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.
Ritzer (2010) and Zelizer (2002) explore Max Weber’s perceptions of the socialist theory. The authors offer insightful analysis of the modes of production and consumption in various economies. In actual sense, they effectively and critically analyze the Marxist socialist theory by giving a straightforward explanation of how different modes of production and consumption transform the lives of people in diverse societies.
On the other hand, it is relevant to note that Weber explains how various modes of production such as capitalism and communism often lead to social stratification (Ritzer, 2010). It is apparent that Weber does not support these modes of production owing to their demeaning nature.
In the theory, he concentrates more on the issues regarding class and social inequality. He observes that the amount of wealth determines the degree of power held by an individual. Besides, power dictates the class and overall wellbeing of an individual in society (Ritzer, 2010).
Weber admits that the aspect of social stratification is the main cause of inequality bearing in mind that the rich and powerful individuals exploit the less fortunate people in society. In other words, exploitation seems to be the worst impact of a society that has been socially stratified. This paper offers critical analyses of Ritzer’s and Zelizer’s opinions on Weber’s theory by examining the strengths and weaknesses as evident in their respective texts.
A brief overview and comparison of the texts
Ritzer (2010) in his text “Enchanting a disenchanted world: Continuity and change in the cathedrals of consumption” explains that various means of consumption always compete against each other. Hence, it is the reason why people engage in destructive and reckless means of creating surplus wealth.
This type of destruction eventually results into rationalization of new means of consumption and production whereby powerful individuals continue to create more wealth. However, the less fortunate people resort to the art of consuming finished products. On the other hand, Zelizer (2002) in his book “Kids and Commerce” expounds that inequality caused by social stratification usually results into early engagement of children in economic activities.
In fact, child labor is a direct product of inequality in society. The author laments that compelling children to hard labor is morally wrong and unacceptable. Zelzier (2002) also examines how children participate in the processes of production, distribution and consumption. In addition, the author highlights some of the consequences of involving children in under-employment.
Upon critical review of the texts, it is notable that the authors use different perspectives to examine Weber’s arguments on the division of labor and modes of production. For instance, Ritzer (2010) scrutinizes Weber’s social theory from a broad perspective. The author does not just focus on the division of labor in his discussion.
He also examines how various modes of consumption affect society at large. Contrastingly, Zelizer (2002) is quite categorical on the issue of dividing labor as part and parcel of improving the pace of production. His arguments revolve around child labor. He keenly links his ideas with various modes of consumption and effects of child labor.
The author is also emphatic that child labor negatively affects the growth of an economy (Zelezer, 2002). He points out that child labor differs significantly across different categories of social groups. In some cases, children participate in the consumption and production processes as organizational agents. Besides, some children play the role of household workers (Zelizer, 2002).
At this point, it is agreeable that Ritzer extensively explores and scrutinizes Weber’s theory since he captures almost every aspect of the theorist’s opinions. However, Zelizer restricts the discussion to labor relations.
Strengths in the texts
After thorough review of the given literature, it is evident that Ritzer (2010) keenly elaborates the aspect of consumption as highlighted in Weber’s socialist theory. He carefully analyses and relates the contemporary, provocative and interesting trends of consumption as depicted by Weber.
The author also elucidates that people often familiarize themselves with new modes of consumption according to how they are impressed by emerging trends. Ritzer also employs several illustrations in his analysis. These enable the reader to understand and appreciate the ideas portrayed by Weber.
For example, Ritzer gives a piece of architecture as an example of the “cathedrals of consumptions.” The latter appears to be one of the most unsettling aspects of his argument. Moreover, new systems of consumption are clearly developed and elaborated by Ritzer. It is irrefutable that Ritzer’s text is very engaging and interesting to read.
On the other hand, Zelizer (2002) is very specific on the issue of division of labor. It is one of the aspects addressed by Weber. The author restricts his discussion onthe theme of labor and as a result, he is in a position to explore the subject matter deeply. He also addresses the menace of child labor.
This allows him to seize an opportunity to examine and critically discuss how various economic activities carried out by children affect the growth of an economy. He also examines the organization of children’s labor by providing an exemplary review of child-centered trends of production, distribution and consumption (Zelizer, 2002). This text provides extensive discussion on characterization and organization of child labor.
Weaknesses in the texts
Ritzer’s text is very dense even if it is engaging and enlightening,. As a matter of fact, the author tries to paint a landscape of Weber’s opinions by illustrating the element of consumerism. Some parts in the text and specifically areas that cover social stratification and consumerism compel the book to appear a bit rambling.
In actual sense, the book is quite wide and may impede the reading spirit of individuals who prefer short texts. At some point, a reader becomes uncertain of the author’s arguments owing to numerous illustrations and discussion points.
In regards to Zelezer‘s text, it is apparent that it lacks linear arguments. This author extends his analysis by discussing child labor instead of focusing on Weber’s arguments on the division of labor. This text is expected to critically acknowledge or criticize Weber’s social theory.
However, numerous deviations in course of the analysis may easily lead to poor understanding of the contents. Moreover, the author does not effectively capture numerous modes of consumerism that usually lead into child labor.
In conclusion, Zelizer’s and Ritzer’s texts are generally engaging, informative, realistic and enlightening especially on contemporary issues such as consumerism and division of labor. However, both texts can still be improved based on the comments posted in this critical analysis. Needless to say, all the key issues addressed in Weber’s social theory should have been analyzed by both texts.
