The article by Ragin and Zaret considers two comparative research strategies, the ones of Durkheim and Weber. Both of them are used in sociological analytical studies to reach the objectives of explanation and draw general conclusions. However, the approaches differ as Weber upholds the principle of using ideal social types in analysis while Durkheim suggests comparing real social models, taking into consideration massive statistic data.
According to Ragin and Zaret, the corner-stone of Durkheim’s theory is that social types, which existed in history and are now represented in reality, are more suitable for analysis than ideal models (734). To justify this principle and prove its effectiveness, Durkheim compares social models with biological organisms. In such natural sciences as ethology and genetics, it is useless to compare and analyze two non-existent systems as the result of such research cannot be applied in practice or further studies. In consequence, the next basic point of Durkheim’s theory is that, while analyzing any real society, the roots and origins of each phenomenon should be thoroughly studied (Ragin and Zaret 735). Only if this condition is maintained, two systems can be compared on a scientific, sociological basis.
Following this, to create a detailed and plausible analysis, one should concern a large number of social types and find out the initial causes of various phenomena, which characterize the societies under study (Ragin and Zaret 739). For this purpose, statistical methods should be implemented in research. Thus, it means an analysis based on facts and figures. Moreover, Durkheim’s approach leaves almost no room for abstract speculations, which may prevent sociological research from being objective.
According to Ragin and Zaret, although Weber’s approach deals with concrete historical cases, for drawing comparisons, it uses ideal models (741). On the one hand, such a system can be useful when the factual basis is insufficient, for instance, there are not enough figures. On the other hand, searching for roots and causes in an ideally constructed model may lead to false results and unsubstantiated comparisons.
Further on, Weber’s approach implies genetic explanation to historical diversity (Ragin and Zaret 743). It means that concrete cases and their features should be considered, not abstract ones. Contrary to Durkheim’s approach, genetic explanation, though it deals with ideal patterns, describes reasons for various phenomena, which are seen as connected with each other in a cause-and-effect manner. This kind of explanation can be called the main advantage of Weber’s system as it is, in many ways, similar to genetics as an exact natural science.
Various scholars, such as Moore, successfully apply Weber’s genetic explanation. To explain the way which seven modern societies have traveled through history, he operates with three ideal social types (Ragin and Zaret 745). Moore’s conclusions imply that every previous historical phase causes and predetermines the following one.
According to Ragin and Zaret, both Weberian and Durkheimian patterns separated sociology from history (731). Both models use factual material and abstract generalizations, avoiding too detailed descriptions, contrary to history as a science. This approach helps concentrate on the essential things and make a thorough analysis.
From the article, I have gained that both sociological research methods are useful in drawing conclusions and making generalizations. The main difference between them is that Durkheim’s model presupposes analyzing massive amounts of factual data while Weber’s approach implies operating with ideal social types. With the help of different methodological instruments, both methods serve the same objective, which is to conduct comparative sociological research successfully.
Work Cited
Ragin, Charles, and David Zaret. “Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies.” Social Forces, vol. 61, no. 3, 1983, pp. 731-754.
Max Weber focused on major principles that governed human societies. He analysed theories concerning various phenomena which took place in human societies. Thus, he reconsidered Marx’s theory. However, his ideas concerning religion and the role of religion in humans’ life are quite exceptional. Weber’s theories can help to understand and, maybe, explain stimuli of people who lived in the notorious Jonestown. Weber’s ideas concerning domination and the Baptist Sects provide insights into the processes that led to the tragedy of 1978.
Domination
According to Max Weber people tend to organize (or be organized) into groups. It is necessary to point out that these groups do not interact on equal terms. This is where domination comes into place. Weber (1978) defined domination as “the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons” (p. 212). There are many factors that affect people and make them obey.
Weber (1978) pointed out three types of authority that made people obey: traditional authority, rational-legal authority and charismatic authority. This classification can be used to explain the phenomenon of Jonestown. Jim Jones became a charismatic leader and created a group of believers (Jonestown, 2006). Those people followed him as they believed in his “revelation, his heroism” and his personal qualities (Weber, 1978, p. 216).
However, it can be difficult to understand what made people believe in that (even charismatic) personality. Weber (1978) provided an answer to this question as well. The renowned sociologist suggested several reasons which could make people obey. One of these reasons is particularly important when considering the case of Jonestown. Weber (1978) stated that people could submit from their helplessness as there was no alternative for them.
This was precisely the case of people who left their homes to settle down in Jonestown (or just believe in Jim Jones). People found themselves in the hostile society where multinationals and corporations ruled the world, where racism and other forms of discrimination were still there (Jonestown, 2006). People longed for a new world where equality and peace ruled. Jim Jones promised them to build such a society.
Notably, Jim Jones did not simply create an ordinary organization; he created a religious organization based on major principles of Christianity. Admittedly, this was one of the main qualities of the organization that attracted so many people. Remarkably, some called the People Temple a cult, whereas some considered it to be a powerful formation that could change the world. Nowadays people see this religious organization as an example of the other side of religious beliefs.
Religious Constituent
Major Peculiarity of Some Religious Organizations
The fact that the Peoples Temple was a religious organization brings to the fore one more theory developed by Max Weber. Thus, he pointed out that
[a] strict avoidance of the world… were the results for the first Baptist communities, and this principle of avoidance of the world never quite disappeared so long as the old spirit remained alive. (Weber, 1930, n.p.)
In other words, Weber argued that numerous religious organizations (he used the word communities) were based on the principle of escape from the society they pertained to. The Peoples Temple was one of such organizations as people who joined it and followed Jim Jones did not feel safe in the contemporary society. They wanted to escape from various kinds of discrimination and they wanted to build a new better society (Jonestown, 2006).
Jim Jones gave people what they wanted. He portrayed a society where justice, equality and good ruled. He went further and called people to come with him to build a new place. Jones suggested a way to escape and many people followed. Thus, Weber’s theory turned out to be correct in one more case.
Ultimate Attempt to Escape
This theory is also manifested in the extreme way Jones’ followers chose. Weber (1930) noted that Baptist organizations largely relied upon the principle of salvation. Apart from mere avoidance of worldly life, many members of such organizations sought for salvation. Weber (1930) also stressed that those organizations were authoritarian.
