Max Weber is a renowned sociologist, born in German and an economist based on politics. He is famous for his thesis on the protestant ethic connecting Protestantism to capitalism and the grand theory of bureaucracy (Felten & Oertzen 1). Weber developed an interest in why people acquired authority by social status instead of capability and skills. Leaders were not committed to the organization, and facilities were applied for the advantage of the shareholders and management instead of conforming to organizational objectives (Felten & Oertzen 1). Weber agrees that organizations rely on good authority, where a mandate granted to the person with the highest skills and experience will be more effective (Felten & Oertzen 1). This logical organization is what Weber refers to as bureaucracy.
Characteristics of Bureaucracies
Max Webers theory of bureaucracy explains six characteristics that lead to an optimal formal organization. The first one is the Hierarchy of authority, which designates one person or office in control of another, who are answerable to their bosses (Suzuki & Hur 877). In a university setup, the lectures are assigned duties by the department heads, who are liable to the vice-chancellor. The vice-chancellor is accountable to the CEO, who is the chancellor and board members, everyone in the bureaucracy adheres to the chain of command. The second rule is the clear division of labor, which states that every person has a specific duty to perform within a bureaucracy (Suzuki & Hur 877). For instance, medical professors teach medicine but do not take care of the universitys financial issues.
The third characteristics involve rules and regulations, which are in a statement, documented, and standardized (Suzuki & Hur 877). For instance, at the university, learners practices are included in the student handbook. Bureaucracies also get direction from impersonality, which excludes individual attitudes from the professional condition (Suzuki & Hur 877). This rule protects from nepotism and favoritism, effectively cushioning students and others served by the university. Bureaucracies also involve a formal selection process, that focuses on skills, experience, and technical credentials illustrated by education, training, and evaluation tests (Suzuki & Hur 877). The last characteristic is career orientation, which states that management differs from shareholding, and leaders are career employees (Suzuki & Hur 877). In a university setup, the head of the department has protection from biased dismissal.
Negative and Positive Impacts of Groupthink in an Organization
Groupthink is a process that happens when a group of people gets to an agreement without reasoning or examination of the problems or options. It is based on a common wish not to disappoint the balance of a team of individuals (Cha et al. 207). Groupthink affects the organization negatively as it restrains personal thought, and innovations are mainly concerned (Cha et al. 207). Adverse risk of this groupthink happens with organizations operating under devastating internal and external conditions, primarily due to deviation from the standard process (Cha et al. 207). Companies with similar workforce are also more affected by groupthink than organizations that diversify on gender balance and different age groups.
The positive part of groupthink in an organization may happen when high levels of disputes exist. It can result in some sense of harmony by evaluating and stimulating a common ground (Cha et al. 207). Groupthink can also help in the operation of a new organization by focusing on the commonplace and consolidating an organized performance toward a single team (Cha et al. 207). Therefore, apart from groupthink having negative impacts on the organizations, it positively affects some specific situations.
Conclusion
Based on Max Webers bureaucracy theory, the university as an organization is reflecting on it. The structure of leadership in universities conforms to the rule of the Hierarchy of authority for bureaucracies. The selection of leadership is also focusing on skills and experience. Additionally, employees have designated duties as stated by the rules of bureaucracies. Focusing on groupthink does pose adverse effects to the organizations and also imposes positive impacts that aid in growing a new company.
References
Cha, Namjun et al. The Optimal Knowledge Creation Strategy of Organizations in Groupthink Situations. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, vol. 26, no. 2, 2020, pp. 207-235.
Felten, Sebastian, and Christine von Oertzen. Bureaucracy as Knowledge. Journal for the History of Knowledge, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-16.
Suzuki, Kohei, and Hyunkang Hur. Bureaucratic Structures and Organizational Commitment: Findings from a Comparative Study of 20 European Countries. Public Management Review, vol. 22, no. 6, 2020, pp. 877-907.
This assignment is a discussion on the topic of bureaucracy as described by Max Weber. The discussion looks at the theory in general and its effects in public administration in terms of advantages and disadvantages. It will be argued in the discussion that the approach is characterized by hierarchical distribution of power and authority in both public and private sector organizations.
The major advantage is that it ensures that jobs are done only by those employees who are qualified to do them; that is, the employees are selected purely on merit. Its major short coming in public administration is that it is too rigid especially when it comes to making decisions. This delays the delivery of services as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of public organizations.
The Bureaucratic Approach
This theoretical approach was formed by Max Weber in 1947.The approach conceptualizes organizations as being guided by hierarchical chains of command, in which decisions are made based on the top down approach. Those who are at the top management positions are responsible for making the decisions while their juniors are responsible for the execution of those decisions.
In the hierarchy, each position is composed of specific roles and responsibilities as well as some amount of authority to make decisions or to command other workforce down the hierarchy (Rainey, 2009).
The approach conceptualizes organizations as being characterized by division of labor and specialization. Each position in the hierarchy is held by specialized individuals or bureaucrats who have acquired education and training on that particular position. The specializations are accompanied by some specific authorities depending on the position in the hierarchy (Shafritz, 2011).
The approach views organizations as being guided by formal regulations and rules which are formed and communicated well within the organization (Fry, 2008).
There are the rules of conduct in the work place which govern things like working hours, holidays, offs, the language to be used, communication protocols within the organization based on the hierarchy, and the communication channel regarding assignments for specific positions in the hierarchy.
These rules and regulations govern the procedures and the processes of the organization so as to give it an identity as well as stability and make it possible to predict the output of the organization because everything is planned in advance and followed to the letter without failure or compromise (Fry, 2008).
The approach views organizations as being characterized or guided by rationality. Employees are selected not on the basis of friendship but on merit and their qualifications. The approach does not encourage the mixing of friendship or family issues with organizational business. All employees are therefore selected in a transparent and competitive process which is free from any bias.
The same applies to employee remunerations. Each and every employee is remunerated as per his or her position, qualifications, and rank in the organization, meaning that those who are at the top get higher remunerations than those who are at the bottom in the hierarchy.
In terms of responsibilities, those at the bottom are more involved with organizational activities while those at the top are mostly concerned with policy issues and public relations activities and are less involved in the daily running of the organizations (Hamilton, 1991).
The approach recognizes positions in the hierarchy by their designations but not by the individuals who hold them. This is to say that there is no personification of ranks within the organization which ensures that authority is respected and reduces subjectivity as it increases objectivity in organizational undertakings.
This idea of addressing positions by their designations in the hierarchy also ensures that there is no conflict of interest or unnecessary arguments or exchanges between various officials in the chain of command, which in turn increases efficiency in the organizational business (Hamilton, 1991).
Advantages of approach In Public Administration
Bureaucratic theory is characterized by clearly defined rules and procedures in the work place. These rules make work easier for the employees because there is no ambiguity and therefore each and every employee is able to focus on his or her duties and responsibilities on the required time.
The clear chain of command also ensures that there is good communication because every employee knows where to receive commands from; which reduces conflict of interest between various levels in the organizational structure (Hamilton, 1991).
The recruitment of employee is also based on merit and professional qualifications which ensure that the correct people are employed for the correct jobs. This ensures that there is efficiency and high quality production in the organizations or businesses. The separation of employees personal issues and those of organizations makes employees focus solely on their duties and responsibilities (Naidu, 2005).
Disadvantages of bureaucratic approach in public administration
The theory has however been described by critics as being too rigid. It has also been accused of losing rationality especially in the issue of decision making, which its critics argue that it takes a lot of time before the bureaucrats in the chain of command procure a decision, which in turn compromises the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.
Other critics argue that the approach tends to build empires within organizations which discourage creativity and innovations of junior employees thereby hindering organizational progress and growth (Hamilton, 1991).
Bibliography
Fry, Brian. 2008. Mastering public administration: from Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: CQ Press.
Hamilton, Peter. 1991. Max Weber: critical assessments 1, Volume 1; Volume 3; Critical Assessments of Leading Sociologists Series. New York, NY: Routledge.
Naidu, S.P. 2005. Public Administration: Concepts and Theories. Andhra Pradesh.: New Age International.
Rainey, Hal. 2009. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations; Essential Texts for Nonprofit and Public Leadership and Management. (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Shafritz, Jay. 2011. Classics of Public Administration. (7th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth Pub Co.
Max Weber and Geertz offered varying ideas regarding cultural theory. They both viewed culture as peoples ways of doing things in society. Culture is usually developed over years whereby it is adopted and passed from one generation to the other through language. Regarding religion, which is one of the aspects of culture, Geertz and Weber offered a number of views. Some viewpoints are similar while others are different.