References
Ritzer, G. (2010). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Continuity and change in the cathedrals of consumption. Thousand Oak, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Zelizer, V. (2002). Kids and commerce. Childhood, 9(4), 375-396.
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 Weber’s 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 university’s 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 Weber’s 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.
Rationality has been studied and defined by both philosophers and sociologists over a long period of time now. Philosophers use reason and rationality as their major methods when it comes to the analysis of data collected from well defined observation methods (Sica, 2004, 2). In sociology and related disciplines, rationality of a given situation or decision depends mainly on whether it is optimal in nature or not.
On the other hand, persons or organisations are said to be rational if their actions are optimal as far as achievement of objectives is concerned. An optimal action refers to the pursuance of the most desired outcomes within limits that have either been expressed or implied. Sociological rationalisation refers to the process of series of actions and engagements by human beings with an aim of achieving a purposive and well calculated ends which does not rely on emotions, moral considerations, or traditions (Farganis, 2008, 35).
Rationalisation is considered as a key characteristic of the modernisation process. In the need for social services, one can talk of rational allocation of available resources. When it comes to organisational operations, proposed corporate strategies can be said to be optimally rational.
Many sociological researchers have tried to investigate the concept of rationality in order to understand it fully. They have defined rationality as the process and success in the pursuit of a given objective regardless of the nature of the objectives (Pampel, 2007, 24). This implies that any act of rationality is not screened in terms of its ethicality, morality, or other forms of criticisms.
For philosophers, a high quality rationale ought to be free from the influence of emotions, personal preferences, and any other feelings that may create bias. Many rationality theories have been advanced by researchers to explain this concept. The essay seeks to critically analyse Weber’s idea of rationality and the conclusions that he drew about the effects of rationalisation on modern life.
Max Weber was a renowned German classical sociologist who lived between 1864 and 1920. Weber, as a sociologist, was more concerned with the interpretation of the different actions in the social settings. He defined sociology as a science which seeks to understand and interpret human behavior with an aim of being able to explain the causes of given behaviour/action, the course which they would take, and the impacts of the behaviours/actions (Sica, 2004, 5).
His theory provides a subjective description of factors that are thought to influence the various social actions which in turn define a given society. In his theory, Weber distinguishes between action and behaviour. He notes that action occurs as a result of deliberate and conscious process where people try to attach meaning to their actions as well as understanding their environment. Behaviour, on the other hand, is described by Weber as an automatic reaction which occurs unconsciously or with little consciousness.
Weber proposed that human action/behaviour could best be understood by exploring how people regard their actions and what they associate their interactions, actions, and experiences with ((Pampel, 2007, 33). In order to understand the various social actions and behaviours, Max Weber formulated different types of rationality which were ideals. These ideals are the sociologists’ intellectual constructs that can be used in exploring historical facts.
He categorised rationality (action-based) into four distinct types. According to him, there is the purposive rational action which is also called instrumental rationality action. This type of rationality is associated with the expectations concerning the behavior of human beings or things that exist in the surrounding (Morrison, 1995, 212). The behavioural expectations are the ways through which a given actor uses to achieve some goals or ends. The ends, from Weber’s judgment, are pursued in a rational manner and following well calculated moves.
The second type of rational action that was identified by Weber is the belief or value-oriented rationality. This type involves actions executed by an actor subject to the intrinsic reasons which may include ethical, religious, and aesthetic value systems. The actions, however, are not judged whether they will lead to success or not. This contradicts the philosophical perspective which considers the means in justifying the ends and vise versa.
Affectual rationality was the third approach of interpreting rational action. Weber explained that this type is determined by the actor’s affectual orientation, feelings or emotions. He also emphasized that this type of rationality was on the intermediate position of what can be regarded as meaningfully oriented rationality. This type shares some characteristics with the philosopher’s perspective of rational actions.
The last type of interpreting social actions is the traditional rationality. This is determined by the existing norms or habits in a given society (Farganis, 2008, 56). Weber argued that some human actions are controlled by what one has learnt over time, and he/she acts in a given way not because he/she chooses to, but because he/she thinks that it is how it is expected to be done. His classifications were based on the most dominant type of behaviour orientation and its interpretation.
However, Weber noted that no single type can be used in understanding the actions in the environment; instead, integration of the various types of rationality was common among human beings (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 110). He further emphasised that the first two types of rationality were the most common and reliable in the interpretation of social actions. Affectual and traditional rationality were considered as being details of the first two.
From a critical point of view, Weber’s classification of the types of interpreting social actions can be considered as having both some strengths as well as weaknesses. On the positive, the kinds of rationality proposed provide an easy way of interpreting behaviour. It does not discriminate some behaviours on the basis of their being irrational.
They provide a basis for interpreting behaviour depending on the criterion used. A given social act may not meet the purposive interpretation but may be explained using another kind, for instance the belief-oriented or the affectual type. On the other hand, actions whose bases are traditional may not be explained by the purposive rationality.
Some loopholes in Weber’s ideas on the interpretation of social actions have been identified. From a Habermasian’s point of view, the approach lacks the consideration of social context (Pampel, 2007, 40). It also underestimates the potential of social power as far as transforming existing norms and traditions is concerned.
Moreover, the feminist proponents have criticised the idea citing the need by Weber’s idea to maintain male dominance as misguided (Morrison, 1995, 218). This is mainly as prescribed by the first and the fourth types of rationality. From ancient traditions, most social actions have been shaped around masculine values and powers. From Weber’s perspective, these should always be considered when it comes to the interpretation of social actions.
