Weber's Ideal Types - Book Report/Review Example

Weber's Ideal Types Introduction: The purpose of this paper is not to understand the theory of the ideal type that has been proposed by Max Weber but it is to understand the usability of this theory in understanding other conflicting opinions in the modern sociology. Therefore, our approach to this paper would be somewhat different from what one would assume: here we would first try to explain the concept of the ideal type as clearly and as lucidly as possible. We would subsequently move onto a very important debate of two very important writers from the field of sociology: Karl Marx and mile Durkheim and their conflicting analysis on society and the state. After we have clearly explained their stances on the matter, we will try to use Weber's theory of ideal type and try and establish its implication on the debate between Marx and Durkhiem and see whether the concept of ideal type can better help explain the concept at hand. Weber's Ideal Type: With this structure in mind, let us move onto the concept of the ideal type, as proposed by Max Weber. Basically, an ideal type is the formulation of a systematic build, which put in extremely simple terms, acts as an assessment implement for a researcher who wishes to determine the similarities and difference between the concrete conceptual arguments. Suffice to say, many who are related to the field of sociology consider this to be an ideal construct for comparative study. "An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct." [1] An ideal type is not merely a reference to moral ideals. One can even have ideal types of prostitutes or pre-marital sex; and neither were Weber's intentions whilst instituting this theory statistical and mathematical compliance. For a very simple example, the average Muslim in a given country at a given period in history the exact model of an ideal Muslim. So fundamentally, the ideal type is merely an inflection of the emblematic courses of conduct that one would witness in a certain genre of the society. Due to this, many of the ideal types that have been instituted by Weber are not based on the social activities and niceties of individuals; rather they are based on the collectivities of these said individuals, however, it is important to note that social relationships between these said collectivities stand upon the implicit probability that the component actors of the collectives would conduct themselves in accordance with acceptable social norms and regulations. Another important aspect of the theory of the ideal type is that the ideal type of a certain figure from sociology does not directly correlate with the concrete sensory-perceptional reality in fact it always deviates at least one marginal step away from this reality. This ideal type is constructed from some sections of reality in order to form a logically precise and coherent whole, which can never be located or created in the said reality on its own. An example to better explain this rather peculiar statement is that there is never an empirical example of the best Muslim, the most charismatic leader or the ethics and values of prostitution. [2] Ideal types allow a sociologist to build hypothesis which link them to the circumstances that were responsible for bringing the concept into full view in the first place, or with the consequences that follow from the emergence of the said concepts. If we wish to study the religious roots of modern capitalism, it may be advisable to construct an ideal type of Protestant, based on the distinct features of sectarians as these emerged during the Reformation. We shall then be in a position to determine empirically whether the concrete conduct of Protestants in, say, seventeenth-century England did in fact approximate the type and in what specific aspects it failed to do so. [4] Marx and Durkheim's conceptualization and analysis of society and the state: Despite the various similarities and differences between the theories of Durkheim and Marx, both the sociologists have managed to affect the perception of people throughout the world on the concept of 'society' and 'state.' Durkheim describes the society as a product of scientific reasoning. He believes that the society and the social facts that it contains within, can be explained through natural sciences and scientific reasoning. He believes that the society as a whole is above the individuals who inhabit it. Durkheim believed that society believed of collective representations which included 'ways of acting, thinking and feeling which possess the remarkable property of existing outside the individual.' This means that the individuals comprising a society would take the same meaning out of a particular thing and also shared a common culture. He saw society as a collection if different groups in which individuals are distributed. He also believed that these people had shared religious thinking and languages as well. On the other hand Marx explained society as a constant class struggle against exploitation. Both the sociologists have described society as a feeling of unity towards this common thing between them. [4] Georges Sorcel, a Marxist critically analyzed Durkheim's theories and ignored the notion of class conflict in his reasoning. Durkheim was more in favor of nationwide stretch of education and justice. His reason for trying to have most individuals educated was once again to make people understand the society scientifically. Durkheim was not interested in material and economic justifications, like Marx, neither was he interested in value theory or