However, the two scholars believe that religion happens within a group implying that it is a group affair. In this regard, various groups have different religious principles and beliefs. Morality is the main principle that all religious groups and teachings espouse. Even though the two scholars agreed that religion happens at an individual level, they offered varying approaches to the understanding of group behavior. Weber noted that each religion is rational and consistent as far as its rules are concerned.
Unlike his predecessors such as Durkheim, Weber claimed in his works, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that religion could easily bring about change in society. His analysis was based on the spread of capitalism in Europe. He claimed that the Protestant abstemious self-confidence was attributed to the quick spread of capitalist ideals.
However, unlike Geertz, Weber did not intend to develop a cultural theory that would explain the dynamics of religion. His main aim was to discuss the interactions and interrelations between society and religion. On the other hand, Geertz perceived religion as a cultural system that is full of symbols, which have both public and social meaning.
People always construct their own beliefs meaning that each person has his or her own views concerning religion. Some groups have shared views regarding religion. Webers views were different from the ideas of Geertz because to him, religion had a different role to play in society. This article looks at some of the similarities and differences between the views of Weber and Geertz as regards to religion. The paper uses one aspect of culture to discuss their views.
Similarities
Geertz undertook various studies in one of the villages in Javanese, which was one of the most complex religious societies. He sought to understand the reason that inspired people to worship the supernatural being in their daily lives. Other scholars had suggested a number of views regarding the topic, but he diverged from such views by noting that the issue of religion is not a group affair, but instead it is a social affair.
This implies that it happens within a particular society. Evans-Pritchard was one of the scholars who suggested that religion is simply a group attitude because it is developed to check the behavior of group members. Geertz rejected this subjective and vague view by adopting the ideas of Weber regarding the role of religion among the Protestants in Europe. Weber was of the view that religion is a phenomenon that starts at an individual level meaning that each person has his own belief.
These beliefs develop with time into complex ideas that are in turn adopted by a group of individuals in society. Once the belief is within the public domain, it turns out to be a social system that influences peoples behavior and interactions in the wider society. Since the behavior is learned and would be internalized for years, it becomes a cultural belief or a cultural system, given the fact that it can be transmitted from one individual to the other.
Weber had earlier noted that people are always in search of truth since a man is an animal that is suspended in webs of significance. In this regard, a man does not have to look for solutions on the Earth that would resolve the many issues facing him but, instead, he has to interpret society using some mystical principles. Offering simple explanations to religious beliefs is not enough implying that people should look for the real meaning of religious events.
To explain some of these religious events, clear interpretations should be given. Geertz was of the similar view because he noted that thick descriptions should be applied in interpreting religious events if adequate answers were to be provided. According to Geertz, the use of symbols in interpreting religious events is the only solution to the many problems affecting people as far as religious issues are concerned.
He noted that some symbols are always in use in religion. Therefore, the understanding of the use of these symbols is very important. Weber noted that the Protestants were able to engage in trade and other economic matters because their religion taught them that an individuals destiny is always predetermined. Weber reached this decision after observing the behavior of Protestants for years.
He also used some of the symbols, which was the basis of Geertzs analysis. Geertz suggested that an anthropologist should use empirical methods to interpret the behavior of a group or an individual as regards to religion. Weber had also suggested a similar view by noting that a sociologist should use technical methods such as guessing, assessing, and drawing conclusions as far as the understanding of religion is concerned.
Geertz and Weber believed in the semiotic interpretation of culture meaning that their major aim was to understand some of the factors that drive people to join certain cultures. In this regard, they both believed that the understanding of culture starts with the interpretation of certain elements and categorization of certain interactions. The whole system should be categorized into sub-subsystems if any substantial meaning is to be offered.
The system is characterized based on the major beliefs and principles meaning that there are various subsystems of culture in society. Each category of the subsystem has some of the principles that members respect so much. Geertz termed this aspect as a form of collective property. Geertzs and Webers argument is that religion influences the actions of various group members because it is larger as compared to the actions of any individual in a group.
Differences
Even though the two scholars discussed extensively the issues surrounding religion, their aims were extremely different. While Geertz aimed at developing a cultural theory, Weber was simply trying to link religion to the behavior of individuals in society. For instance, Geertz noted that cultural theory is not its own master meaning that it relies on certain concepts just the way other theories do.
Therefore, the suggestion on thick description is meant to give anthropologists one of the ways in which cultural issues could be construed in society. For Weber, he was simply describing the influence that culture has on the economic behavior of certain groups in society. He utilized the Protestants to show that people are encouraged to do some things because of the influence of their culture. In one of the articles titled Deep Play, Geertz showed how thick description could be employed to comprehend the actions of certain groups.
While Weber viewed religion as an aspect of culture that has a great impact on the life of an individual in society, Geertz was of a different view because he believed that religion is a cultural system. This implies that no society can survive without religion. In his view, all symbols in any society signify the presence of religion. This system is constructed over time, which results in a powerful and pervasive motivation for individuals.
With time, people in any given society come to appreciate their culture and tend to believe that other cultures are inferior to theirs. The culture ensures that social order prevails in society because it regulates behavior. Weber was of the different view because he did not give a cultural function of religion but, instead, he only related it to the behavior of individuals in society. His major aim was to give the relationship between religion and society.
According to Geertz, religion is inseparable from culture because they are both systems of communication in any given society. However, Weber believed that the two concepts exist independently meaning that they are autonomous, but they influence each other. Geertz concluded his analysis by noting that a strong relationship between an individuals worldview and morality exists.
The legal system is a complex phenomenon that can be viewed from different perspectives. Even though it is legislative, the system can be perceived from the perspective of sociological theories and social developments. Such an approach to studying legal systems can help obtain a better understanding of factors that motivated the creation of particular frameworks as well as identifying the existing gaps that should be filled to improve the system and benefit all social groups.
One of the interesting theories beneficial for reviewing the peculiarities of legal systems is that developed by Max Weber. It focuses on formal legal rationality. That is why its postulates may be important for becoming more aware of the specific features of the contemporary legal system operating in the United States of America.
Therefore, the central objective of the paper at hand is to investigate the peculiarities of the US legal system. To cope with this task, Webers theory of formal legal rationality will be reviewed. However, the major focus will be made on the system instead of Webers theoretical points. In this way, the aim is to determine and discuss main social factors, challenges, processes, and forces that are directly associated with the American legal system and hypothesize which elements among those mentioned above promote the establishment of the ideal legal system.
Speaking of the latter, the perfection of the system is determined according to Weber. That said, in this paper, an attempt to speculate on barriers to and drivers for high formality and high rationality of the US legal system will be made. Finally, the piece of writing will end in hypotheses on the future of the legal system operating in the United States based on its strengths and challenges identified during the research.
Review of Webers Theory of Formal Legal Rationality
Understanding the modern legal system of the United States from the necessary perspective is inseparable from studying the views of Webers theory of formal legal rationality. Once considered, the major ideas will be applied to analyze the legal system of the United States to evaluate it in terms of Webers concepts. That is why the motivation is to speculate on the characteristics of the formality and rationality in the American legal system.
To begin with, it is necessary to point out that, in Webers opinion, this is rationality that is likely to determine the arterial ways of development of humanity. Therefore, it is important to reflect on what Weber implied in the concept of rationalization. First of all, from Webers viewpoint, the term rationalization stands for systematization in which a boundless chaotic group of phenomena with the fundamentally endless aggregate of connections tends to be put in good order based on several certain criteria.
However, the key issue to take into account is that Weber attempted to include the most various notions inside the concept of rationalization. For instance, he believed that bureaucratization, industrialization, development of the rational, productive capitalism, specialization, qualification, methodization, discipline, speculation, and dehumanization are all elements of rationalization (Weber).
However, the situation proved to become more regulated when Weber started speculating on more concrete things, such as the legal rationalization of free labor of the capitalist enterprising in the West. He managed to single out the most general conditions for this, and they are as follows:
the rational account of the capital;
the appropriation of the free property right for the production means by autonomous private enterprises;
the free market, which stands for the freedom of the market from any irrational restraints of exchange (for instance, from any estates limitations when a certain estate attributes a particular mode of life in which neither free goods market nor free labor force exists);
the rational, strictly assessed and thus mechanized technology both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of exchange;
the rational, strictly established right that defines the norms of labor and administration, guarantees the functioning of the capitalist order, and prevents any possible confusion in the economy account;
the free labor that means that there are people who have the right to freely sell their labor force in the market as well as who are enforced to do so;
the commercial organization of economy, which stands for a broad application of equities to establish the right to participate in the affairs of the enterprise, as well as the right to the property (Weber).