Another prominent sociologist by the name Etzioni used Weber’s proposals for the interpretation of human behaviour to re-construct an understanding of social actions (Morrison, 1995, 248). He argued that purposive rationality is controlled by the consideration of existing norms.
These norms regulate how human beings ought to act. Etzioni also points out that affective rationality plays a central role in helping people to socialise with one another. He emphasized that these two considerations are key in the development of a new decision-making model as opposed to Weber’s proposal.
Apart from the four types of interpreting social actions, Weber also proposed four types of rationality. The types are: practical, theoretical, substantive, and formal rationality. Most studies point out that Weber was more concerned with formal rationality which focused mostly on and contributed to the understanding of historical developments. This process led to rationaliasation which helped in the transformation of the Western world (Pampel, 2007, 49).
Weber was curious in wanting to know the historical trends that shaped the success of rationalisation in the Western states and its failure to take effect in other countries. He was able to single out religion as a major force that led to rationalisation in the West. The Protestant ethic in the Western world significantly contributed to its rationalisation. Weber continued to argue that the Protestant ethic was so intense that it caused the ultimate emergence of capitalism in this part of the world (Farganis, 2008, 46).
His focus on the role of religion in other countries showed that the economic ethics taught by Confucianism and Hinduism hampered rationalisation and thus preventing the emergence of capitalism in the countries in which the kinds of religion were practiced, especially in China and India respectively.
Moreover, Weber’s rationality theory focused on the various types of authority. He concentrated on the forces of legitimate dominion in human relationships. Weber developed three basic types/structures of authority; traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. This can be considered as being the ideal types of authority that researchers can use when comparing given phenomena (Sica, 2004, 105).
Of the three types of authority, Weber was more concerned with understanding the rational-legal structure, especially the way in which it was organised. The rational-legal authority was organised in a bureaucratic manner. This type enhanced rationalisation through the empirical estimations that were made to it. It is controlled by rules and set laws of the land or a given organisation.
Traditional authority, on the other hand, is concerned with the belief systems of established societies which are manifested through their practices and norms. A given authority is recognised as being legitimate due to its continued practice (Pampel, 2007, 57). This type of authority is often associated with patriarchalism, patrimonialism, feudalism, and gerontocracy.
Furthermore, charismatic authority refers to the belief that develop towards leaders perceived to have extraordinary capabilities. The powers possessed by the leader should be recognised by the followers since they play a central role in every form of authority (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 121).
Organisations with have some form of charismatic characteristics will mostly have a charismatic leader. The greatest challenge in charismatic organisations or groups is the replacement of the leader incase of a vacancy. As a result, organisations under such authority have resorted to the routinisation of charisma and hence the adoption of either rational-legal type of authority or the traditional authority (Morrison, 1995, 271).
From Weber’s perspective, rationalisation has taken root in virtually all spheres, particularly in the field of economy, religion, law, art, and the city and thus affecting the modern human life. According to Weber, modern rationalisation in the West has been enhanced by religious (Calvinism) economic ethics and capitalism as well as the rational-legal authority.
It is the process of rationalisation, according to Weberian sociology, that is responsible for modernity (Sica, 2004, 124). The different types of rationality discussed earlier are used to explain the rationalisation process. Additionally, Weber saw rationalisation as being similar to disenchantment. Disenchantment can be defined as the process of making the world devoid of mystery, magic, and other spiritual forces (Morrison, 1995, 303).
From a religious point of view, rationalisation is the equivalent of secularisation. This implies that most social sectors and practices are not controlled by religion and its institutions. The process of demystifying the world of the numerous gods, secularisation, and rationalisation was propelled by the emergence of science and capitalism (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 137).
According to Weber, the process of rationalising the world was unstoppable since despite the fact that the process started in the West, its impact has since been felt virtually everywhere (Morrison, 1995, 277).
He sees the process as a defining characteristic for modernity which will ultimately make the world emptier. This is because 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 professionalisation.
Weber thinks that the values which used to hold the social fabric together in the past have been diminished in the recent past as a result of the rationalisation process (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003, 149). Formally creative arts, particularly music and painting have henceforth lost their value due to the same process. From a Weberian point of view, the modern life is drawing more to being disenchanted and rationalised.
The essay has critically elaborated Max Weber’s complex idea of rationality and rationalisation as well as the conclusions he reached concerning the impacts of rationalisation on the modern life. He noted that rationalisation is a continuous process in the modern society.
Some of the forces that Weber identified as propagating the process include; Protestantism, economic systems, democracy, subject knowledge, and bureaucratic organisation of the society. He also notes that the future of the modern life lies in the intrigues of status, class, and party/power. We can therefore conclude from a Weberian perspective that modern times are shaped by rationalisation and intellectualisation processes.
Reference List
Farganis, James (ed.) (2008) Readings in Social Theory- The Classical Tradition to Post-Modernism. 5th edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, pp. 35-107
Morrison, David K. (1995) Marx, Durkheim Weber. London: SAGE, pp. 212-255; 270-304
Pampel, Francis (2007) Sociological Lives and Ideas – An Introduction to the Classical Theorists. New York: Worth Plc. pp. 23-58
Ritzer, George. & Goodman, Douglas J. (2003) Sociological Theory. Sixth Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill ‘Max Weber’ pp. 108-152
Sica, Alan (2004) Max Weber and the new century. Transaction Plc. 1-130
Max Weber’s contributions in the field of sociology remain unparalleled. He is a classical sociologist whose ideas, themes and theories influenced the course of sociology. Importantly, Weber was opposed to the idea held by positivists that empirical research was the most effective way of understanding social reality.