In other words, leaders had a great power over members of their communities. Therefore, people were ready to follow their leader to the end. This was the case with Jonestown. More than 900 people obeyed and committed suicide as their leader claimed that they could not put up with the vicious world and had to leave it (Jonestown, 2006).
Legitimacy of Jones’ Organization
It goes without saying that such ideas sound like a kind of ideology. Some may say that Jones was trying to show the entire world that there was something wrong with it. However, if to take into account Weber’s theory it becomes clear that Jones pursued his own goals.
Weber (1978) claimed that the entire system is based on the idea of its legitimacy. When members of an organization do not obey, organization ceases to exist. Thus, organization can exist until there is authority and dominance. Basically, Jones’ organization was one of such examples.
The organization was a powerful entity at the beginning. People believed in their leader. Many people joined the organization as they saw a real way out. They obtained the necessary alternative to the hostile society. Nonetheless, soon people got disappointed in the organization and its leader. They started leaving the organization (Jonestown, 2006). This was the point when Jones understood that he was not the great authority anymore.
He understood that he would soon lose everything. People did not believe in the organization’s legitimacy. Jones found the way to prove he was an authority. It goes without saying that Jones’ way to regain dominance became a horrible tragedy. However, it is also necessary to note that the instance of Jonestown tragedy does prove Weber’s theory concerning dominance and authority. Jonestown is the example that an organization cannot exist without dominance.
Conclusion
On balance, it is possible to note that Weber’s theories on human society and religion are applicable in many cases. Thus, these theories can explain such events as Jonestown tragedy. Weber claimed that people were likely to form groups and societies which were governed by certain principles. According to Weber, one of the major principles of humans’ societies is dominance.
Thus, Jim Jones being a charismatic leader formed a religious organization which followed the basic principle of such kind of entities. The organization was based on principles of dominance, i.e. authority and individual desire to escape the hostile (worldly) society. It is important to note that the Peoples Temple should be regarded as an extreme as the leader of the organization used his authority to make people give their lives for some illusive objective.
Max Weber has made important developments in sociological theories, particularly in the sociology of religion. He looked at religion as a very important institution in the society just like family, economy or political systems (Johnstone, 2007). He is a proponent of various theories; however, his perspectives on religion have elicited debate and mixed reactions over the years. All in all whether his sentiments stand the test of time or not, he must be applauded for his attempts to come up with the meaning of a prophet or a priest.
Definition of “prophet” and “priest”
Weber was not a positivist and therefore, he believed in “vest hen”. As a result of “vest hen”, he looked at the society as always seeking solutions from a higher supernatural power. Therefore, charisma and power formed important basis for his perspectives. Weber made a clear distinction between a priest and a prophet showing one as being contrary to the other. He defines a priest a part of a well organized, central unit of religious officials. Unlike a priest, a prophet was defined as the bearer of an innovative, transformed or customized religious canon or divine law, instead of a perpetuator of conventional tenets. Such a person can bring about drastic revolution and changes in a society (Johnstone, 2007).
Therefore, from that definition, Weber expressed a prophet as a charismatic leader or a person with charismatic authority who had a lot of power and charisma over the society. He can therefore influence the dynamism of the social systems including religion and politics. On the other hand, a priest is looked at as one with hierarchical or traditional power just there to meet certain tenets. Therefore a priest is less likely to initiate revolutions since he lacks charisma (Williams, 2004).
Application in modern society and discussion
Weber also asserted that priesthood in religion is basically formed by the elite and hierocracy from the beginning. On the contrary, a prophet emanates from a preacher belonging to the middle or lower social class (Johnstone, 2007). He points out that, in case of corruption and oppression in the priesthood, the prophet comes out to condemn and initiate an attempt to change the priesthood and the people as well. He expertly used illustrations from various religions like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu and ancient Chinese religion to show the influence of a prophet in a society (Johnstone, 2007).
I agree with Weber’s sentiments on the role of a priest because for a truly religious society, they walk in the footsteps of the priest. When the priesthood is corrupt or oppressive, it roots a precedent for sacrilege and corrupt leadership. Therefore, it is under these circumstances where prophets are borne. They respond to a professed extraordinary revelation and share it with the society, often in homily form (Bodemann, 1993, p.230).
Therefore, a prophet is a competent cleric, initially conveying repentance message, and subsequently social reform. This may be true in the modern society especially in Christian circles leading to birth of various churches and faith; however, I think this is more practical in the political scenes. Weber has allied the prophet too much to religion and confined his emergence therein. However, this applicability in the contemporary world leans more on the political world than in religion. His association with social class and charismatic authority is agreeable, but it is more politically inclined than religion.
However, I do not totally agree to his classifications of prophets especially in the Christian society. For instance, his classification of Amos as a prophet and Ezekiel not being a prophet but a priest is not convincing (Williams, 2004). His insights should have been deeper in this aspect instead of applying historical facts. I disagree with the criteria that he used to classify prophets into religious strata. Unlike his argument, I believe that a prophet can arise out of any social system and thus, a priest is more likely to be bred in religious circles which do not always apply for prophets. All the same his work is commendable.
Reference list
Bodemann, M. (1993). Priests, Prophets, Jews and Germans: the political basis of Max Weber’s conception of ethno-national solidarities. European journal of sociology, 34: 224-247. Web.
Johnstone, R. (2007). Religion in Society: Sociology of Religion, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Web.
Max Weber, who was a German scholar, was a known fanatic in the world of classic management theories. He was primarily interested in the reasons that orchestrated the actions of the employees, and the reasons behind the people of an organization accepting the roles accorded by their seniors and complying by them.
This research paper tries to indulge into the concepts that this theory portrays. First we look at the true meaning behind the theory. Weber in his research, made a distinctive analysis on the differences between authority and power.
In his argument, he portrays power as something that induces obedience or the power to accept commands through the art of force which forces the affected individuals to abide by the put rules and regulations (Hunter 154). On a contrary view, Weber portrays an authority as something that the individuals are already acquiesced to when exercised by their superiors.