Weber believed that the key idea of western capitalism stood for the assumption that, despite the obvious importance of the economic factors that were connected with the legal rationalization, economic rationalism depended on the ability and predisposition of people to certain kinds of practically rational life behavior. From Webers viewpoint, the notion of struggle was fundamentally crucial. It was opposed to the concept of consent.
Weber derived the idea from the following of his reflections: the majority of all establishments, both institutions, and unions, had emerged not based on consent but as a result of forced actions. It implies that there were people and groups of people that were able to produce a factual impact on the common actions taken by the members of any institution or union and point them towards the direction which they were willing to level it to, based on the expectation of consent. By Weber, each individual is inclined to struggle to impose their will on others either by direct physical action or using so-called competitiveness (Weber).
Nevertheless, Weber did not happen to ignore the role of economic factors in the legal rationalism. However, in Webers opinion, the sphere of economic actions served as a mere logical precondition to explain the so-called theory of stratification. Thus, a notion of class has been introduced in this context. Based on Webers view, it is possible to speak about classes in the following situations:
when a certain number of people are united by a specific causative component that is related to their life interests;
this component is represented by a mere economic interest in purchasing goods or receiving incomes,
this component is determined by the situation which has existed in the market of goods and labor (Weber).
Weber tended to divide classes as a certain group of people into three main types. They are
the class of property owners;
the money-grabbing class that exploits services in the market;
the social class that consists of several class statuses inside which there might be witnessed some changes taking place both on the personal basis and in the framework of several generations.
Weber paid his special attention to the so-called middle class. Based on Weber, the middle class includes those people who have all the types of property and are competitive in the labor market due to their special preparation. The examples of other classes are as follows:
the labor class as the whole that is involved in the mechanizing process;
low-middle classes;
engineers, financial and other employees, as well as civil officials this class stands for the so-called intellectuals without independent property;
a class of people who have a privileged position due to their private property and education (Weber, Legal Authority ).
While investigating the class structure of the society from the legal viewpoint, Weber intended to discover the common grounds and transitions between particular groups within one class. The same is true in case of identifying the connection between different classes. Thus, the scheme of the class structure which was suggested by Weber appeared to be so intricate that, based on it, it happened to be next to impossible to make a full list of classes.
Apart from that, as distinct from classes, Weber introduced one more concept. It is referred to as status groups. He claimed that, in contrast to classes that are determined by the mere economic situation, status groups are legally identified by specific social evaluation of honor. According to Weber, social order appears to be a mere tool that allows the social honor to be legally distributed in the society between typical groups, which participate in such a distribution (Weber).
To sum it up, it is necessary to state that the notion of rationality can be viewed as the transition from the traditional state to the modern state. It emerged in the innovative conditions of personal freedom. The rational paradigm became inconsistent with the religious roots and, thus, religion was rejected by society. Weber singled out three types of legitimate power: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Weber believed that the latter had become dominant in the modern world.
What is even more important, he stated that rationalization had happened to transform Western politics. As for Webers evaluation of rationalization, it is not univocal. On one hand, Weber favored the liberation of the irrational directive. On the other hand, he criticized the mechanicalness of the new society. With these views taken into account, it is possible to go on to analyze the legal system of the United States in terms of its rationality and formality (Weber).
Analysis of the Legal System Operating in the United States
The legal system is a complex phenomenon. Therefore, to analyze it properly, it is essential to pay special attention to different aspects of the system and review it from various perspectives. Because the idea is to speculate on the specificities of the American legal system given Webers theory of formal legal rationality, the idea is to focus on social determinants of the legal system. In this way, the specific features of the legal system will be identified and described based on the existing social factors, challenges, forces, and processes that are directly associated with the systems operation and have a robust impact on its future development.
Social Factors and Challenges
Social factors are those drivers that promote positive change in society, i.e. make up the foundation of the evolutionary processes. In the case of the US legal system, the central social factor is social inequality that is evident in all areas of social interactions, including the system of social and court protection. This social factor is the main challenge of the US legal system, even though it is strong enough.
The inability to guarantee and protect the overall equality in society can be viewed from several perspectives. The first one is associated with the inability to protect ones right to the freedom of marriage. This one is a natural and personal right, as each individual is born with the desire to create a family. However, there are some significant barriers to protecting this right in all of the states (Birch 3). More than that, it is associated with the nationwide cultural and social conflict due to the lack of social support that is complicated to provide legally (Colson and Pearcey 104; Knight 1).
Another critical challenge is the inability to decrease the gap between the poor and the rich, as somehow the legal system protects the right of the rich more compared to those of the poor. It can be traced in the volume of the property tax burden as well as the inconsistency of the tax system when it comes to assessing ones property before calculating the volume of taxes to pay (Finder and Levine 1).
There is the following trend: regardless of the free access to the legal system, the poor rarely feel governmental support when it is essential to protect their financial rights and freedoms (for instance, oppose an unnecessary property audit) (Cobb 17). More than that, the contemporary legal system supports the reduction of legal aid to the poor that is connected to the increased risks of resentment and having no loyalty to the system and governments (Pear 1A).
Forces
The American legal system is characterized by the existence of several significant forces. The first one is social change. In general, this concept stands for any alterations in the established and generally acceptable behavioral patterns common for a particular society or social group (Friedman and Ladinsky 50). Therefore, when they change, it is essential to amend legal frameworks those regulating the operation of legal institutions so that they comply with the new requirements.
In the case of the United States, the ability to adapt to social change is one of the major forces of the legal system. To prove this statement, it is imperative to focus on several developments in society. For instance, recall changes in the law of industrial accidents that evolved from a primitive tort system to a comprehensive compensation system, as the industries became more complex and industry-related activities became deeply integrated into the everyday life of society members (Friedman and Ladinsky 50).
In this way, institutions are no longer ignorant when it comes to addressing human needs. Instead, special attention is paid to satisfying them as well as protecting fundamental human rights. However, this force is connected to an impressing weakness no change in the legal system is made without social demand (Friedman and Ladinsky 82). It means that if people do not demonstrate their desire to foster legal change, they experience no positive developments in the system. It is especially true in the case of involvement of interest groups in supporting ordinary people because there are interest groups (influential classes of society) that help to promote change (Coleman 264).
Another force of the US legal system is the involvement of the government in fostering change. In this instance, it is possible to recall the tightening of antitrust legislation. However, just like in the case of promoting social change, government engagement is inseparable from the waves of overall resentment in society and demands to alter the existing system (Coleman 273). A similar outcome is the adoption of equal employment and education opportunities regardless of ones skin color (Burns 48).
Even though there is significant progress in this area of social relations regulation, most of the accomplishments were achieved as a result of massive resentment in the society, just like in the case of equal employment opportunities at Kaiser plants provisions eliminating discrimination in the workplace whether it is connected to hiring or training of already employed staff (Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation).
Processes
Speaking in terms of Webers theory, the most significant processes in the US legal system are the evolutionary processes those leading to changes of the system and its improvement that make it more perfect and rational. The main evolutionary processes are those related to the changing perception of ones gender and sexual orientation in social and legal justice. The most impressive success is associated with the integration of sexual minorities, as well as women, in social life and recognizing the criticality of the legal protection of their rights by the official institutions and legal system.
For instance, when speaking of gender, there have been significant improvements in the access of women to high-status occupations across industries as well as the closing the gap in hourly compensation for work and granting women the right to integration in social affairs, including making the most critical social decisions, such as voting (Sutton 199, 274). All in all, the evolutionary process is the overall improvement of womens economic and social position that is acknowledged and protected by the contemporary legal system (Baron 474).
In this way, the contemporary system is becoming gender-blind that is a beneficial process (Sutton 196). The same is true in the case of eliminating racial discrimination in all spheres of social interactions, as the historically traditional white supremacy is becoming less significant, and it is true not only in case of interactions with African-American people but representatives of all races, including Asians, Indians, Hispanics, etc. (Burns 43, 49).
One more evolutionary process is the improvement of sexual minorities status in society. This one is associated with the decreased moral outrage when it comes to treating sexual minorities as well as the appropriate integration of minorities in different areas of social interactions, including governing social relations and military service (Eskridge and Hunter 390). Another success is the society-wide debate for protecting the right to the freedom of marriage, as it is ones private right to choose a life partner and create a family (Eskridge 808).
Specificities of the American Legal System
Based on the social factors, challenges, forces, and processes mentioned and described above, it is evident that the contemporary legal system operating in the United States can be characterized by several specific features. To begin with, the system is complicated, as any positive change in the social and legal frameworks is inseparable from resentment and the necessity to involve ordinary people and interest groups in promoting novelties. That said, each strength is directly connected with the challenge.