He advocated for qualitative research in analyzing human behavior and actions. To him, patterns of interaction are not static since they change overtime (Honigsheim 2003, p. 73). As such, it is incorrect to suppose that the causality of specific human actions remains the same.
This paper intends to use various concepts held by Max Weber regarding the differences between natural science and social science. Can natural science be in a position to evaluate social reality?
To answer this question, the paper will use ‘Weberian’ concepts of value relevance, ideal type, social objectivity and most importantly, anti positivism.
Weber’s Value Relevance and Ideal Type: Arguments against Natural Science
Weber was an anti positivist and rejected the idea that it is possible to generalize social reality. Weber believed that human actions are subject to change and that natural science generalizes before proceeding to study the subject matter.
To him, only by understanding the behavior that man exhibits that a scientist is able to comprehend the social reality. Importantly, Weber addressed the concepts of value bound and value neutrality in research.
According to Honigsheim (2003, p. 78), the concept explains that the differences between natural and social science lies in the intentions of the researcher as opposed to inapplicability of empirical principles of research.
The major distinction between the two sciences therefore is the interests and the intentions of the researcher as opposed to the various methods used to study the subject matter.
Unlike natural scientists, Weber argues that social scientist should uphold value relevance in research. To him, value relevance is the ability of a social researcher to withhold his or her values when undertaking a social research.
The values imparted on the researcher should facilitate him or her to comprehend the social contexts he/she intends to observe (Smith 2003, p.132).
The rationale is that working against the prevalent values in a society overlooks the historical and social environments that have influenced the values imparted on the researcher during the process of socialization.
To that end, Weber articulates that natural scientists tend to undermine the influence of value relevance of the researchers and assume that they are objective (Beetham 1989, p. 312). To the contrary, their intentions and actions during the research depend heavily on the values they hold.
Weber says that natural science can never suppose that their results are always objective. Objective knowledge is impossible in natural science since the researcher does not make choices objectively.
In other words, he says that natural scientists are subjects of the social environment they live in and they ought to withhold their values when seeking to analyze human behavior (Smith 2003, p. 142).
Unlike other subject matters, human beings are constantly changing and any research on behavior should rely on the relevance of the actions vis a vis their ascriptions.
It is therefore impossible for natural science to pursue ‘objective knowledge’ without integrating their methodologies with the principles of social science (Honigsheim 2003, p. 77). They also need to submerge themselves in the society of subject matter without considering their values and values held by others.
Max Weber argues that social object refers to something that has value and meaning for groups and society. At the onset of socialization, individuals learn the values and norms of a society. Honigsheim (2003, p. 78) asserts that the values become an indelible aspect of human being.
To this end, Weber says that individuals who constitute the subject matter of social research are valuable and that their actions have different meanings in the society.
This is contrary to natural research where the social object has no meaning to the researcher and as such, he or she utilizes empirically tested methods of research to identify the cause and consequences of certain actions.
What the natural sciences leave out is the fact that researchers belong to a specific value system that could influence their objectivity in analyzing and studying human behavior (Hadden 1997, p. 60). To overcome the challenges in understanding social objects, Weber prescribes a new way of observing reality.
He articulates that an individual may be able to understand social reality by reorganizing it in a specific way and use social imagination to comprehend it (Beetham 1989, p. 314).
His interpretive approach has considerable benefits for social sciences in the sense that it is able to reduce the subjectivity associated with natural sciences. A social researcher should immerse himself in the society under study and interpret human behaviors and action from an objective view devoid of influences of values he hold.
Nonetheless, Weber does not dismiss the attempts to have an objective study in social science. He articulates that sociological imagination is imperative in analyzing human behavior.
It is possible to understand (verstehen) human behavior through abstraction given that social scientists are able to reorganize the social reality and imagine it from an objective perspective (Smith 2003, pp. 34-87).
The social researchers should utilize conscious imagination to understand the actual interpretation of specific human relationships and behaviors. This way, social scientists are able to distinguish the ordinary interpretations and actual interpretation of human behavior.
Weber therefore seeks to uphold the superiority of interpretative methodologies used in social research as a means of gaining an objective research. Social scientists apply social imagination and reconfigure the social reality to understand the human and social object of natural sciences (Honigsheim 2003, pp. 73 – 94).
Treatment of value judgment according to Weber should be the role of the social scientists. However, the researcher ought to be wary of various generalizations that other sciences make due to their redundant laws and formal logical arguments that they present.
Max Weber prescribes the use of ‘ideal type’ in observation of reality by social scientists. He argues that ‘ideal type’ is the only way in which social scientists are able to imagine reality and form patterns that could be important in explaining human behavior in a particular and general way (Smith 2003, p. 161).
The concepts emphasized in the ‘ideal types’ include rationality and protestant ethics. They help the social scientists to compare the causes and the consequences of human action overtime.
Besides, the imaginary construction of a social reality helps a social scientist to compare different social and historical environments that the human behavior occurred (Beetham 1989, p. 311).
Moreover, Weber says that ideal types do not only allow the researcher to isolate the important aspects of the subject matter but also allows the comprehension of behavior of different people in different contexts.