class conflict but rather he viewed the society as a whole as one single unit. He viewed the society as a binding platform for the individuals that inhabited it. Durkheim believed that society constituted collective representations which included 'ways of acting, thinking and feeling which possess the remarkable property of existing outside the individual.' This means that the individuals comprising a society would take the same meaning out of a particular thing; shared meanings. Also an attributable characteristic of Durkheim's society was that all people who inhabited had similar values and culture. If for example, a group of people living on one nook of an island believed that black clouds were a symbol of bad luck, then all people belonging to the society from which that group sprung up would believe the same. Or if one group believed in the concept of 'satti' then all groups of that society would believe in similar concept. In simpler words, they had a shared culture. Durkheim also believed that people belonging to a particular society has shared languages and religious thinking. [5] Marx on the other hand, had a more materialistic approach to the concept of 'society' and 'state.' A particular class in his society could be extremely rich while another could be of peasants with the former dominating the latter. He also explained that the individuals comprising his society constrained their relation to the environment around them. Their actions were influenced by their superiors, and this organized them in a form of herd-consciousness. Even when talking of the 'family,' he claims that there is exists a 'money relationship' between the individuals of family. He says that the wife and children of the family act as slaves of the husband. Although explained in different ways, both Marx and Durkheim make the same point in relation to the concept of 'social being.' Marx dismisses the fact that the 'social being' determines 'consciousness.' He rather believes that 'consciousness' determines the 'social being.' Durkheim explains that system of beliefs and ways of thinking, or more simply consciousness, is inhibited by the way in which a society is organized, or in simple words the organization of the 'social being.' The reason for this is that a homogeneous division of labor includes the concept of similarity and it is not possible to have varied ways of thinking without a heterogeneous division of labor. On another front, Durkheim has managed to create an evolutionary view of the society. In this aspect of his theory, he is very similar to Marx and Spencer. He has always maintained the notion that 'society' has developed from the lesser forms of organization to advanced forms. He describes that each state in the process of development of the society that exists today has been distinct from the other. This is why he labels this mechanism an evolutionary process. For this very reason Durkheim explains that the concept of 'organic solidarity' has sprung up from the concept of 'mechanical solidarity.' Stated more simply, this is the way that homogeneous division of labor has made it to a more complex heterogeneous division of labor through evolution. [6] One of the major influences on Marx was of Feuerbach. Feuerbach argued that God created human beings to get things done the wrong way. Further he challenged that God is a human creation. Parallel to Marx's influence, Durkheim argued that religion is a social fact. He believes that it is a widespread phenomenon that's why it has sprung up from society and thus a social fact. Marx has explained his argument by claiming that religion is an 'ideological expression of the inadequate capacity of existing social conditions to realize the full human potential of people.' At the other front, Durkheim has argued that 'religion expresses some profound truths about the relationship between society and its members.' [7] In German Ideology, Marx talks about classes based on their economic well-being. All the relations existing amongst individuals living in a society are based upon the need for subsistence and survival. All their actions converge to their need of feeding their families and themselves. According to him, the society is divided in to two specific classes; those that have capital and those that are the laborers. He specifically mentions that this society consists of the 'oppressor and the oppressed.' The class that has the capital is the 'oppressor' of the 'oppressed' class of laborers. This 'social contract' is the very reason that people of Marxist Society started investing in property and more non-movable forms of possession. They were different in this view from the theology of Durkheim; the people of such society concentrated on establishing control over movable possessions such as slaves who could provide labor for the ones who owned them. Other similar characteristics that are attributable to the Marxist society include capital accumulation and ultimate exploitation of the lower class which was absent from the society that Durkheim talked of. [8] Marx claims that the 'internal and external structure' of a nation depends on the level of advancement it has in production methods. For advancement and development of more productive modes of production, the individuals comprising the society have to be 'organized.' This notion of organization has led to the development of the concept of the 'state.' He describes the concept of the 'state' as not real rather controlled by an 'alien force.' This alien force is the product of the vast exploitation of the laborers by the capitalists. On the