emerged from the existence of kings and clerks who went along with the king. In the modern time the bureaucracy works as the messenger of the ruler and the ruler does not have to ride the horse and be present in the battlefield like the king. Every office such as the armies, churches, educational bodies and political parties has incorporated a bureaucratic structure within themselves. (Weber, and Parsons, 330-331) The ideal kind of bureaucracy as proclaimed by Weber is featured by the hierarchical labor categorization subject to defined and unbiased rules. A structure, which is filled with employees working on full time or part time basis without possessing the means of administration, is an ideal bureaucracy. In such a structure, the employees get salaries, which are not directly related or directly derived from their productive work. Such characteristics are found in every office of public services along with educational institutions and the private firms. Certain governmental bodies exist in history where the government did not distinguish public and private property and Weber calls this form “patrimonial”. It was natural for a kingdom to change its rule and hence property and resources changed hands automatically. However the Church was different and recognized the difference between private and public property. The property of the church was not allowed to be used by the families. (Kilcullen) According to Weber, in modern days the bureaucrats are far separated from property and receive a salary. It is not customary for them to accept any special gifts or charge any fees personally. The notion, which precedes this structure, is that if an employee in the bureaucracy has any side income, he or she might not give his complete effort towards the job and hence might not be reliable. The bureaucrat is not the owner of his job or office. Even the infrastructure assets are not his property. He is supposed to use it for his work. Weber gives a similar example to reflect the concept. In modern days the soldiers in the army do not own the weapon he uses in the war but in ancient times they did. Looking at the modern educational institutions we find the same framework at work. Teachers are not the owners of the resources. Weber observes that the bureaucratization of the universities is proportional to the growing demand for substantial resources of management. With the flow of such means of production towards the privileged upper level of the authority in the institute, the group of researchers and teachers are alienated from their respective "means of production”. This is similar to the way in which capitalist enterprise was estranged the workers who worked there. (Gerth and Mills, 131) This is the framework in every bureaucratic structure and the idea is not only to promote efficiency but also to save the expenses of the workers from buying the modern technologically advanced resources. Since the modern day’s bureaucracy needs people to stay here permanently, it has to offer adequate job security and compensation as well. So work here is normally on fulltime basis for the lifetime of the employee. Without this the organization is not going to be efficient, at least that is the idea. A lot of time needs to be invested to gain suitable level of experience to do the job efficiently and mainly because a coordinated action is required. If division of labor has to work systematically then stability of the tenure of work is required for the employees. The credentials of the employee in the bureaucracy have to be attested or certified. However all these criterion like fixed salary, impartial ground of credentials and other aspects are idealistic in nature and these are what Weber advocates in his model. According to him all these may ensure the efficient performance. In Weber’s opinion impartial enforcement of rules is the most significant part of bureaucracy. For instance the Taxation Commission would impartially apply the regulations to the taxpayers irrespective of any ground for differences. Bureaucracy might be treated under the three categories – rational, traditional and charismatic. Rational power implies the “rule of law” and this is present where the people automatically have respect for the law, which in turn has to be established legitimately. Even in a private organization people want to clarify whether a law or norm is authorized or not before following it blindly. Rulers are renowned and followed provided they can explain the merit in the law. Bureaucracy clearly survives inside such a structure. Traditional authority is viewed as genuine since each person has forever complied with the leader without question, and no one imagines of disturbing his influence. Charismatic authority is considered as legal, and functions, because the subordinates are individually dedicated to the talented and able head. Weber explains in the work The theory of social and economic organization why the rule of law is called rational as he observes, “'any given legal norm may be established... on grounds of expediency or rational values or both, with a claim to obedience” (Weber and Parsons, 329) A law may be rational when there is practicality or expediency in it and also if there are ‘rational values’. Thus, in both ways this would gain obedience. As long as there is rationality in the law, rational people will obey it and hence the “rule of law” is rational. He brings up therefore two concepts of rationality – ‘goal-rational’ and ‘value-rational’. The first concept signifies the importance of goal or the ultimate purpose. Given a set of resources and goals, the best possible way or means to achieve the end or the goals is termed as goal-rationality. This is the same concept, which works behind economics where limited resources need to be used to meet unlimited wants. It is the wise choice of the means, which determines rationality. (Weber and Parsons, 115; Weber, Roth and Wittich, 33-41) Often Weber remarks that prudence (rationale) of proceedings is not always decided by their efficacy in taking the goals forward, but at times by certain association with values which are not the end results or goals. Even the goals may be rational or irrational. In fact telling a lie might help one reach the goal but it distorts moral value. So it is important not only to judge the effectiveness of a certain process or means of achieving the end but also the rationality of the goal to be reached is judged and this later concept is termed as value-rationality. The notion of telling a lie or a truth is abstract ones and hence cannot be termed as goals. They may be identified in terms of values. Sometimes Weber even addresses rationality to be equivalent to efficiency. In this backdrop he explains the efficiency of bureaucracy as follows: “'Experience tends universally to show that the purely bureaucratic type of administrative organization... is... capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of carrying out imperative control over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability. It thus makes possible a particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of organization and for those acting in relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations, and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks'” (Weber and Parsons, 337) According to Weber the idealistic model of bureaucracy is the most efficiency structure of an organization and therefore many capitalist firms are also adopting the same. When a bureaucracy governs an institution its performance surpasses that of others. If a group