To come up with an ideal type, the social scientist ought to ensure that they undertake a thorough study and use their thoughts and conscience to analyze the observations.
Although use of imaginary construction assists the scientists to arrange and organize complex reality, it does not aim at making a conclusive law of predicting the cause and consequence of certain actions.
Weber recognized that absolute and rigid laws typical of natural sciences are inadequate to address the concept of social dynamism.
For instance, an individual may behave in a specific way due to a certain cause but it does not imply that other societal members behaved or will behave in the same way in the past or in the future.
Further, Weber argues that analyzing human behavior and action through imaginary construction does not amount to ideographic methodology of studying social reality (Smith 2003, p. 231). The rationale is that the aim of social science is not to analyze human behavior in a way that the human actions are predictable.
To the contrary, social imagination leads to understanding the behavior of the social objects that form overtime.
This implies that scientists who apply social imagination will not only study the sole aspects of human behavior but also will study the entirety of human actions and analyze them through the patterns they form overtime (Hadden 1997, p. 62).
It is important to note that ‘ideal type’ is a utopian model that does not feature in any social reality. To this end, Weber argues that the ideal type does not always imply validity in the manner in which the social scientists reproduce the results and compare them with reality.
Weber pinpoints that the validity of ideal type of research is measured in terms of adequacy, which is a lacking aspect of positivism.
Weber defends the use of fictional methodology to unravel social reality vehemently. Beetham (1989, p. 312) articulates that researchers’ value commitment is important in carrying out an objective research. The value commitment is an unavoidable aspect of researchers however subjective.
Thus, he acknowledges the subjective nature of natural sciences and says that the researchers are usually ‘one sided’.
For this purpose, Weber says that ideal type of social reality is important to construct in order to remove the vagueness that natural science has experienced due to value commitment of the researchers as well as the interpretes.
As such, ideal type is value free and integrates ethical considerations while at the same time attempting to confront the inadequacies that historical and social knowledge possess. The rationale is that knowledge is subject of natural science and has been subjective overtime.
The ‘ideal type’ construction inculcates the need for virtue, objectivity and clear sightedness in a scientist and as such, he or she becomes committed passionately to the revelation of the truth that is free of subjectivity and illusions (Hadden 1997, p. 79).
Weber proposes that the use of universal laws that is typical of natural science is not enough in the field of social sciences. In other words, he says that social scientists should utilize such models as ‘ideal type’ in order to organize the complex social reality.
Although he says that the models do not aim at arriving at a general law or principle (verified by empirical principles), they provide the researchers with a platform to isolate specific key aspects of social object (Honigsheim 2003, p. 95).
To him, ideal type model is the most rational way of comprehending social phenomena and reality. For instance, he demonstrates the use of ideal type in the analysis of social phenomenon by referring to command and free market economies.
Although none of the two market types exists, Weber has the conviction that their imagination helps in isolating key elements of markets (Beetham 1989, p. 312). This way, social scientists are able to choose the aspects that are fundamentally important in an economy.
Analyzing the economy from abstraction therefore serves to unravel other aspects that natural science can rarely find using its methodology and law.
In essence, Weber’s arguments on the inadequacies of natural science are valid to some extents and continue to apply in sociology. The field of social science ought to understand the concept of value relevance during their research.
Social objects that are subject matter of social research are able to exhibit different behaviors that may change over time (Swedberg 2005, p. 165). To this end, it is almost impossible to understand human behavior since every behavior and action has its ascriptions that are defined by a value system of a specific society.
To this end, Weber accuses natural science for having used the researchers’ values or values of others to make conclusions and device general laws of understanding human behavior. This in turn leads to subjective nature of social knowledge.
Nonetheless, Weber says that objective knowledge is possible when social scientists adopt a social model derived from social imagination and reconstruction of reality.
The rationale is that the researchers are able to remove their values in the study and understand complex reality in a more objective way than in natural sciences.
Despite spirited efforts to understand human behavior, critics accuse Weber of ignoring major points in his analysis of social objects and value relevance. Particularly, they assert that it is difficult for a person belonging to one culture to understand the cultural and social structures of other societies.
To that end, the critics say that Weber overlooks the inability of a social actor to imagine a social phenomenon of another society since he or she does not belong there. As such, the mental and imaginary construction of a social phenomenon in another culture is impossible.
For instance, it is particularly difficult for an individual to envisage another sort of economy if his or her culture subscribe to capitalism or socialism. Second, arguments that imagination and abstraction is the most objective way of capturing social reality are misleading.
By using one’s knowledge to recreate social reality, the social scientists ignore observable facts that natural sciences emphasize (Swedberg 2005, p. 167).
Finally, value commitment is a major aspect of thought processes and is unavoidable when constructing ideal type models. Weber’s assertion that social scientists should be value free and objective is not easy to achieve.
Conclusion
In summary, Weber believes that natural sciences suffer immense challenges when attempting to explain social reality. Weber subscribes to anti positivist school of thought that argues that social reality is not measurable through data and static natural laws.
Instead, human being who is the subject matter of social research experiences changes in the social context making him or her to manifest specific behavior that scientist cannot generalize. Swedberg (2005, p. 168) says that values that an individual holds lead to subjectivity during research.
Besides, the social scientists ought to imagine ideal reality to comprehend social actions and phenomenon. To this end, Weber agrees that natural sciences suffer challenges that undermine their importance of analyzing human behavior.