This concept further looks into three different types of authority as portrayed by Weber. The first of this is the traditional authority which he defines as the authority which is readily acceptable and leaves no particular questions to the individuals since it comes from customs that are deeply set (Shavinina 11). An example of this type of authority is the monarchy.
Weber goes further to unfound a second type of authority which he refers to as the charismatic authority. This type of authority is gained or earned by individuals who exhibit the trust and respect required by their followers. The last type of authority is the rational-legal authority which comes from the main setting of an organization and the persons’ position while in authority.
This particular type of authority is practiced within the set procedural measures and the regulations of the organization in question.
The concept will further look into the major characteristics of bureaucracy. The first of these as coined by Weber is that it is a management by rules. A bureaucracy follows a particular set of rules that must be consistent in controlling the working mandates of an organization.
The hierarchy lower levels of an organization are controlled by the management by invoking regulations in a manner that is predictable and consistent.
The second characteristic is that of the division of labor where the authority and the responsibility are stipulated clearly and sanctioned in an official manner (Carmen 13). The lines of authority and the responsibilities are clearly stipulated in the job description.
The third characteristic as Weber epics is that its hierarchical structure must be formal. The hierarchical setting of an authority must follow a well set chain of command that efficiently disintegrates the lines and subordination of the lower levels to those of the upper level in the hierarchical setting of the organization.
The fourth characteristic is that the personnel hired should be hired based on the competence of their technicalities. Work in a particular organization should be based on the competence and the experience of that particular person.
The art of bureaucracy as defined by Weber has also the characteristic where the managers are salaried officials and own the whole unit of the administration. They control and define responsibilities as specialists (Keelson 17).
The last of the six characteristics as defined by Weber are those of the written documents where the rules and actions taken by the organization should be clearly put on paper, and clearly formulated and recorded.
These written documents will pose as future financial references that will enhance accountability of the organization and this will go a long way in ensuring that there is continuity in the procedures and the policies of the organization.
Research question
The following research is meant to develop an understanding on the notion of bureaucracy as clearly stipulated by Max Weber. In addition, the research is meant to look into perspective on the inward meaning of the values and core mandate on the word or the art of bureaucracy. The research will therefore evaluate on the intensity of Weber’s findings and ascertain a clear understanding on the matter.
The role of values
The role of values that fall behind the shaping of the research questions is through the notion that was formulated by Weber in his explicit indulgence on the matter. The values are orchestrated based on the art behind the theoretical explanation of the term Bureaucracy.
Research design and methods
The research method and design used by the research falls primarily on the law of presentation. The researchers emphasized mostly on the notions that had been put by other researches in the past and undertook a complicit comparison and contrasting on the theory stipulated by Weber to gauge on the accuracy of his theory.
The points stipulated in the past events were put down or rather written down on paper together with those of Weber and through an observation test the results were formulated where it rated positively on accuracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research found out that the art of bureaucracy as stipulated by Weber bases its view primarily on the law of logic and the ration that gains ground through qualified specialists and well trained personnel. It offers a stable and definite hierarchical structure for a particular organization. Albeit this, the extent of the limitations of the theory needs a more concrete research.
Works Cited
Carmen, Reinhart. Max Weber Bureaucracy Theory. New York, NY: Princeton University Press, 2009. Print.
Hunter, Muller. Max Weber: On Bureaucracy. Journal on Bureaucracy, 19, 2 (2010): 153-166. Print.
Max Weber, the author of the essay under consideration, admits that the ethos of politics should be considered as a cause and tries to explain what calling politics may fulfil “quite independently of its goals within the total ethical economy of human conduct – which is, so to speak, the ethical locus where politics is at home.” (Weber, 117) Weber does not want to concentrate on politics only in order to present a worth material to his reader.
He analyses ethics and tries to unite it to politics by means of their distinctive features. One of the means, which are inherent to politics, is violence. It is crucially important for power to be backed up by any kind of violence in order to control, to set the necessary rules, and be effective from different perspectives.
Revolutions and wars – this is what can provide the development of power through the whole world. People cannot present and prove their points of view without certain amount of violence. However, all those actions taken to win wars or revolutions should be analyzed from an ethical perspective. Only this way will help to achieve the necessary results properly, without extra sacrifices and even death.
Weber is eager to answer rather different questions in his essay: what differs the rule of the worker’s council from the rule of some other person, who holds power; why the wars, which lead to status quo, are needed; what are the reasons of the revolutions, people have to participate in; what the consequences of all those actions are, and what kind of future our next generation will get. These and many other questions are posed by Weber in his work.
To answer all these questions, Weber offers to take into consideration the standpoints of many people and decide what idea is more appropriate; to become fee from falsification that surrounds us; and to use real life examples as the best evidences. People need to hear and analyze lots of cases in order to be completely sure about the decision made. This is why the author wants to present several ways to persuade the reader and present various arguments in his text.
If he talks about politics in the work, it is possible that he considers men to be the vast majority of the readers. This is why the chosen by him example is good indeed. When a man prefer one woman to another, he does not want to find enough reasons to explain why; just simple phrases like she is not worth my love or something take place.
This is why legitimacy means nothing for men in such cases, and this change does not correspond to any ethical principle. So, in order to be ethically proper and not to be put under a threat, it is better to find several legitimate reasons and present them. If such evidences take place in politics, the chosen way will be approved.
In order to defend his thesis, Weber’s decides to evaluate several spheres of this life: religious, politic, economic, and even family relations. When the reader observes the situation that is more or less familiar to him/her, it turns out to be more interesting and educative to comprehend the material and take into consideration the hints given.
Politics is a thing that may take passion and perspective simultaneously. This is why human emotions and ethical norms should be analyzed to find the answer why and how politics is connected to ethics. And Weber presents a wonderful analysis, grounding on real life examples, personal experience, and already known facts.
The concept of bureaucracy stems from the administrative organization of different groups of people in an organization. Many governmental and non-governmental institutions have used bureaucracy to carry out their functions. Nowadays, many people see bureaucracies as inefficient, but history has proved that the concept can effectively instill compatibility in organizational functions.