Another specific feature of the contemporary system is the robust impact of powerful classes on the decision-making process and fostering social and legal changes. This one is closely related to the interconnectedness of different elements of the legal system. This peculiarity is characterized by the influential role of interest groups and exchanges between different elements of the system (Cole 143). Finally, the influence of the courts in the whole system is vital so that courts have the right to interpret the law from the necessary perspective (Cole 147).
It is directly associated with numerous controversies in legal cases that are commonly viewed as opportunities for protecting the rights and addressing the needs of interest groups instead of establishing universal equality (Casper 210).
When viewed in light of Webers theory, the contemporary legal system is characterized by the significant impact of particular classes those with property and education on the overall development of the society in general and the legal system in particular. Moreover, due to the involvement of professional staff (courts) in guaranteeing that the law is followed, the system is mature. Also, all of the engaged staff members are formally rational, as it is a common characteristic of the mature system. At the same time, it is formally rational because social status the combination of money and education, and other generally acceptable values determines the right to become involved in managing the legal system or expecting particular outcomes of the legal process or social justice issues.
Conclusion: The Future of Formal Legal System in the United States
All of the specificities identified and discussed above are the foundation for speculating on the future of the formal legal system in the United States from the perspective of Webers theory of formal legal rationality. Even though it can be perceived as mature and formally rational, the system is experiencing more evolutionary processes. It means that is will be altered over time. For me, this change will be demonstrated in the set of values, identifying potential outcomes of legal proceedings and the social justice system.
Even though they will remain quantitative easily calculated I believe that there will be a significant shift from money to personal characteristics just like there was a shift from male dominance to gender-blind society. Of course, it is impossible to state that the role of money will be diminished when it comes to administering socially vital decisions, but the belief is that financial background will be supplemented with education, innovativeness, and personal experience some qualitative aspects measured quantitatively.
This assumption is made based on the recent changes in society and the increased significance of creative and innovative thinking in managing affairs. That said, the system will remain formally rational, but it will grow more complicated, and it will become more complex to become the representative of the staff administering legal provisions and protecting the law due to the necessity to possess an impressive potential rather than just be financially successful.
Works Cited
Baron, Ava. Feminist Legal Strategies: The Powers of Difference. Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, edited by Beth Hess and Myra Marx Ferre, SAGE, 1987, pp. 475-497.
Birch, Elizabeth. Birch Testimony at Anti-Gay Marriage Hearing. US Government Publishing Office, 1996.
Burns, Haywood. Racism and American Law. Law against the People: Essays to Demystify Law, Order and the Courts, edited by Robert Lefcourt, Random House, 1971, pp. 38-54.
Casper, Jonathan D. Did You Have a Lawyer When You Went to Court? No, I had a Public Defender. Yale Review of Law and Social Action, vol. 1, no. 4, 1971, pp. 4-9.
Cobb, Jean. Power Struggles. Common Cause Magazine, vol. 13, no. 4, 1987, pp. 17-21.
Cole, George F. The Decision to Prosecute. Law and Society Review, vol. 4, no. 3, 1970, pp. 313-343.
Coleman, James William. Law and Power: The Sherman Antitrust Act and Its Enforcement in the Petroleum Industry. Social Problems, vol. 32, no. 3, 1985, pp. 264-274.
Colson, Charles, and Nancy Pearcey. Why not Gay Marriage? Christianity Today, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 104.
Eskridge, William N. Sexuality, Gender and the Law: 2003 Supplement. Foundation Press, 2003.
Eskridge, William N., and Han D. Hunter. 2000 Supplement to Sexuality, Gender and the Law. Foundation Press, 2000.
Finder, Alan, and Richard Levine. Some of the Rich Pay Less Tax than the Other Homeowners. The New York Times, 29 May 1990, p. 1.
Friedman, Lawrence M., and Jack Ladinsky, Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents. Columbia Law Review, vol. 67, no. 1, 1967, pp. 50-82.
Knight, Robert H. Why We Need the Defense of Marriage Act. Family Research Council, 1996.
Pear, Robert, As Welfare Overhaul Looms, Legal Aid for Poor Dwindles. The New York Times, 5 Sep. 1995, p. 1A.
Sutton, John R. Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change. Pine Forge Press, 2001.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, 1922. Google Books. Web.
Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, 443 U.S. 193 (1979). Supreme Court of the United States.
Rationalization is the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate. It is a process of change by which a society goes through. In rational ways of thinking we’re talking about calculation, specifically we’re trying to calculate what is the most efficient way to do something. We have to put facts before our emotions, beliefs and traditions. Max Weber pioneered and presented the idea of rationalization. For Weber, the increasing rationalization of society, of politics, and of the affairs of humanity was something unique to contemporary times. He believed that societies evolve due to the advancement of science, technology, expending capitalism and bureaucratization. He thought it was the key to understanding modern society and its effect on the individual. He believed in simple words it was the process of replacing traditional and emotional thoughts with reason. For example, a student who fails a test because they did not study hard enough blames their failure on the teacher for using a tricky question. In this situation the student is trying to justify their failure by thinking of excuses whereas the real reason is they didn’t study hard enough. This is a prime example of an individual putting their emotions and beliefs before facts. Four types of rationality are practical rationality which is systematically following rules that are presumes to lead to optimal results, theoretical rationality which is using reasoning and procedures based on abstract concepts and logic, substantive rationality which is adhering to a value system; acting on principles and formal rationality which is systematically following rules that are presumes to lead optimal results. This paper will demonstrate Weber’s thesis on the causes and consequences of rationalization. It will also look at Weber’s beliefs in bureaucracy and how it ties into rationality and their similarities. I will examine Weber’s concern and pessimistic views in relation to the spread of rationalization.
Weber does not claim to know the truth about reality, but he gives his version of it. For Weber, calculation of human actions comes up immensely in his writing, and this ability to calculate and move from old traditional norms can be seen in the rise of capitalism and bureaucracy. According to Weber, rationalization is the central problem of the modern, industrialized world. This is clearly shown in one of the most famous studies, ‘The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism’ (1965), where he describes the emergence of rationalism from the turn of events during the time of Protestantism which in turn gives birth to the spirit of capitalism. Weber claims the arrival of the modern capitalist society as a result of cultural, economic and political development. He believed that early protestant beliefs have a major influence with regards to capitalism and rationalization.
An example that can be used to support the calculated ways interpretation is Weber’s writings on bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is an organization with formal procedures and standards; typically having a clear division of labor, explicit rules, and a hierarchy of authority. Bureaucracy’s ability to handle the tasks of an increasingly complex society with relative ease, has significantly changed the social life of individuals. Weber believed that bureaucratic organizations were essential for the operation of the industrial society. He believed that the growth of bureaucracy was a result of the development of new forms of power in industrial society with some individuals exercising more power than others within society and getting others to comply with their wishes whether they agreed with them or not. Weber highlights the superiority of the bureaucratic system when he writes “the decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organization” (Weber, p.198). Weber states that bureaucracy is nothing different from the old ways of doing things because it creates a hierarchy where individuals are still at the bottom. At first glance this might present a reasonable challenge but after further analysis, its flaw is evident. This would not be a sufficient argument because Weber states, “according to all constitutions he can be dismissed or resign at any time” (Weber, p.204), the “he” Weber is referring to is a high official in a bureaucratic system. The reality is that because of the effortless movement of ideals and people, bureaucracy enables individuals to cooperate in an efficient manner, which is a result of rational behavior. Weber accepting the bureaucracy has had a tremendous impact on his entire writing because from a sociological perspective, it allows individuals to work together more harmoniously because of the constant flow of activity. Weber argued that the rise of bureaucratically organized states was part of the growing process of rationalization, which accompanied the rise of capitalism.