References
Beetham, D 1989, ‘Max Weber and the Liberal Political Tradition’, European Journal of Sociology, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 311–323.
Hadden, W 1997, Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition, Broadview Press, Peterborough, Ontario.
Honigsheim, P 2003, The Unknown Max Weber, Transaction Publisher, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Smith, M 2003, Social Science in Question, Sage, London.
Swedberg, R 2005, The Max Weber Dictionary, Stanford University Press Stanford.
Power is defined in a number of ways; among the multiple ways of expressing it, we can say that Power signifies the possession of control or command over others (Sykes, 2006). There have been many sociologists who have expressed their views on power; Max Weber and Foucault, though similar in a few ways, do have their own views on power.
Weber’s view of Power
Weber feels that within a social relationship an actor will be in a position to act without resistance. This Power is subjective to the amount an actor has and is contingent upon how much power the person has relative to others within the social relationship. Weber further stipulates power as coercive and authoritative (charismatic, traditional and legal and/or rational). The former states that people are forced to do as they are told under threat of punishment and in the latter power is displayed as people obey because of the personal qualities of the person doing the telling (a religious leader) or those who exercise authority do so because they continue a tradition and support the preservation and continuation of existing values and social ties (a political leader) and the third form that exists in our society and is sometimes referred-to as “bureaucratic” power since it is based upon the status of an individual’s position in a social hierarchy, rather than the individual per se. To put it very succinctly, Weber opines that power exists where an individual or a group is able to get another person or a group to do what they want.
Foucault’s view of Power
Foucault’s view of power could at first be misconstrued as being the same as Weber’s; an in-depth study will reveal that this is not so. He is of the view that when a situation arises in a relationship, where the action (or the inaction) of a person affects another person’s actions, then ‘power’ is felt/exercised. Therefore, power cannot actually belong to a person or a group of people; it exists on its own and moves in and around society, in different forms of course. Power for Foucault is more to do with procedures and forms rather than a quality exhibited or possessed by one or more individuals.
Where Weber was functionalist in his perspective, Foucault was more of a structuralist in his approach to the idea of power. Where Weber opined that power was in the hands of some person or persons, Foucault believed that power was more of an entity.
It has been discussed by students of sociology that Weber’s views of power did influence the thoughts of Foucault, but it would be wrong to believe that the latter’s views critiqued that of the former. To put it all in a nutshell, the idea of ‘power over’ (as in the view of Weber) is contrasted with the idea of ‘power to’ (as in the view of Foucault) in the study of power as sociological concept.
Whatever may be the views of these two thinkers, there is no doubt that the context and/or circumstances in which power is exhibited or exercised need to be studied exhaustively, before attempting an explanation.
References
Huges, G. & Fergusson, R. (eds) 2004, Ordering lives: family, work and welfare, Routledge & The Open University, London.
Skykes, S. 2006, Power and Christian Theology, Continuum, New York.
Talcott Parsons and Marx Weber are two social theorists whose contribution in sociology is undeniable. However, their views are very different although Parsons is a student of Weber. When Parsons first arrived in Heildelberg, Weber’s influence still had a strong grip on the community here despite the latter having died several years earlier (Calhoun et al 82). Weber’s social theories further resonated with Parsons because they had a spiritual and cultural orientation to them.
Weber‘s social theories suggest that human beings level of understanding is curtailed by the difficulties in understanding why social events occur in a specific manner. Weber’s approach is more accommodating in its scope because it suggests that understanding is either observational or explanatory (Calhoun et al 220). Parsons’ theories on the other hand were based on a behaviorist approach, meaning that human beings can deduce social meanings through observation (Calhoun et al 98).
Key methodological issues introduced by Parsons and Weber
Parsons’ contributions to social theories and social actions include his analysis of social institutions, outlining systemic theory into sociology, description of the voluntaristic theory of action and analysis of anti-Semitism, fascism and aggression as the main problems facing the society (Calhoun et al 82). Parsons’ action theory explains how structures in the society fit together. The identified systems in this theory include: social systems, cultural systems, personality systems and behavioral-organism system.
Weber’s theories address individual actions based in a social environment, and people’s interaction with the environment. The main difference between the two is that while Weber takes symbolic-interactions perspectives in his theories, Parsons’ approach addresses the same from a functionalistic perspective.
Voluntaristic Theory of Action
Parsons regarded the development of social theory as having developed from three traditions namely: society, man’s nature and human behavior (Calhoun et al 110). Before he set out to put up his own theory about the society, Parsons took time to study work done by other socialist and concluded that “none of them has ever captured the entire truth about social behavior” (Calhoun et al 110).
As such, he took it upon himself to develop a theory that would reconcile and integrate the truths captured by other social theorists. He considered past works by Max Weber, Pareto, Durkheim and Marshall (Calhoun et al 82).
Utilitarianism and economic theory
Parsons captured this theory because it is systemic, analytical and action oriented (Calhoun et al 110). The theory deals with action, experience and understanding since it gives the society a motivation dynamic that explains behavior, thus helping people to anticipate specific things when conditions that are assumed in the theory happen.
Parsons however had strong arguments against the economic theory as it were stating that economists who held the theory’s conception need to accept that the theory has no precise application in the empirical world.
As such, Parsons argued that a pure economic theory would never achieve the general theory status because neither the classical nor the utilitarian economists were able to develop a theory that took social order into consideration without having to infuse rationalistic or individualistic frameworks in to their theories (Calhoun et al 141).