This paper analyzes the concept of bureaucracy through the works of two authors – Weber and Ritzer. In detail, this paper analyzes the essential characteristics of bureaucratic organizations, according to Weber, and the application of Weber’s concept in Ritzer’s Mcdonalization concept. This paper also compares the concept of bureaucracy to the works of two more authors, Kafka and Melville.
Their works suffice to understand discontents with bureaucracy, as noted by Weber and Ritzer. Lastly, according to the philosophies of Weber and Freud, this paper describes the psychosocial forces that uphold bureaucratic organizations.
Characteristics of Bureaucratic Organizations According to Weber
Weber said that bureaucratic organizations should be hierarchical, managed by organizational rules, organized by functional specialty, have an unfocused or in-focused vision, purposely impersonal, and demonstrate employment by technical qualification.
Indeed, Weber acknowledges that a centralized planning structure controls bureaucratic organizations, through the control of lower levels of administration by higher levels of administration. While explaining the concept of management by rule, Weber said that, lower authorities should respect decisions made by higher authorities.
Similarly, according to Weber, bureaucratic organizations should treat all employees and customers equally (according to the concept of purposely impersonal). Lastly, Weber says that bureaucratic organizations should demonstrate that technical qualifications outline the overarching principle behind employee recruitments.
McDonalization according to Ritzer
Ritzer introduced the concept of McDonalization to show the similarity of bureaucratic organizations with fast food restaurants. Some observers say that Macdonalization is similar to the concept of rationalization, where traditional thoughts transition into rational modes of thoughts.
This is also a key concept in the philosophy of scientific management. To the critics of McDdonalization, this philosophy is undesirable because it “kills” humanity. In other words, the concept of bureaucracy emphasizes more on efficiency at the expense of human attributes.
This principle is one among five other principles proposed by Ritzer to outline the concept of Mcdonalization. Indeed, Ritzer says there are five main principles of the concept of Mcdonalization and they include efficiency, calculability, predictability, control, and culture.
The concept of bureaucracy, as proposed by Weber, is similar to Mcdonalization because bureaucracy focuses on quantity as opposed to quality. For example, while focusing on the concept of efficiency (as outlined in Mcdonalization) in a restaurant context; we can see that the concept of McDonalization aims to make hungry people “full”, within the shortest time, and not their experiences while eating.
This process aims at improving efficiency within the organization and increasing a company’s profit margin (quantity over quality).
The Mcdonalization concept also emphasizes on quantifiable aspects of a product, as opposed to the aesthetic aspects of a product. For instance, in fast food restaurants, Mcdonalization implies the preference of “sales” over “taste”. Furthermore, in such bureaucratic organizations, managers would assess workers, based on how fast they work, not the quality of their work.
Stated differently, bureaucracy pays little regard to the quality of work and the welfare of the workers. Instead, it proposes a mechanical perspective of workers as a factor of production, as opposed to human beings. This is the main reason bureaucracy outlines the work of employees as routine, repetitive and predictable.
Generally, Ritzer borrows Weber’s concept of bureaucracy by saying, bureaucracies dehumanize organizations, the same way fast food restaurants do (Mcdonalization). With such concepts in play, a rational thought that generates through a narrow scope of understanding can lead to irrational and undesirable outcomes.
Therefore, Ritzer says that the concept of bureaucracy and Mcdonalization are similar because they both dehumanize organizations and their employees. In other words, Mcdonalization and bureaucracies do not treat people as human beings, but rather, as sources of money.
Discontents with Bureaucracy, According to Kafka and Melville
In a narrative depicting the life of Gregor (an office worker), Kafka and Melville, introduce an interesting understanding of the discontents of bureaucracy, as proposed by Weber. Gregor lost his job when a disastrous misfortune happened in his life.
Through Gregor’s misfortune, Kafka and Melville highlight the struggles of the workplace. For example, for relying on Gregor as the breadwinner, his family and friends experienced significant difficulties in sustaining their lives when Gregor lost his job.
Gregor’s misfortune highlights the discontent of bureaucracy because Gregor replaced his life with his work. He spent most of his time in the office, away from his family. Certainly, the pathos witnessed through Kafka and Melville’s story depicts the tragedy of a man who devoted most of his time to work, such that, when he lost his job, he felt like he lost his life.
This tragedy represents Ritzer’s story when he said that bureaucracy dehumanizes the society. Indeed, even through Gregor’s story, bureaucracy surfaces as a replacement for human lives, and instead of seeing employees as people, bureaucracy sees them as factors of production. Employees therefore “lose their lives” by conforming to bureaucratic principles and fail to enjoy the essence of humanity.
Psychosocial Forces That Bind Bureaucratic Organizations Together
The psychosocial forces that bind bureaucratic organizations center on the forces that keep different groups together in the workplace. However, different groups in the workplace need to be cohesive and work for a specific purpose, as proposed by bureaucratic principles. Through this understanding, it is crucial to introduce the concept of libidinal ties, which uphold group cohesion.
Similarly, through the group cohesion, an organization’s vision and objective may easily suffice. In this analysis, it is easy to question why group ties exist, and why they exist for the intended period.
To answer this question, Feud says that authority and legitimacy of the leader is the main binding factor. Bureaucracies therefore strengthen these organizational ties by prompting employees to accept a higher authority as the legitimate binding factor in an organization.
The above example contrasts with other groups that do not have a leader, or a center of authority. Freud provides an example in the article titled, Two Artificial Groups: the Church and the Army, where he says that an external authority, and not necessarily an authority within the organization, holds certain groups together. For example, external forces hold churches together.
In fact, occasionally, an unseen force (say, God) may prevent the disintegration of such groups. Bureaucratic organizations however differ from such groups because an internal force of authority, say managers, holds them together.
The legitimacy of authority (as wielded by an individual) is therefore a critical psychosocial factor that binds bureaucratic organizations together, and upholds employee unity. The absence of this legitimacy may cause disunity in the organization because people may fall victim to the absence of a binding authority.
Bureaucracy affirms the importance of a point of power (authority) as the main source of legitimacy of an organization’s activity. Therefore, often, people in bureaucratic organizations find solace at this point of authority as their unifying factor. The legitimization of this force is the main psychosocial force that binds bureaucratic organizations together.