For Weber, Western capitalist countries and their inner workings need bureaucracy to run efficiently. With no universality across cultural values, culture stagnates and petrifies; thus, becoming the “iron cage” of which Weber speaks. It shows how individuals are trapped in systems or organizations which run of the principles of efficiency, rationality and control. It shows these individuals being trapped in the ‘cage’ of their own thoughts and emotions. The iron cage reflects the pressure that builds over us due to both others and ourselves to act in certain ways. This pressure sometimes becomes too much but people find it extremely difficult to emerge from their ‘cage’. For the individual, this means that the loss of values in the public sphere leads to the transition of society into the “iron cage”. That is, human beings find themselves in a society organized by formal rationality to an irrational extent. The very irrationality of the “iron cage” is its radical insistence on efficiency and rationality at the expense of emotions, values, and ethical ideals. The loss of values is very dehumanizing for an individual, for they no longer have reason, or morals. In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber presented a carefully researched historical account of how a strong Protestant work ethic and belief in living frugally helped foster the development of the capitalist economic system in the Western world. Weber suggests that the technological and economic relationships that organized and grew out of capitalist production became themselves fundamental forces in society. Therefore, those who are born into the “iron cage” lives out it dictates, and in doing so, these people reproduce inside the cage, those who they reproduce because the very same. For this reason, Weber considered the iron cage to be a massive hindrance to freedom and happiness. Weber’s concept remains important to sociologists today because the iron cage of techno rational thought, practices, relations, and capitalism—now a global system—shows no signs of disintegrating anytime soon. Many social theorists and researchers embrace Weber’s idea about the iron cage. They believed that the development of capitalist production intensified the impact of this cage to shape and direct our thoughts and behavior. As society will progress more and more, this abstract cage will become more rigid, ordered, systematic, and dehumanized. People will learn how to come out of the ‘cage’ and return so social loving and be involved with society in a positive and efficient way. Social scientists are also engaged to find solutions to the problems arising due to the influence of iron cage. Weber’s theory on the “iron cage” is said to be a result of fatalistic thinking. His belief was that if someone were to escape from the cage that it would not be because a human being had orchestrated it but rather that it was down to ‘fate’. This restricts people to be creative and spontaneous and are trapped in this cage forever escaping from the traditional and religious ways.
Weber’s theory provides a subjective description of the factors that are thought to influence the various social actions which in turn define a society. He distinguishes between actions and behavior. Action occurs when people make a deliberate or conscious decision based on them trying to attach meaning to their actions. On the other hand, behavior that occurs naturally with very little consciousness.
The essay has critically elaborated Max Weber’s idea of rationality. Rationalism is a continuous process in modern society and will never be fully understood. Behaviors will change over time, what is right and wrong will change and so will the attitudes and actions of human beings. Rationality will change over the years, but the concept Weber proposed will always stay the same, that we need to put facts before our beliefs, emotions and traditions. We cannot let our emotions determine decisions that we make. The future of modern life lies in the intrigues of status, class and party/powers. Rationality does not regard human emotions, traditions, affective human ties and mystery. Instead, human relations are viewed from economic relations, impersonal relationships as well as expertise orientation which he referred to as professionalism. It is clear that Weber never actually provided a direct definition for what rationalization meant. However, it is possible to conclude that because of his strong interest in capitalism and bureaucracy, he meant rationalization is the ability to calculate and systematically change the world. Weber introduces bureaucracy to emphasize rule, ability, and knowledge, which in fact offered an efficient and rational administrative system to society. Weber has precisely defined rationalization. We as individuals find ourselves trapped inside our ideal selves and an ideal world that in reality will never be true. When making decisions we must look at what is true and what will actually happen as a result of our beliefs. Suffice it to say now, Weber’s analysis of rationalization in modern society is a piercing insight into the nature of our contemporary world. Weber has proposed a concept that all in individuals find themselves guilty of at some stage but because of this proposal we have started to act rationally instead if irrationally.
Marx and Engels expected the progressive overthrow of capitalism more than a century ago. Marx assumed a culture that was tailored to the nation-state and the dynamics of a capitalist economy would eliminate all social distinctions that impede the development; capitalists and workers would become nationwide groups. The analysis of England’s emerging working class revealed the power of vast and increasing numbers. Workers emerged as a significant agent of historical change as a result of massive deprivations. Under capitalism, Marx saw class struggles as the first chance for accurate historical prediction. He also claimed that the coming revolution would put an end to man’s exploitation by man. As a result, research, or science, and the strength of numbers were on the side of equality and justice, and society was reorganized.
Marx’s approach can be viewed as a group-formation theory. According to him, dominant classes are aware of their collective interests and have the organizational means to advance them, while oppressed classes continue to strive for class consciousness and organizational cohesion. The peasants and workers are ruled by and are dependent on the feudal landowners and capitalist who own the means of production. An owner’s class’s power is not limited to such a private exercise of economic supremacy. It erupts into a virtual dictatorship and a hegemon in the realm of ideas and social institutions. The premise is that when property rights are at stake, ownership causes the ruling class to think and behave in unison. Therefore, possession of property is the foundation for exercising law in all facets of society. However, ownership is just one factor in determining class and control. Deprivation is the other basis. Lack of familiarity and conflicting interests split the workforce in the crowded factories of the early nineteenth century.
Marx differentiated between class as a state of social life and class as a cause of collective action, between the fact that classes are unequal in their possession of the means of production and the significance of this disparity for a class as a spur to organization and action, in his early writings. Individuals do not form a community capable of collective action only because they share certain characteristics (like income, occupation, etc.). Rather, groups evolve when individuals with similar characteristics develop a collective consciousness and the ability to take coordinated action. Marx’s proletarian revolution prediction was based on the assumption that capitalist society must sweep aside any desires or social relations that might obstruct the establishment of two main classes. His economic analysis was designed to show that it was necessary in the long run. The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, would submerge all of human worth in the ‘icy waters of egotistical estimation’ in the upper strata. Factory output restrictions, which reduced it to a deadened uniformity, would have a similar effect on the staff. Their family life, religious values, and national identity would all be destroyed if they were subjected to such degradation. Now the workers would rise to reclaim their humanity because they had lost everything.
In Marx’s view this polarization of classes would lead to a revolution and usher in a new and more rational social order. He also combed the limited experience of English social history for proof that men’s basic interests are divided along class lines. He was persuaded that the growing distance between achievement and social organization’s responsibilities would force workers to embrace his doctrine. He also anticipated a revolution-born society in which ‘the method of material development’ would be ‘consciously controlled by freely associated men’.
Max Weber approached the topic from the groundwork laid down by Karl Marx. Wherever men are similarly placed by their ‘relative influence over goods and skills’, class situations exist. This regulation generates profits, obtains other commodities, elevates their social status, and contributes to a particular way of life. Many in a similar socioeconomic position are more likely to share similar sentiments and ideas, but not generally to take coordinated action. Class organizations, on the other hand, emerge only when there is a direct economic adversary, organization is theoretically simple, and specific aims are expressed by the intelligentsia. Weber acknowledged Marx’s explanation for such organizations’ performance.
Nonetheless, Weber’s approach differs from Marx’s in three ways. First, he dismisses the idea that a common class situation would lead to association, pointing out that many such situations result in amorphous mass reactions. The connection between class situation and class organization, according to Marx, is a necessary one that arises from the ‘rules’ of capitalist growth. For Weber this connection was problematic. Marx’s definition of class is treated as an ideal form, a rational construct based on observed tendencies, according to him. Second, Marx’s definition in economic determination of class conditions is broadened by Weber. Owning the means of production or being reliant on wage labor are also significant but unique circumstances. Beyond the land-labor-capital trichotomy that Marx inherited from classical economists, there are a number of property groups, commercial classes, and social classes. Weber agrees with Marx that class conditions are dictated by economic factors, but he adds that these situations are just as unstable as the economy. According to Weber, class situation is essentially a market situation, which varies according to individual experiences in response to changing economic constellations. Third, Marx believed that ‘bourgeois ideologists’ would contribute to the labor movement’s political radicalization. He argued that workers’ radicalizing experiences and ideologists’ radicalizing views are both reactions to capitalism’s persuasive framework. Weber, on the other hand, sees the reactions of the general public and a small group of culture-carriers as divergent. True, workers’ organizations with a class conscience exist, they are more likely to succeed if they are guided toward targets that are easily understood. However, these objectives are placed and perceived by men from outside their social class (intelligentsia).
Weber agrees that workers’ economic and political unity will be able to transcend their initial interest division. However, religious or racial disparities stifle such unity. Successful class organizations generate new desires, including a new sense of social status. The process of organizing a class generates status differences that make it difficult to take coordinated action on a larger scale. Prestige is a foundation for community creation that lasts at least as long as the business situation. Weber describes a social order in which status is based on lifestyle, formal schooling, heredity, or occupation and is a ‘powerful claim to social esteem’. Typically, social inequality is used to describe the circle of social equals. Only certain types of acquisition and jobs are considered socially appropriate, and marriage and hospitality are restricted to that circle.
Status classes stifle the free flow of commerce by discriminating against ‘outsiders’. Aristocracies have prohibited commoners from owning land for decades. Land was intrinsically tied to the aristocratic way of life and remained a status symbol long after its economic viability had dwindled. Status groups based on ethnicity, language, place, or religion face similar considerations. When a choice must be made between social honor and economic gain, status classes may survive as long as social honor is favored.