Weber on his part argued that understanding (verstehen) was the ideal way of studying social phenomenon since it would help human beings to understand their actions, interactions and experiences (Calhoun et al 142)
Significant points between Parsons and Weber
Parsons and Weber main difference regards their approach to understanding. According to (Calhoun et al 33), “Parsons lays little regard to material objects revealed through empathy or introspection. Weber on the other hand, does not recognize the distinction of material objects since his sociology is based on real subjective and objective components”. Weber’s approach is tenable when one considers the difference between behavior and action.
This is because behavior refers individual actions, whereby the actor has no clear consciousness of the motivation behind it. As such, Weber states that “behavior is not understandable”. Parsons however fails to recognize this aspect of Weber’s allegation and instead focuses on an action theory, which assumes that human actions are voluntary, symbolic and unintentional (Calhoun et al 77).
Another distinction between Parsons and Weber is their approach to economics. Parsons developed a four-prong system based on four tasks, which relates to the environment. Commonly referred to as the GAIL system, the system is based on polity (Goal-attainment), economy (adaptation), cultural system concerned with social control and law (integration) and normative motivation to fulfill roles in the society (latency).
To Parsons therefore, economic prosperity is reliant on how well the scarce resources in a given environment were allocated. This was a reflection of his idealistic approach (Parsons 20, cited in Calhoun et al 40). Weber on the other hand attributed economic prosperity to a society’s work ethic. To him, the more committed a society was to work, the higher their chances of economic success.
Weber terms the notion that government can decide the economic reality of a society through legislation as misguided. “In future as in the past, it will be the ‘interests’ of individuals rather that the ‘ideas’ of an economic administration which will rule the world.” (Calhoun et al 77).
He further points out that the proclamations by governments do not in any way affect the value of money. Rather, money’s value is determined by its associations with other goods, thus meaning that “money is not only a means of payment, but a means of exchange too.’(Calhoun et al 77).
To Parsons, demand and supply economics was at the basis of his economic theories. He perceived money as a ‘medium of exchange’, whereby the capitalist could purchase labor through money rather than giving the labor provider a means of existence such as food or clothing (Parsons 112). To Parsons, moneys value did not just stop at being a medium of exchange. Rather, it is also a ‘measure of trust’, hence providing the society with a tool to measure the trustworthiness of their social interactions.
Parsons grouped money with other media that circulates in the society. In particular, he grouped money with commitment, influence and power, stating that the four (money, commitment, influence and power) circulated in the society thus allowing people to achieve specific objectives (Parsons 324 cited by Calhoun et al 142).
These sentiments are shared by Weber. However, his approach is more from a power-money standpoint. He argues that politics and power is a preserve of the wealthy because the average person is too absorbed in making a living such that even if he had the interest or potential for politics, he would not find the time necessary to commit to politics in order to win an elective post.
“Democracy has only the choice of being run cheaply by rich who hold honorary office or of being run expensively by paid professional politicians” (Calhoun et al 113). He however ruled out the possibility that the society would pay professional politicians to run the politics of the country thus concluding that influence and power was the reserve of the wealthy people in the society.
Although he learnt a great deal of sociology from Weber, Parsons was reluctant to admit Weber’s view regarding that “objects susceptible to interpretative understanding are just as real as the phenomena recognized by the behaviorists.” (Calhoun et al 35).
This was despite Weber’s explanation that the phenomena required different study procedures. Instead, Parsons adopted a problematic strategy, based on structural functional analysis, capable of exemplifying social phenomena on priori models of dependence and interrelation (Calhoun et al 49).
Weber is skeptic when it comes to the suggestion that a socialist economy can be run without money being the mode of exchange. Even when the economy is small, dealing with simple identifiable needs and centered on consumption only, Weber still expresses doubt that people would be able to trade efficiently in such an environment.
“How does one determine which parts of the economy are doing poorly or what factor of production has contributed to product value?” (Calhoun et al 14). To Weber, a society without money is almost impossible because people would have to incentive to evaluate alternative cost.
To Weber, social action presents the most ideal means of analysis society. According to him, action involves verstehen– “understanding of subjective motivations” (Calhoun et al 207). As such, his theories were based on the ability of one form of social order (e.g. religion, culture or economics) that could transform other domains of the society.
He further argued that social actions by individuals were as a result of benefit calculation or conscious cost in the different spheres of life (Calhoun et al 207). This meant that people were no longer tied to traditional guidelines set by the society.
In the Voluntaristic theory, Parsons suggests that a society should or would not adopt a set of values. His argument suggested that societies need common orienting principles. His argument was based on the belief that human actors in a society are faced with five variable dilemmas.
“Gratification-discipline, private-collective, universalism-particularism, achievement-ascription, and specificity-diffuseness” (Calhoun et al 403). Based on these, Parsons argued that the society had a cultural system, a personality system and a social system, all which were interdependent on each other.
Conclusion
Where Weber talks of environment and organisms, Parsons talks of a situation and an actor; where Weber talks of response or behavior, Parson discusses action. From the theories suggested by Parsons and Weber, one gets the impression that social organization consists of social systems, culture, roles and stratifications, which set the conditions which the society is supposed to act on.
However, it is noteworthy that more often than not, people act towards situations rather than towards social structures or culture. This then means that social organization is only potent to the extent where it shapes societal situations thus giving people a reason to act.