Conclusion
After weighing the findings of this paper, bureaucracy stands out as an important organizational tool. However, limitations that center on the technical application and mechanization of labor characterize its application. This attribute manifests through the Mcdonalization concept, which highlights how bureaucracy tramples humanistic factors for the benefit of efficiency, calculability, predictability, control, and culture.
These factors drive the concept of Mcdonalization. Kafka and Melville also share the same views because they narrate how bureaucracy substitutes human lives for work. To both authors, bureaucracy presents an inhuman understanding of employees, and the role they play in the workplace.
Nonetheless, after evaluating the operations of bureaucratic organizations, and the philosophies as proposed by Weber and Ritzer, we see that psychosocial forces uphold bureaucratic organizations. Weber and Freud acknowledge the role played by legitimization and libitidal ties as the main psychosocial forces that uphold bureaucracy in the workplace.
Through these forces, bureaucracies are able to coordinate the work of different employees, thereby establishing group cohesion in the workplace.
The legitimization of a central point of power (that controls these groups) outlines the main forces surrounding the work of such groups. Broadly, Weber, Ritzer and Feud highlight the main strengths and weaknesses of bureaucracies, plus the implications of these weaknesses in an organization.
Weber viewed bureaucracy as the “admired enemy” and extolled its virtues to be: a hierarchical structure, impersonality, documented rules of conduct, promotion as a result of achievement, a specialized division of labor, and efficiency. He believed there was no way one could escape it as it was making its presence felt in offices all over the world. Weber explained the ‘ideal type’ bureaucracy as having a number of benefits because of its impersonal nature, the concentration of the methods of administration, its balancing of social and economic disparities, and implementation of authority and decision-making framework that is virtually indestructible (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Main body
Whereas in today’s era the flat organization structures seem to be the only acceptable method, Weber’s views on bureaucracy show one a different perspective on how bureaucracies can work and why they don’t. Weber saw many benefits in bureaucracies but was aware of how they often led to an oligarchy where power was concentrated at the topmost tier. He knew about the possible factors which could lead to the downfall of such a structure (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
While he was aware of its possible downsides, Weber still believed that an ideal-type bureaucracy was more rational and led to better results and higher levels of efficiency than the methods of organization that preceded it. He specified the following seven primary principles which govern such a bureaucracy: hierarchy, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, a specialized division of labor, and efficiency. These organizations were solely goal-oriented and their design and functioning were in line with rational principles so that they could attain their goals efficiently (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
In Weber’s bureaucracy, there is never a time-lapse in the carrying out of official business activities, which are conducted with strict adherence to the following rules: every official has a duty to do specific work which is defined on the basis of impersonal criteria, every official is granted the authority needed to conduct his assigned duties, however, the means of coercion which he is allowed to use are limited and the criteria which define their use are specified (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Furthermore, there is a vertical hierarchy, which defines each official’s responsibility and authority, and also specifies the rights available to each of supervision as well as appeal. The resources required for the completion of the functions within their specified roles will not be owned by officials, but they will be wholly responsible for the use of these resources. Another factor which this ideal-type bureaucracy laid down was that there would be a clear distinction between official and private business, and the income derived from each. Also, the incumbents of offices do not have the right to appropriate their offices and all official business activities would be carried out with thorough written documentation to support it (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
Conclusion
Lastly, the official in this ideal-type bureaucracy would be appointed and placed on the basis of his technical merit as well as his conduct. He is to exercise the authority granted to him while adhering to the impersonal rules laid down, and he will be rewarded for faithfully carrying out his official responsibilities by a regular salary as well as prospects of future promotion. While he is to employ his or her own personal judgment and skills, these are subservient to his or her official duties and must be sacrificed if there is a conflict between the two, as his duty warrants that he place these at the loyal service of a higher authority (Berkeley & Rouse, 2004).
References
Berkeley, George & Rouse, John. The craft of public administration. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Sociology of politics popularly known as political sociology is one of the main branches of political science. Max weber is accredited as one of the great contributors to this field particularly on issues about power, acquisition, and distribution of power, legitimacy of power, bureaucracy, and political participation among other issues. This essay briefly looks at some of his contributions to this interesting field of study. In addition, we shall define terms such as power, domination, legitimate authority types, monocratic bureaucracy, and parliamentary reconstruction.
Max Weber’s Contributions to Sociology of Politics
To begin with, Russel as cited in Cassano and Buono (2009) identify Weber as one of the “intellectual roads” that have brought the United States and the Western World to identity politics. Identity politics refers to the politics of a society in which political participation is advanced; one in which people consciously participate in the governance of their society with their brains. In such a political culture people have a high level of self-awareness and are aware of their desired destination over a definite period.
He further argues that even though Weber was a structuralist like Marx, he differed from him in the sense that he believed that any society that had a history had a different structure and that each of its components could play a defining role.
On State and politics, Thakur (2006) explains that Weber understood the state as a “political structure or grouping” that succeeds in claiming the monopoly to the acceptable use force in maintenance and enforcement of law and order. Politics which according to Ritzer (2010) came into being before the state, politics is a process that continuously targets at controlling the human relations of domination.
Weber as cited in Ritzer (2010) defines power as the possibility that an actor in a given socio-political relationship will be able to do on his own will despite opposition. The assumption here is that there are more than two actors one being able to make the other do what he would not have otherwise done. For example, take the simple child-parent relationship in a home setup; in such a case the parent can make a teenage child fail to attend an eagerly awaited friend’s birthday bash should the parent feel that attending the same would lead to an undesirable outcome.
Weber we are told by Thakur (2006) saw the political party as a kind of social relationship that was associative and committed to securing power within a group for its managers to achieve certain ideal or material benefits for its members.
According to Thakur (2006), Weber understood domination as the possibility that a rule with a particular content will be upheld or obeyed by a group of persons. According to Ritzer (2010), Weber came up with three types of legitimate authority namely: Legal authority which is rational and is founded on the belief in the rationally created laws and in the moral acceptance of leaders chosen following that law, traditional authority based on the belief in the originality of the societal traditions and Charismatic authority founded upon the member’s free subjection to an individual differentiated by “his holiness, his heroism or his exemplariness.”Thakur (2006) asserts that it is generally accepted that democratization and bureaucracy are intimately related. He adds that Weber regarded bureaucratic management of public affairs as the origin of the modern state. Lastly, parliamentary reconstruction refers to the reconfiguration of the parliament in democratic societies to facilitate the representation of hitherto marginalized social groups particularly women, the disabled, minority groups, children among others.