of people or an individual wants to separate from the bureaucracy they need to form another bureaucratic organization. The concept of bureaucracy is similar to the application of division of labor to an administration. Weber suggests that the division of labor is a fundamental method since it gives birth to further labor divisions. The office gives instruction to the factory for the workers to follow. While Adam Smith had perceived division of labor to be the main cause behind modern advancement of the civilization, Weber predicts that bureaucracy is the key to the origin of capitalism. Again, he does not forget to point out the other factors responsible for the growth and establishment of capitalism. For instance, systematic accounting has helped in supporting the urge to gain profit and reinvest money not for consumption but for making business. It is this systematic accounting, which guides the management and the investment decisions. When one component of the organization becomes systematic the other components follow the same path. On one hand efficient machineries came in and bureaucracy of the capitalist felt that bringing in innovations could result in profit for the organization. Weber’s supporters observe that in the modern days, firms are operated by the managers and not by the owners. These managers undertake the raising of capital through issuing of shares. They also decide the investments and borrowings when required. Despite praising the structure of bureaucracy, Weber does not fail to point out it fallacies. From the idea of ‘goal-rational’ and ‘value-rational’, the same difference may be observed between two other concepts – ‘formal’ and ‘substantive’ rationality. When everything in the society act to optimize people’s goals it is ‘formally’ rational. These goals might be anything. This is served by the capitalism. However such organizations are not friendly with the values, which are more important that the end results addressed or met. Thus they are not ‘substantive’ rational. For instance personal freedom is curbed and in order to gain promotion and salary hike employees are supposed to be complaint with the decisions of their superiors or the managers. The bureaucracy is therefore not friendly towards personal freedom. However Weber feels that the occurrence of bureaucracy is inevitable despite its negativities. However Weber still says that opposition to such inescapable reality should not be overruled and he himself has been active in the political sphere. Weber compares the honorable rank of the public servant with the accountability of politician. If a superior of a bureaucrat provides him an instruction he thinks it would be wrong to counter it. The superior would stress that it is the responsibility of the bureaucrat to follow the instruction in such that it will justify his innermost belief. Again the politician would normally give up his office and responsibilities if the instructions and actions were not in compliance with his opinions or views. It is important to select the leaders in politics with the help of a competitive struggle where the job of a leader is to stand in favor of matters, which surpass material issues. This is possible when the individual is financially independent and only then he can give up his office to his conviction (Kilcullen). Concluding remarks Before the final conclusion a small note may be made upon the methodology he has used in his entire approach. As discussed before, the above analysis has been made by using the ideal type approach. The ethical mindset of Weber is reflected here. Weber defines the idea type to be “formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view” (Kim). Complying with these, “concrete individual phenomena….are arranged into a unified analytical construct”(Kim). This is a utopia, which cannot be found in reality. This should not hinder one to stand up for his ideals without making any compromise. Weber’s method is therefore based on ethical notion. Weber has been a liberal minded political activist and his way was to “address the problem of classical liberal characterology that was, in his view, being progressively undermined by the indiscriminate bureaucratization of modern society”. He also defined the modern state as, “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. (Kim) Such legitimacy may originate from charisma, convention or the law. He also accepts the fact that in a democratic state too, leaders have to rule and self-rule in absolute terms is not possible. The only option is to choose between leaderless and leadership based democratic structure. He had propagated in favor of an all-encompassing democratization in Germany in the post war period. He exemplified democracy as a marketplace in politics occupied by enigmatic leaders who are elected with the help of votes in a competition. They even need to struggle among themselves to gain the prior position. This element of struggle needs to be maintained such that only the strong leaders will rise to the appropriate position. Only this can allow an all-powerful bureaucracy to exist. In this manner what Weber actually suggest for democracy is not the enforcement of values and people who actually comprehend the principles of democracy. He also explained that social pluralism would result from charismatic leadership. It is mainly oriented towards rising of a character suitable for national leadership. (Kim) Finally, we may say that what follows from Weber’s vision is that of a utopia for which modern activists should fight but in the present context it is rare to find such a system where all the ideal components are functioning as they should. Corruption has eaten away into the system and perhaps this was present at the back of Weber’s mind when he said that people should always fight for his own ideals. He does not explain a methodical outlet from such corruption, which might lead to ineffiency in the system. Yet, he is right when he says that bureaucracy is the key in all the institutions because without it the system cannot sustain in a competition. Works Cited 1. Kilcullen, John. MAX WEBER: ON BUREAUCRACY, POL264 Modern Political Theory, Macquarie University, 1996, available at: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l09.html (accessed on May 2, 2010) 2. Haferkamp, Hans and Neil J. Smelser, Social Change and Modernity, Berkeley · Los Angeles: University of California PRESS, 1992 3. Kilcullen, John. MAX WEBER: ON CAPITALISM, POL264 Modern Political Theory, Macquarie University, 1996, available at: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l10.html (accessed on May 2, 2010) 4. Kim, Sung Ho. Max Weber, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007, available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/#ModConMod (accessed on May 2, 2010) 5. Parkin, Frank. Max Weber. London: Routledge, 2002. 6. Weber, Max and Talcott Parsons. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2003 7. Gerth, Hans Heinrich and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: essays in sociology, London: Routledge, 2003 8. Weber, Max and Talcott Parsons. The theory of social and economic organization, New York: Free Press, 1997. 9. Weber, Max, Roth, Guenther and Claus Wittich, Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology, Volume 1, California: University of California, 1978 10. Scaff, Lawrence A, 'Max Weber and Roberto Michels', American Journal of Sociology, 1981, 86, pp.1269-86 11. Marx, Karl, and Joseph J. O’Malley, Marx: early political writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 Read More