The following is a list of class and status disparities. Economic interests unite people into classes. The obvious examples were classes focused on land ownership or inequality in a typical workplace. Marx recognized that status differences hampered class unity, but he only looked into these distinctions in his historical writings. He believed that his economic research had exposed the overarching limits of the class struggle, and thus of the ‘historical revolution as a whole’. Status classes, on the other hand, are based on personal experience. Before reaching adulthood, the person has taken part in his family’s claim to social status, occupational subculture, and educational level. Even if no deliberate effort is taken, families have a common way of life and attitudes. Families in similar situations, on the other hand, do not need to communicate and mobilize in order to discriminate against individuals they deem inferior. Weber recognized that even though they are torn apart by intense rivalries, their loyalty towards outsiders would remain intact.
The stability of status stratification is always vulnerable to the instabilities of economic change and social mobility, and men are always interested in using status distinctions to stabilize the economic advantages they have gained. Weber proposes a model of changing tendencies without forecasting a final outcome by assuming that class- or status-oriented behavior prevails only for a limited period. Note the comparison with Marx, who believed that economic determinants were decisive in the long run and predicted the end of capitalism on that basis.
Weber eliminates Marx’s reductionism by equating status groups with social divisions and seeing every group as a member of both the social and economic order. Groups are no longer considered an unavoidable side effect of economic organization. Rather, they are defined by mutual economic interests, a common way of life, and the exclusion of outsiders in order to increase the group’s chances of survival. Individuals should not build a sense of community simply because they share similar circumstances. A deliberate development of a shared consciousness and collective organization is needed.
Since Weber’s theory of human nature made the essential conditions of life the ultimate historical determinant, Marx saw all culture as a dependent variable. As a result, all theories embody and ‘refract’ the desires of groups such as capitalists and peasants, rather than intellectuals’ own. However, culture has its own set of material conditions: intellectual life changed in tandem with colonial expansion, industrialization, and the rise of the modern state. The invention of printing, the bureaucratization of government, the increased importance of formal schooling, and the emergence of a market for intellectual products are aspects of that transformation. Intellectuals are a social category in modern societies who are linked to the ‘material conditions of cultural development’, which allow for a great deal of mental and creative experimentation, both in freelancing and in universities. However, such liberty is accompanied by alienation. One writer in the United States has complained that the official indifference to matters of literary interest is evidenced by the lack of interference with authors. Osip Mandelstam observed that poetry is strength in the Soviet Union, where men are sent to labor camps simply for writing a poem. To be sure, intellectuals’ work may be appropriated by ‘money’ in universities and other organizations. Modern intellectual life, whether formally free or institutionalized, tends to shape cliques and schools of thought and style. And it is on this basis that intellectuals form class and rank distinctions that are distinct from similar distinctions in the broader society.
Where power is the legal, official authority, or influence over others, authority is the moral, legal right, or ability to control. Steven Lukes and Max Weber provide interesting ideas into power and authority.
Steven Lukes wrote about 3 dimensions of power: issue, agenda, and manipulation. ‘Issue’ is about a person winning an argument having the power, ‘agenda’ is having the power to dictate a situation, and ‘manipulation’ is controlling what people think by being ‘right’ through covert methods (Cook, 2011). There are some problems with using ‘issue’ as a person cannot always be made to do something through force, however, when it works correctly, it is a good way to influence people to do what you want them to. Using ‘agenda’ allows a person to gain a lot of information for a wide variety of sources, but sometimes these sources can be unreliable. A good example of this can be when information is gathered from the internet or social media as information can be manipulated easily on these platforms. ‘Manipulation’ can be used to gain voter approval by aiming campaigns at specific target groups, such as the uneducated, and tailoring any campaigning to rouse them to your cause, this may not work for everyone in the target group. A good example of a politician using a manipulation tactic would be Donald Trump.
Max Weber wrote about 3 dimensions of authority: traditional, rational legal, and charismatic. Traditional authority can be enjoyed by a person for a couple of reasons: the first was an inheritance, and the second for more religious reasons. Traditional authority is given to individuals without regard to their qualifications or skills as it is passed down through their bloodline or supposed divine designation. Rational legal authority is based in customs, tradition, and the rules and laws of a society. This type of authority is an example of a modern democracy as the power is given to the people through voting and the rules being written into a constitution. Charismatic authority comes from a person’s qualities and abilities to draw people to them. These people can exercise control over a particular group of people through their calls for action. Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump are good examples of charismatic leaders. While these leaders start out extremely popular, they do not often stay in power for long due to their political views (Maboloc, C., R. 2021).
Lukes and Weber both give good ideas at what power and authority are and how they fit into society. While they do talk about different types of power, it can be argued that their theories are not applicable in the 21st century, instead they fit better to the time when Lukes and Weber wrote them.
References
Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). ‘Authority Definition’. Available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/authority Last accessed 15/05/2021.
Cook, S.. (2011). ‘Lukes’ 3 Faces of Power’. Available: https://revisesociology.wordpress.com/201110132/lukes-3-faces-of-power Last accessed 15/05/2021.
Little, D.. (2010). ‘Lukes on Power’. Available: https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/201010/lukes-on-power.html Last accessed 16/05/2021.
Maboloc, C., R.. (2021). ‘Max Weber’s 3 Types of Authority’. Available: https://opinion.inquirer.net/85293/max-webers-3-types-of-authority Last accessed 15/05/2021.
Merriam Webster. (2021). ‘Power Definition’. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power Last accessed 15/05/2021.
In Max Weber’s article ‘Disenchantment, Enchantment, and Re-Enchantment’ he talks about the link between Protestantism and the elimination of magical and supernatural forces in the world. He believed that, along with Enlightenment, the Reformation was a powerful catalyst of a great historic process, he called ‘the disenchantment of the world’, where the magic withers away, leaving only a disenchanted nature or feeling behind. Weber argues that the world became more rationalized, as there was a decline in magic and ritual. Weber believed a disenchantment occurred because Europe was becoming modern, more scientific, and culturally Westernizing, the adaptation of Western culture allowed the natural world to be more predictable and less mysterious.
A key foundation of Max Weber’s theory of disenchantment was the separation of magic and religion. This did not mean the rejection of religious belief, but a separation of the two; a distinction that Max Weber believed had been blurred before the Reformation. He believed the Reformation removed this ambiguity out of Christian religion by removing the ‘magical’ elements. For example, he believed that disenchantment eliminated the idea that religious rituals were automatically effective, that material objects could be given any sort of sacred power, or that human action could have any type of supernatural effect. The distinction between religion and magic appears to be clear-cut and is a major supporting principle. However, I question whether this distinction holds up upon closer scrutiny.
Whether the Reformation led to disenchantment is widely debated. Discussion in Scribner’s article implies that the occurrence of disenchantment among Protestants and Catholics is debatable. According to Max Weber, disenchantment did not occur for either Protestants or Catholics. There was not a disconnect of magic and religion, as Scribner discusses in ‘The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World’’. Protestants continued to engage in “cultural practices that could be classified as magic to which the institutionalized church was unambiguously hostile. These included divination, astrology, magical medicine, love magic, the invocation of demons and the dead, and other forms of the magical arts”.
Many counterarguments oppose Weber’s belief in disenchantment. Protestants still believed in sacramental elements, including omens, prophecies, signs, portents, and miracles during the time of the Reformation. Because the sacraments were used daily by the people and their powers were almost seen as automatic and not under the control of the institutional church, they could easily be labeled as magic. This clearly shows that Protestants continued to integrate elements of magic and ritual into their everyday life. They have earned the designation of ‘the magic of the late-medieval church’ and attracted the scorn and hostility of the Protestants during this time.
Robert Scribner notes in his article ‘The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World’’, that Protestants still had belief in demonic entities, which created many problems and fear among them. Protestants would usually resort to consulting with magic practitioners and sometimes rituals to deal with and wash away the demons. The use of magic practitioners and similar ‘treatments’ such as exorcisms by Protestants to remove these ‘evil spirits’ and to fight their vulnerability that they felt by the demonic presence imply that Protestants still believed in magic and miracles. It is assumed that magic practitioners incorporated aspects of magic, signs, and miracles into their practice. The act or ritual of exorcism could be taken to have magical protective powers and the blessing of a child could be seen to impart a sacred power. Many of these magico-medical healing techniques were dependent on the invocation of Christian sacred power. Therefore, the security that Protestants felt through the use of magic practitioners and other treatments counteracted Weber’s presumed belief in a decline of magic and a less mysterious world. Thus, another ambiguity between religion and magic could be based on notions such as the healing power of prayer and misguided superstitious invocation of Christ.
The same argument that the Reformation did not derive the disenchantment could also be applied to Catholics during Europe’s early modern period. Before the Reformation, it was very common for Catholics to believe in the spiritual realm and ritualistic practices. In the article ‘The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World’’ by Robert Scribner, it is discussed that Catholics did not appear to experience a disconnect between magic and religion. Scribner discusses that initial attempts by Reformers during the Reformation to reform or abolish blessings, consecration, and other forms of the ritual had been shown as being not effective enough to the point of completely abolishing blessings and similar rituals.