Conclusion
It is obvious as briefly shown above that Max Weber profoundly contributed to the discipline known to us as political sociology. It is, therefore, safe to argue that his intellectual clarification of some of the main political concepts mentioned above has had an undeniable impact on our politics and even our way of politicking.
References
Cassano, G. and Buono, R.A.D (2009). Crisis, Politics and Critical Sociology. Beijing: BRILL.
Ritzer, G. (2010). Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thakur, A.P (2006). Weber’s political sociology. New Delhi: Global Vision Publishing Ho.
Max Weber and Geertz offered varying ideas regarding cultural theory. They both viewed culture as people’s ways of doing things in society. Culture is usually developed over years whereby it is adopted and passed from one generation to the other through language. Regarding religion, which is one of the aspects of culture, Geertz and Weber offered a number of views. Some viewpoints are similar while others are different.
However, the two scholars believe that religion happens within a group implying that it is a group affair. In this regard, various groups have different religious principles and beliefs. Morality is the main principle that all religious groups and teachings espouse. Even though the two scholars agreed that religion happens at an individual level, they offered varying approaches to the understanding of group behavior. Weber noted that each religion is rational and consistent as far as its rules are concerned.
Unlike his predecessors such as Durkheim, Weber claimed in his works, ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ that religion could easily bring about change in society. His analysis was based on the spread of capitalism in Europe. He claimed that the Protestant abstemious self-confidence was attributed to the quick spread of capitalist ideals.
However, unlike Geertz, Weber did not intend to develop a cultural theory that would explain the dynamics of religion. His main aim was to discuss the interactions and interrelations between society and religion. On the other hand, Geertz perceived religion as a cultural system that is full of symbols, which have both public and social meaning.
People always construct their own beliefs meaning that each person has his or her own views concerning religion. Some groups have shared views regarding religion. Weber’s views were different from the ideas of Geertz because to him, religion had a different role to play in society. This article looks at some of the similarities and differences between the views of Weber and Geertz as regards to religion. The paper uses one aspect of culture to discuss their views.
Similarities
Geertz undertook various studies in one of the villages in Javanese, which was one of the most complex religious societies. He sought to understand the reason that inspired people to worship the supernatural being in their daily lives. Other scholars had suggested a number of views regarding the topic, but he diverged from such views by noting that the issue of religion is not a group affair, but instead it is a social affair.
This implies that it happens within a particular society. Evans-Pritchard was one of the scholars who suggested that religion is simply a group attitude because it is developed to check the behavior of group members. Geertz rejected this subjective and vague view by adopting the ideas of Weber regarding the role of religion among the Protestants in Europe. Weber was of the view that religion is a phenomenon that starts at an individual level meaning that each person has his own belief.
These beliefs develop with time into complex ideas that are in turn adopted by a group of individuals in society. Once the belief is within the public domain, it turns out to be a social system that influences people’s behavior and interactions in the wider society. Since the behavior is learned and would be internalized for years, it becomes a cultural belief or a cultural system, given the fact that it can be transmitted from one individual to the other.
Weber had earlier noted that people are always in search of truth since a man is an animal that is suspended in webs of significance. In this regard, a man does not have to look for solutions on the Earth that would resolve the many issues facing him but, instead, he has to interpret society using some mystical principles. Offering simple explanations to religious beliefs is not enough implying that people should look for the real meaning of religious events.
To explain some of these religious events, clear interpretations should be given. Geertz was of the similar view because he noted that thick descriptions should be applied in interpreting religious events if adequate answers were to be provided. According to Geertz, the use of symbols in interpreting religious events is the only solution to the many problems affecting people as far as religious issues are concerned.
He noted that some symbols are always in use in religion. Therefore, the understanding of the use of these symbols is very important. Weber noted that the Protestants were able to engage in trade and other economic matters because their religion taught them that an individual’s destiny is always predetermined. Weber reached this decision after observing the behavior of Protestants for years.
He also used some of the symbols, which was the basis of Geertz’s analysis. Geertz suggested that an anthropologist should use empirical methods to interpret the behavior of a group or an individual as regards to religion. Weber had also suggested a similar view by noting that a sociologist should use technical methods such as guessing, assessing, and drawing conclusions as far as the understanding of religion is concerned.
Geertz and Weber believed in the semiotic interpretation of culture meaning that their major aim was to understand some of the factors that drive people to join certain cultures. In this regard, they both believed that the understanding of culture starts with the interpretation of certain elements and categorization of certain interactions. The whole system should be categorized into sub-subsystems if any substantial meaning is to be offered.
The system is characterized based on the major beliefs and principles meaning that there are various subsystems of culture in society. Each category of the subsystem has some of the principles that members respect so much. Geertz termed this aspect as a form of collective property. Geertz’s and Weber’s argument is that religion influences the actions of various group members because it is larger as compared to the actions of any individual in a group.
Differences
Even though the two scholars discussed extensively the issues surrounding religion, their aims were extremely different. While Geertz aimed at developing a cultural theory, Weber was simply trying to link religion to the behavior of individuals in society. For instance, Geertz noted that cultural theory is not its own master meaning that it relies on certain concepts just the way other theories do.
Therefore, the suggestion on thick description is meant to give anthropologists one of the ways in which cultural issues could be construed in society. For Weber, he was simply describing the influence that culture has on the economic behavior of certain groups in society. He utilized the Protestants to show that people are encouraged to do some things because of the influence of their culture. In one of the articles titled Deep Play, Geertz showed how thick description could be employed to comprehend the actions of certain groups.
While Weber viewed religion as an aspect of culture that has a great impact on the life of an individual in society, Geertz was of a different view because he believed that religion is a cultural system. This implies that no society can survive without religion. In his view, all symbols in any society signify the presence of religion. This system is constructed over time, which results in a powerful and pervasive motivation for individuals.
