Category: Max Weber

Max Weber’s View of Rationality

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.

Class and Status by Karl Marx and Max Weber

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.

Steven Lukes and Max Weber’s Ideas about Power and Authority

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

1. Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). ‘Authority Definition’. Available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/authority Last accessed 15/05/2021.
2. Cook, S.. (2011). ‘Lukes’ 3 Faces of Power’. Available: https://revisesociology.wordpress.com/201110132/lukes-3-faces-of-power Last accessed 15/05/2021.
3. Little, D.. (2010). ‘Lukes on Power’. Available: https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/201010/lukes-on-power.html Last accessed 16/05/2021.
4. 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.
5. Merriam Webster. (2021). ‘Power Definition’. Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power Last accessed 15/05/2021.

Why the Reformation Did Not Bring Disenchantment?

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.