During the time during the Reformation, Catholics appeared to have adopted different uses of sacramentals, rituals, and blessings as a way of managing and handling their beliefs and the revolving world around them, rather than using them for sacred purposes. These are ritual blessings of certain elements or objects used in worship. Examples include the holy water and salt used in the baptismal ceremony, rosary crucifixes, medals, and statues of saints and scapulars. They can also be rituals such as an exorcism, a means by which evil spirits were expelled from the body, and the most common sacrament, the sign of the cross. Indeed, Scribner notes that although this was the case for Catholics during the time of the Reformation, “…this did not remove the popular desire some kind of desire for some kind of instrumental application of sacred power to deal with the exigencies of daily life” (Scribner, 1993, pg.11) For instance, Catholics commonly used church bells to protect themselves against lightning storms.
Though it is prominent both Protestants and Catholics still used different practices to cope with the world around them, it is much more noticeable among Catholics during the Early Modern Period and the Reformation.
Ultimately, I do not fully support Max Weber’s position that the Reformation led to disenchantment, I am more in line with Scribner’s idea that it drew a firmer line between magic and religion by its changed understanding of the sacraments, and its repudiation of Catholic sacramentals. The profusion of blessed objects (salt, water, palms, herbs, and so forth), that so often gave sacred meaning to the daily life of pre-Reformation Christians, largely disappeared from the lives of those of evangelical belief. Yet this did not remove the popular desire for some kind of instrumental application of sacred power to deal with the exigencies of daily life, and Protestants often turned to distinctively ‘Protestant’ remedies, using the Bible, hymnals, and prayer books for their healing and protection.
Rationalization is the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate. It is a process of change by which a society goes through. In rational ways of thinking we’re talking about calculation, specifically we’re trying to calculate what is the most efficient way to do something. We have to put facts before our emotions, beliefs and traditions. Max Weber pioneered and presented the idea of rationalization. For Weber, the increasing rationalization of society, of politics, and of the affairs of humanity was something unique to contemporary times. He believed that societies evolve due to the advancement of science, technology, expending capitalism and bureaucratization. He thought it was the key to understanding modern society and its effect on the individual. He believed in simple words it was the process of replacing traditional and emotional thoughts with reason. For example, a student who fails a test because they did not study hard enough blames their failure on the teacher for using a tricky question. In this situation the student is trying to justify their failure by thinking of excuses whereas the real reason is they didn’t study hard enough. This is a prime example of an individual putting their emotions and beliefs before facts. Four types of rationality are practical rationality which is systematically following rules that are presumes to lead to optimal results, theoretical rationality which is using reasoning and procedures based on abstract concepts and logic, substantive rationality which is adhering to a value system; acting on principles and formal rationality which is systematically following rules that are presumes to lead optimal results. This paper will demonstrate Weber’s thesis on the causes and consequences of rationalization. It will also look at Weber’s beliefs in bureaucracy and how it ties into rationality and their similarities. I will examine Weber’s concern and pessimistic views in relation to the spread of rationalization.
Weber does not claim to know the truth about reality, but he gives his version of it. For Weber, calculation of human actions comes up immensely in his writing, and this ability to calculate and move from old traditional norms can be seen in the rise of capitalism and bureaucracy. According to Weber, rationalization is the central problem of the modern, industrialized world. This is clearly shown in one of the most famous studies, ‘The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism’ (1965), where he describes the emergence of rationalism from the turn of events during the time of Protestantism which in turn gives birth to the spirit of capitalism. Weber claims the arrival of the modern capitalist society as a result of cultural, economic and political development. He believed that early protestant beliefs have a major influence with regards to capitalism and rationalization.
An example that can be used to support the calculated ways interpretation is Weber’s writings on bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is an organization with formal procedures and standards; typically having a clear division of labor, explicit rules, and a hierarchy of authority. Bureaucracy’s ability to handle the tasks of an increasingly complex society with relative ease, has significantly changed the social life of individuals. Weber believed that bureaucratic organizations were essential for the operation of the industrial society. He believed that the growth of bureaucracy was a result of the development of new forms of power in industrial society with some individuals exercising more power than others within society and getting others to comply with their wishes whether they agreed with them or not. Weber highlights the superiority of the bureaucratic system when he writes “the decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of organization” (Weber, p.198). Weber states that bureaucracy is nothing different from the old ways of doing things because it creates a hierarchy where individuals are still at the bottom. At first glance this might present a reasonable challenge but after further analysis, its flaw is evident. This would not be a sufficient argument because Weber states, “according to all constitutions he can be dismissed or resign at any time” (Weber, p.204), the “he” Weber is referring to is a high official in a bureaucratic system. The reality is that because of the effortless movement of ideals and people, bureaucracy enables individuals to cooperate in an efficient manner, which is a result of rational behavior. Weber accepting the bureaucracy has had a tremendous impact on his entire writing because from a sociological perspective, it allows individuals to work together more harmoniously because of the constant flow of activity. Weber argued that the rise of bureaucratically organized states was part of the growing process of rationalization, which accompanied the rise of capitalism.
For Weber, Western capitalist countries and their inner workings need bureaucracy to run efficiently. With no universality across cultural values, culture stagnates and petrifies; thus, becoming the “iron cage” of which Weber speaks. It shows how individuals are trapped in systems or organizations which run of the principles of efficiency, rationality and control. It shows these individuals being trapped in the ‘cage’ of their own thoughts and emotions. The iron cage reflects the pressure that builds over us due to both others and ourselves to act in certain ways. This pressure sometimes becomes too much but people find it extremely difficult to emerge from their ‘cage’. For the individual, this means that the loss of values in the public sphere leads to the transition of society into the “iron cage”. That is, human beings find themselves in a society organized by formal rationality to an irrational extent. The very irrationality of the “iron cage” is its radical insistence on efficiency and rationality at the expense of emotions, values, and ethical ideals. The loss of values is very dehumanizing for an individual, for they no longer have reason, or morals. In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber presented a carefully researched historical account of how a strong Protestant work ethic and belief in living frugally helped foster the development of the capitalist economic system in the Western world. Weber suggests that the technological and economic relationships that organized and grew out of capitalist production became themselves fundamental forces in society. Therefore, those who are born into the “iron cage” lives out it dictates, and in doing so, these people reproduce inside the cage, those who they reproduce because the very same. For this reason, Weber considered the iron cage to be a massive hindrance to freedom and happiness. Weber’s concept remains important to sociologists today because the iron cage of techno rational thought, practices, relations, and capitalism—now a global system—shows no signs of disintegrating anytime soon. Many social theorists and researchers embrace Weber’s idea about the iron cage. They believed that the development of capitalist production intensified the impact of this cage to shape and direct our thoughts and behavior. As society will progress more and more, this abstract cage will become more rigid, ordered, systematic, and dehumanized. People will learn how to come out of the ‘cage’ and return so social loving and be involved with society in a positive and efficient way. Social scientists are also engaged to find solutions to the problems arising due to the influence of iron cage. Weber’s theory on the “iron cage” is said to be a result of fatalistic thinking. His belief was that if someone were to escape from the cage that it would not be because a human being had orchestrated it but rather that it was down to ‘fate’. This restricts people to be creative and spontaneous and are trapped in this cage forever escaping from the traditional and religious ways.
Weber’s theory provides a subjective description of the factors that are thought to influence the various social actions which in turn define a society. He distinguishes between actions and behavior. Action occurs when people make a deliberate or conscious decision based on them trying to attach meaning to their actions. On the other hand, behavior that occurs naturally with very little consciousness.
The essay has critically elaborated Max Weber’s idea of rationality. Rationalism is a continuous process in modern society and will never be fully understood. Behaviors will change over time, what is right and wrong will change and so will the attitudes and actions of human beings. Rationality will change over the years, but the concept Weber proposed will always stay the same, that we need to put facts before our beliefs, emotions and traditions. We cannot let our emotions determine decisions that we make. The future of modern life lies in the intrigues of status, class and party/powers. Rationality does not regard human emotions, traditions, affective human ties and mystery. Instead, human relations are viewed from economic relations, impersonal relationships as well as expertise orientation which he referred to as professionalism. It is clear that Weber never actually provided a direct definition for what rationalization meant. However, it is possible to conclude that because of his strong interest in capitalism and bureaucracy, he meant rationalization is the ability to calculate and systematically change the world. Weber introduces bureaucracy to emphasize rule, ability, and knowledge, which in fact offered an efficient and rational administrative system to society. Weber has precisely defined rationalization. We as individuals find ourselves trapped inside our ideal selves and an ideal world that in reality will never be true. When making decisions we must look at what is true and what will actually happen as a result of our beliefs. Suffice it to say now, Weber’s analysis of rationalization in modern society is a piercing insight into the nature of our contemporary world. Weber has proposed a concept that all in individuals find themselves guilty of at some stage but because of this proposal we have started to act rationally instead if irrationally.