With time, people in any given society come to appreciate their culture and tend to believe that other cultures are inferior to theirs. The culture ensures that social order prevails in society because it regulates behavior. Weber was of the different view because he did not give a cultural function of religion but, instead, he only related it to the behavior of individuals in society. His major aim was to give the relationship between religion and society.
According to Geertz, religion is inseparable from culture because they are both systems of communication in any given society. However, Weber believed that the two concepts exist independently meaning that they are autonomous, but they influence each other. Geertz concluded his analysis by noting that a strong relationship between an individual’s worldview and morality exists.
The legal system is a complex phenomenon that can be viewed from different perspectives. Even though it is legislative, the system can be perceived from the perspective of sociological theories and social developments. Such an approach to studying legal systems can help obtain a better understanding of factors that motivated the creation of particular frameworks as well as identifying the existing gaps that should be filled to improve the system and benefit all social groups.
One of the interesting theories beneficial for reviewing the peculiarities of legal systems is that developed by Max Weber. It focuses on formal legal rationality. That is why its postulates may be important for becoming more aware of the specific features of the contemporary legal system operating in the United States of America.
Therefore, the central objective of the paper at hand is to investigate the peculiarities of the US legal system. To cope with this task, Weber’s theory of formal legal rationality will be reviewed. However, the major focus will be made on the system instead of Weber’s theoretical points. In this way, the aim is to determine and discuss main social factors, challenges, processes, and forces that are directly associated with the American legal system and hypothesize which elements among those mentioned above promote the establishment of the ideal legal system.
Speaking of the latter, the perfection of the system is determined according to Weber. That said, in this paper, an attempt to speculate on barriers to and drivers for high formality and high rationality of the US legal system will be made. Finally, the piece of writing will end in hypotheses on the future of the legal system operating in the United States based on its strengths and challenges identified during the research.
Review of Weber’s Theory of Formal Legal Rationality
Understanding the modern legal system of the United States from the necessary perspective is inseparable from studying the views of Weber’s theory of formal legal rationality. Once considered, the major ideas will be applied to analyze the legal system of the United States to evaluate it in terms of Weber’s concepts. That is why the motivation is to speculate on the characteristics of the formality and rationality in the American legal system.
To begin with, it is necessary to point out that, in Weber’s opinion, this is rationality that is likely to determine the arterial ways of development of humanity. Therefore, it is important to reflect on what Weber implied in the concept of rationalization. First of all, from Weber’s viewpoint, the term “rationalization” stands for systematization in which a boundless chaotic group of phenomena with the fundamentally endless aggregate of connections tends to be put in good order based on several certain criteria.
However, the key issue to take into account is that Weber attempted to include the most various notions inside the concept of rationalization. For instance, he believed that bureaucratization, industrialization, development of the rational, productive capitalism, specialization, qualification, methodization, discipline, speculation, and dehumanization are all elements of rationalization (Weber).
However, the situation proved to become more regulated when Weber started speculating on more concrete things, such as the legal rationalization of free labor of the capitalist enterprising in the West. He managed to single out the most general conditions for this, and they are as follows:
the rational account of the capital;
the appropriation of the free property right for the production means by autonomous private enterprises;
the free market, which stands for the freedom of the market from any irrational restraints of exchange (for instance, from any estates limitations when a certain estate attributes a particular mode of life in which neither free goods market nor free labor force exists);
the rational, strictly assessed and thus mechanized technology both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of exchange;
the rational, strictly established right that defines the norms of labor and administration, guarantees the functioning of the capitalist order, and prevents any possible confusion in the economy account;
the free labor that means that there are people who have the right to freely sell their labor force in the market as well as who are enforced to do so;
the commercial organization of economy, which stands for a broad application of equities to establish the right to participate in the affairs of the enterprise, as well as the right to the property (Weber).
Weber believed that the key idea of western capitalism stood for the assumption that, despite the obvious importance of the economic factors that were connected with the legal rationalization, economic rationalism depended on the ability and predisposition of people to certain kinds of practically rational life behavior. From Weber’s viewpoint, the notion of “struggle” was fundamentally crucial. It was opposed to the concept of “consent.”
Weber derived the idea from the following of his reflections: the majority of all establishments, both institutions, and unions, had emerged not based on consent but as a result of forced actions. It implies that there were people and groups of people that we’re able to produce a factual impact on the common actions taken by the members of any institution or union and point them towards the direction which they were willing to level it to, based on the expectation of consent. By Weber, each individual is inclined to struggle to impose their will on others either by direct physical action or using so-called competitiveness (Weber).
Nevertheless, Weber did not happen to ignore the role of economic factors in the legal rationalism. However, in Weber’s opinion, the sphere of economic actions served as a mere logical precondition to explain the so-called theory of stratification. Thus, a notion of “class” has been introduced in this context. Based on Weber’s view, it is possible to speak about classes in the following situations:
when a certain number of people are united by a specific causative component that is related to their life interests;
this component is represented by a mere economic interest in purchasing goods or receiving incomes,
this component is determined by the situation which has existed in the market of goods and labor (Weber).
Weber tended to divide classes as a certain group of people into three main types. They are
the class of property owners;
the money-grabbing class that exploits services in the market;
the social class that consists of several class statuses inside which there might be witnessed some changes taking place both on the personal basis and in the framework of several generations.
Weber paid his special attention to the so-called middle class. Based on Weber, the middle class includes those people who have all the types of property and are competitive in the labor market due to their special preparation. The examples of other classes are as follows:
the labor class as the whole that is involved in the mechanizing process;
low-middle classes;
engineers, financial and other employees, as well as civil officials – this class stands for the so-called intellectuals without independent property;
a class of people who have a privileged position due to their private property and education (Weber, “Legal Authority”).
While investigating the class structure of the society from the legal viewpoint, Weber intended to discover the common grounds and transitions between particular groups within one class. The same is true in case of identifying the connection between different classes. Thus, the scheme of the class structure which was suggested by Weber appeared to be so intricate that, based on it, it happened to be next to impossible to make a full list of classes.