According to Calhoun et al (77) social organization can also prompt people to act by giving them with symbols that could help them interpret situations? Both Parson and Weber has given us a reason to view the human society as an organization by identifying the society, conditions or forms that people identify with, and identifying what is most likely to bring change in the specific society.
Works Cited
Calhoun, Craig, Gerteis, Joseph, Moody, James, Pfaff, Steven and Virk, Indermohan. Contemporary Sociological Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Print.
According to Weber, bureaucracy is closely connected with the concept of rationalization (Theuvsen 1). Thus, Weber defines bureaucracy as rationalization administered to the arrangement of human actions (Theuvsen 1). Wrong considers Weber’s “historicist conception” of sociological awareness a reasonable one (Wrong 184). Bureaucracy has its benefits and limitations. The advantages include an orientation on the purpose, promotional options for workers depending on their achievements, specialized distribution of labor, and standard accepted rules for all employees (Theuvsen 2). These features of bureaucracy have a positive impact on the outcomes of the work process as they sustain the atmosphere of equality and make every employee feel protected by the same regulations. Every person can see that a company strives to achieve its goals most efficiently, and such a strategy makes people motivated. By specialized division of duties, bureaucratic organizations reach the most productive outcomes, as every assigned employee is proven to be best in his or her specialty.
Disadvantages of bureaucracy are associated with its strict policies which leave no room for unexpected situations and with control measures (Theuvsen 2). Being cost- and time-consuming is the biggest limitation of bureaucracy. Also, since the companies that run on bureaucracy are not prepared for unforeseen situations, they may experience considerable hardships when such situations occur. However, the biggest problem with bureaucracy is its level of control (Barker 410). Because of it, Weber refers to bureaucracy as “the iron cage” (Barker 410). He mentions that in an attempt to gain the rationality of order people forget about ethical and moral values (Barker 410). Bureaucracy has the power to convert social action into a rational one. However, this is a twofold function, as it may boost and limit the organization’s effectiveness at the same time (Barker 410).
To eliminate the disadvantages of the bureaucratic system and improve it, it is recommended to reconsider the organizations’ policies and make them more flexible for the employees’ and companies’ benefit. First of all, it is necessary to focus on the company’s goals rather than on the work process. Also, leaders should set the priorities for the employees and encourage them to stick to these priorities. Paperwork should be eliminated as it takes away too much time. Finally, and probably most importantly, the company’s leaders should empower and reward the employees. It is no secret that a person who feels important and appreciated is much more dedicated to what he or she is doing. Control is a rather necessary component of successful management, but too much control and too little encouragement make people unwilling to do their best for their organization.
While there are many arguments for and against bureaucracies, one thing is clear: they are inevitable. Their features may be eliminated, but the general division of labor and the necessity of having strict rules within a company is necessary. Bureaucracy helps to organize the work process, and with appropriate implementation, this type of management can produce rather effective outcomes.
One of the most well-known bureaucratic companies in McDonald’s, whose policies involve a lot of bureaucratic methods (Ferrante 124). Along with borrowing their methods, many formal organizations also use some approaches to reduce the disadvantages of bureaucracy and reach the most beneficial outcomes for the employees. For instance, they may employ the concept of rationalization but adapt it to the employees’ needs so that they should not be alienated from their families, colleagues, and the self (Ferrante 125).
Works Cited
Barker, James R., “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, 1993, pp. 408-437.
Ferrante, Joan. Sociology: A Global Perspective. 8th ed., CENGAGE Learning, 2012.
Theuvsen, Ludwig. “On Good and Bad Bureaucracies: Designing Effective Quality Management Systems in the Agrofood Sector.” The 84th EAAE Seminar ‘Food Safety in a Dynamic World’ held in Zeist, The Netherlands, February 8-11, 2004, pp. 1-10.
Wrong, Dennis H. “The Oversocialized Conception on Men in Modern Sociology.” American Sociological Review, vol. 26, no. 2, 1961, pp. 183-193.
In Weber’s sociology, the notion “ideal type” can be referred to as an abstract model that is used as a basis for comparison and helps view the real world in a more systematic way. According to Ritzer (2016), under the concept of ideal types, Weber understood the identification of the individuality of development processes and the characteristics that caused these differences. In addition, Max Weber defines three main types of domination or authority that include legal, charismatic, and traditional authority. Traditional domination is generally legitimized by specific cultural and traditional patterns, charismatic – by a strong personality or character that can lead to obedience, and the legal authority means the legitimization of power by governmental regulations and laws.
For example, legal domination strongly relies on laws, governmental regulations, and rules that society considers appropriate and fair. The current system of power in the United States can be taken as an example of legal authority. The traditional type of domination is based on following traditional examples, and the power generally relies on experience and the lessons of the past. According to Durkheim (1952), historically traditionalism remains much stronger in the Midi, while Northern countries managed to change this form of authority. An example of this type of authority is the existing political system of Saudi Arabia, where the king is allowed to rule the country due to historical customs, and the citizens do not confront this type of power.
The last domination type is charismatic and is based on people’s beliefs in specific and exceptional characteristics of a political leader. It usually occurs during periods of political instability such as revolutions, strikes, civil wars; however, this type of power can be observed in several countries as an integral part of the authoritative system. For instance, the dictatorship of Julius Cesar, who occupied the ruling position in Rome without any legal support, formed a cult of personality.
Durkheim, E. (1858-1917). Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson; edited with an Introduction by George Simpson. (1952). Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Routledge & K. Paul.