Marx and Engels expected the progressive overthrow of capitalism more than a century ago. Marx assumed a culture that was tailored to the nation-state and the dynamics of a capitalist economy would eliminate all social distinctions that impede the development; capitalists and workers would become nationwide groups. The analysis of England’s emerging working class revealed the power of vast and increasing numbers. Workers emerged as a significant agent of historical change as a result of massive deprivations. Under capitalism, Marx saw class struggles as the first chance for accurate historical prediction. He also claimed that the coming revolution would put an end to man’s exploitation by man. As a result, research, or science, and the strength of numbers were on the side of equality and justice, and society was reorganized.
Marx’s approach can be viewed as a group-formation theory. According to him, dominant classes are aware of their collective interests and have the organizational means to advance them, while oppressed classes continue to strive for class consciousness and organizational cohesion. The peasants and workers are ruled by and are dependent on the feudal landowners and capitalist who own the means of production. An owner’s class’s power is not limited to such a private exercise of economic supremacy. It erupts into a virtual dictatorship and a hegemon in the realm of ideas and social institutions. The premise is that when property rights are at stake, ownership causes the ruling class to think and behave in unison. Therefore, possession of property is the foundation for exercising law in all facets of society. However, ownership is just one factor in determining class and control. Deprivation is the other basis. Lack of familiarity and conflicting interests split the workforce in the crowded factories of the early nineteenth century.
Marx differentiated between class as a state of social life and class as a cause of collective action, between the fact that classes are unequal in their possession of the means of production and the significance of this disparity for a class as a spur to organization and action, in his early writings. Individuals do not form a community capable of collective action only because they share certain characteristics (like income, occupation, etc.). Rather, groups evolve when individuals with similar characteristics develop a collective consciousness and the ability to take coordinated action. Marx’s proletarian revolution prediction was based on the assumption that capitalist society must sweep aside any desires or social relations that might obstruct the establishment of two main classes. His economic analysis was designed to show that it was necessary in the long run. The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, would submerge all of human worth in the ‘icy waters of egotistical estimation’ in the upper strata. Factory output restrictions, which reduced it to a deadened uniformity, would have a similar effect on the staff. Their family life, religious values, and national identity would all be destroyed if they were subjected to such degradation. Now the workers would rise to reclaim their humanity because they had lost everything.
In Marx’s view this polarization of classes would lead to a revolution and usher in a new and more rational social order. He also combed the limited experience of English social history for proof that men’s basic interests are divided along class lines. He was persuaded that the growing distance between achievement and social organization’s responsibilities would force workers to embrace his doctrine. He also anticipated a revolution-born society in which ‘the method of material development’ would be ‘consciously controlled by freely associated men’.
Max Weber approached the topic from the groundwork laid down by Karl Marx. Wherever men are similarly placed by their ‘relative influence over goods and skills’, class situations exist. This regulation generates profits, obtains other commodities, elevates their social status, and contributes to a particular way of life. Many in a similar socioeconomic position are more likely to share similar sentiments and ideas, but not generally to take coordinated action. Class organizations, on the other hand, emerge only when there is a direct economic adversary, organization is theoretically simple, and specific aims are expressed by the intelligentsia. Weber acknowledged Marx’s explanation for such organizations’ performance.
Nonetheless, Weber’s approach differs from Marx’s in three ways. First, he dismisses the idea that a common class situation would lead to association, pointing out that many such situations result in amorphous mass reactions. The connection between class situation and class organization, according to Marx, is a necessary one that arises from the ‘rules’ of capitalist growth. For Weber this connection was problematic. Marx’s definition of class is treated as an ideal form, a rational construct based on observed tendencies, according to him. Second, Marx’s definition in economic determination of class conditions is broadened by Weber. Owning the means of production or being reliant on wage labor are also significant but unique circumstances. Beyond the land-labor-capital trichotomy that Marx inherited from classical economists, there are a number of property groups, commercial classes, and social classes. Weber agrees with Marx that class conditions are dictated by economic factors, but he adds that these situations are just as unstable as the economy. According to Weber, class situation is essentially a market situation, which varies according to individual experiences in response to changing economic constellations. Third, Marx believed that ‘bourgeois ideologists’ would contribute to the labor movement’s political radicalization. He argued that workers’ radicalizing experiences and ideologists’ radicalizing views are both reactions to capitalism’s persuasive framework. Weber, on the other hand, sees the reactions of the general public and a small group of culture-carriers as divergent. True, workers’ organizations with a class conscience exist, they are more likely to succeed if they are guided toward targets that are easily understood. However, these objectives are placed and perceived by men from outside their social class (intelligentsia).
Weber agrees that workers’ economic and political unity will be able to transcend their initial interest division. However, religious or racial disparities stifle such unity. Successful class organizations generate new desires, including a new sense of social status. The process of organizing a class generates status differences that make it difficult to take coordinated action on a larger scale. Prestige is a foundation for community creation that lasts at least as long as the business situation. Weber describes a social order in which status is based on lifestyle, formal schooling, heredity, or occupation and is a ‘powerful claim to social esteem’. Typically, social inequality is used to describe the circle of social equals. Only certain types of acquisition and jobs are considered socially appropriate, and marriage and hospitality are restricted to that circle.
Status classes stifle the free flow of commerce by discriminating against ‘outsiders’. Aristocracies have prohibited commoners from owning land for decades. Land was intrinsically tied to the aristocratic way of life and remained a status symbol long after its economic viability had dwindled. Status groups based on ethnicity, language, place, or religion face similar considerations. When a choice must be made between social honor and economic gain, status classes may survive as long as social honor is favored.
The following is a list of class and status disparities. Economic interests unite people into classes. The obvious examples were classes focused on land ownership or inequality in a typical workplace. Marx recognized that status differences hampered class unity, but he only looked into these distinctions in his historical writings. He believed that his economic research had exposed the overarching limits of the class struggle, and thus of the ‘historical revolution as a whole’. Status classes, on the other hand, are based on personal experience. Before reaching adulthood, the person has taken part in his family’s claim to social status, occupational subculture, and educational level. Even if no deliberate effort is taken, families have a common way of life and attitudes. Families in similar situations, on the other hand, do not need to communicate and mobilize in order to discriminate against individuals they deem inferior. Weber recognized that even though they are torn apart by intense rivalries, their loyalty towards outsiders would remain intact.
The stability of status stratification is always vulnerable to the instabilities of economic change and social mobility, and men are always interested in using status distinctions to stabilize the economic advantages they have gained. Weber proposes a model of changing tendencies without forecasting a final outcome by assuming that class- or status-oriented behavior prevails only for a limited period. Note the comparison with Marx, who believed that economic determinants were decisive in the long run and predicted the end of capitalism on that basis.
Weber eliminates Marx’s reductionism by equating status groups with social divisions and seeing every group as a member of both the social and economic order. Groups are no longer considered an unavoidable side effect of economic organization. Rather, they are defined by mutual economic interests, a common way of life, and the exclusion of outsiders in order to increase the group’s chances of survival. Individuals should not build a sense of community simply because they share similar circumstances. A deliberate development of a shared consciousness and collective organization is needed.
Since Weber’s theory of human nature made the essential conditions of life the ultimate historical determinant, Marx saw all culture as a dependent variable. As a result, all theories embody and ‘refract’ the desires of groups such as capitalists and peasants, rather than intellectuals’ own. However, culture has its own set of material conditions: intellectual life changed in tandem with colonial expansion, industrialization, and the rise of the modern state. The invention of printing, the bureaucratization of government, the increased importance of formal schooling, and the emergence of a market for intellectual products are aspects of that transformation. Intellectuals are a social category in modern societies who are linked to the ‘material conditions of cultural development’, which allow for a great deal of mental and creative experimentation, both in freelancing and in universities. However, such liberty is accompanied by alienation. One writer in the United States has complained that the official indifference to matters of literary interest is evidenced by the lack of interference with authors. Osip Mandelstam observed that poetry is strength in the Soviet Union, where men are sent to labor camps simply for writing a poem. To be sure, intellectuals’ work may be appropriated by ‘money’ in universities and other organizations. Modern intellectual life, whether formally free or institutionalized, tends to shape cliques and schools of thought and style. And it is on this basis that intellectuals form class and rank distinctions that are distinct from similar distinctions in the broader society.