other front, Durkheim states that earlier establishments of the 'state' did not have complex regulations and laws. Rather they were structured on the concept of war to get hold of more movable property; slaves. Both the sociologists give analogy of the state mechanism to the functions of a human body. Durkheim states that the function of the 'brain' is to get the body used to changes in the environment of the individual. On the theory of Anomie, Durkheim makes it clear that when too much sociological changes occur in a society, such that they are difficult to get used to, the social order is disturbed. In such a situation, the society fails to contain the individual that inhabits it. Such an individual then gets out of control and commits suicide. [9] Using Ideal Type to understand this debate: After a long and arduous debate, we cannot really say that we have been able to determine which sociologist has a better grasp of the concept at hand and which concept is more grounded and balanced to be considered better than the other. Hence, here we will try and institute the concept of the ideal type in order to better understand Marx and Durkheim's viewpoint. Now Marx, as mentioned earlier in the paper, was heavily influenced by Feuerbach, whose personal musings on religions have been well documented. Therefore, the ideal type of Marx would not have innately grounded religious principles when it comes people and society, therefore, material objects take a more important role in his ideal type as they are not subject to the regulation of a religious conscience. Therefore, an ideal type of Marx would propagate the notion that the desire of every human being to fulfill their needs and wants have led to the 'oppressor versus oppressed' concept in his society of Capitalism. As these needs increase, this concept becomes tough and sturdy leading to further exploitation of the 'oppressed.' So, the ideal type of Marx is not influenced by the religious burdens of working towards societal good, rather are more immersed in ascertaining and maximizing personal gains which would lead to their personal betterment. Unfortunately, since the society is zero-sum; one person's gain is another person's loss which had to the oppression of the society. [10] Now, let us try and create Durkheim's ideal type. Now, the ideal type of Durkheim is primarily concerned with the manner in which societies would maintain their integrity and coherence in the times when things such as shared religious beliefs and ethnic background would no longer remain entities that can merely be assumed. As Durkheim, along with Herbert Spencer, was one of the pioneers in the explanation of the existence of different sections of society and the different in quality between these sections, we can see that un-assimilation is major subliminal theme in theoretical framework of Durkheim's ideal type. The fact that Durkheim uses this notion to propagate his other idea that each succinctly diverse group of the society serve a specific function in what he says is 'maintaining the quotidian' i.e. their influence in keeping the society working and maintaining it that way. However, the greatest pivotal difference between the ideal type of Durkheim and the one of Marx is that contrary to Marx's perceptions, Durkheim believes that a society is more than just the sum of its parts i.e. the parts synergize together to create a society. Therefore, one individual's gain in the society would not necessarily lead to the loss of another, rather in some cases a group in the society can gain merely from the expansion of another group in the society. With these set of values in mind, we can see that Durkheim's ideal type worked hard to revive the Republic through 'new social reforms' and a 'new liberal secular civic morality' that was basically based upon the idea of scientific reasoning. [11] Hence, we can see more clearly see the divide between the two scholars with regards to their impressions of society when we analyze and subsequently compare their Weberian ideal types. Bibliography: 1. Korotayev A., Malkov A., Khaltourina D. (2006) "Introduction to Social Macrodynamics" Moscow: URSS, 2006. ISBN 5-484-00414-4 2. Bernhard K. Quensel (2007), "Max Webers Konstruktionslogik. Sozialkonomik zwischen Geschichte und Theorie". Nomos. ISBN 9783832925178 [Revisiting Weber's concept of sociology against the background of his juristic and economic provenance within the framework of "social economics"] 3. Swedberg, Richard, "Max Weber as an Economist and as a Sociologist", American Journal of Economics and Sociology 4. William H. Swatos, ed. (1990), 'Time, Place, and Circumstance: Neo-Weberian Studies in Comparative Religious History'. New York: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26892-4 5. Cotterrell, Roger. (1999). 'Emile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain.' Stanford University Press. 6. Lemert, Charles. 2006. 'Durkheim's Ghosts: Cultural Logics and Social Things.' Cambridge University Press. 7. Rothbard, Murray "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Volume II: Classical Economics" (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1995) ISBN 0-945466-48-X 8. Huges, Martin, Sharrock. (1995) 'Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber and Durkheim.' London: Sage Publication 9. Ken, Thompson. (2002). Emile Durkheim: Revised Edition. London and New York: Routledge. 10. Marx, Karl (1977). Capital. New York: Random House Inc. 11. Tucker, R. C. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, "The German Ideology", New York: W. W. Norton. Read More