Apart from that, as distinct from classes, Weber introduced one more concept. It is referred to as status groups. He claimed that, in contrast to classes that are determined by the mere economic situation, status groups are legally identified by specific social evaluation of honor. According to Weber, social order appears to be a mere tool that allows the social honor to be legally distributed in the society between typical groups, which participate in such a distribution (Weber).
To sum it up, it is necessary to state that the notion of rationality can be viewed as the transition from the traditional state to the modern state. It emerged in the innovative conditions of personal freedom. The rational paradigm became inconsistent with the religious roots and, thus, religion was rejected by society. Weber singled out three types of legitimate power: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Weber believed that the latter had become dominant in the modern world.
What is even more important, he stated that rationalization had happened to transform Western politics. As for Weber’s evaluation of rationalization, it is not univocal. On one hand, Weber favored the liberation of the irrational directive. On the other hand, he criticized the mechanicalness of the new society. With these views taken into account, it is possible to go on to analyze the legal system of the United States in terms of its rationality and formality (Weber).
Analysis of the Legal System Operating in the United States
The legal system is a complex phenomenon. Therefore, to analyze it properly, it is essential to pay special attention to different aspects of the system and review it from various perspectives. Because the idea is to speculate on the specificities of the American legal system given Weber’s theory of formal legal rationality, the idea is to focus on social determinants of the legal system. In this way, the specific features of the legal system will be identified and described based on the existing social factors, challenges, forces, and processes that are directly associated with the system’s operation and have a robust impact on its future development.
Social Factors and Challenges
Social factors are those drivers that promote positive change in society, i.e. make up the foundation of the evolutionary processes. In the case of the US legal system, the central social factor is social inequality that is evident in all areas of social interactions, including the system of social and court protection. This social factor is the main challenge of the US legal system, even though it is strong enough.
The inability to guarantee and protect the overall equality in society can be viewed from several perspectives. The first one is associated with the inability to protect one’s right to the freedom of marriage. This one is a natural and personal right, as each individual is born with the desire to create a family. However, there are some significant barriers to protecting this right in all of the states (Birch 3). More than that, it is associated with the nationwide cultural and social conflict due to the lack of social support that is complicated to provide legally (Colson and Pearcey 104; Knight 1).
Another critical challenge is the inability to decrease the gap between the poor and the rich, as somehow the legal system protects the right of the rich more compared to those of the poor. It can be traced in the volume of the property tax burden as well as the inconsistency of the tax system when it comes to assessing one’s property before calculating the volume of taxes to pay (Finder and Levine 1).
There is the following trend: regardless of the free access to the legal system, the poor rarely feel governmental support when it is essential to protect their financial rights and freedoms (for instance, oppose an unnecessary property audit) (Cobb 17). More than that, the contemporary legal system supports the reduction of legal aid to the poor that is connected to the increased risks of resentment and having no loyalty to the system and governments (Pear 1A).
Forces
The American legal system is characterized by the existence of several significant forces. The first one is social change. In general, this concept stands for any alterations in the established and generally acceptable behavioral patterns common for a particular society or social group (Friedman and Ladinsky 50). Therefore, when they change, it is essential to amend legal frameworks – those regulating the operation of legal institutions – so that they comply with the new requirements.
In the case of the United States, the ability to adapt to social change is one of the major forces of the legal system. To prove this statement, it is imperative to focus on several developments in society. For instance, recall changes in the law of industrial accidents that evolved from a primitive tort system to a comprehensive compensation system, as the industries became more complex and industry-related activities became deeply integrated into the everyday life of society members (Friedman and Ladinsky 50).
In this way, institutions are no longer ignorant when it comes to addressing human needs. Instead, special attention is paid to satisfying them as well as protecting fundamental human rights. However, this force is connected to an impressing weakness – no change in the legal system is made without social demand (Friedman and Ladinsky 82). It means that if people do not demonstrate their desire to foster legal change, they experience no positive developments in the system. It is especially true in the case of involvement of interest groups in supporting ordinary people because there are interest groups (influential classes of society) that help to promote change (Coleman 264).
Another force of the US legal system is the involvement of the government in fostering change. In this instance, it is possible to recall the tightening of antitrust legislation. However, just like in the case of promoting social change, government engagement is inseparable from the waves of overall resentment in society and demands to alter the existing system (Coleman 273). A similar outcome is the adoption of equal employment and education opportunities regardless of one’s skin color (Burns 48).
Even though there is significant progress in this area of social relations regulation, most of the accomplishments were achieved as a result of massive resentment in the society, just like in the case of equal employment opportunities at Kaiser plants – provisions eliminating discrimination in the workplace whether it is connected to hiring or training of already employed staff (Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation).
Processes
Speaking in terms of Weber’s theory, the most significant processes in the US legal system are the evolutionary processes – those leading to changes of the system and its improvement that make it more perfect and rational. The main evolutionary processes are those related to the changing perception of one’s gender and sexual orientation in social and legal justice. The most impressive success is associated with the integration of sexual minorities, as well as women, in social life and recognizing the criticality of the legal protection of their rights by the official institutions and legal system.
For instance, when speaking of gender, there have been significant improvements in the access of women to high-status occupations across industries as well as the closing the gap in hourly compensation for work and granting women the right to integration in social affairs, including making the most critical social decisions, such as voting (Sutton 199, 274). All in all, the evolutionary process is the overall improvement of women’s economic and social position that is acknowledged and protected by the contemporary legal system (Baron 474).
In this way, the contemporary system is becoming gender-blind that is a beneficial process (Sutton 196). The same is true in the case of eliminating racial discrimination in all spheres of social interactions, as the historically traditional white supremacy is becoming less significant, and it is true not only in case of interactions with African-American people but representatives of all races, including Asians, Indians, Hispanics, etc. (Burns 43, 49).
One more evolutionary process is the improvement of sexual minorities’ status in society. This one is associated with the decreased moral outrage when it comes to treating sexual minorities as well as the appropriate integration of minorities in different areas of social interactions, including governing social relations and military service (Eskridge and Hunter 390). Another success is the society-wide debate for protecting the right to the freedom of marriage, as it is one’s private right to choose a life partner and create a family (Eskridge 808).
Specificities of the American Legal System
Based on the social factors, challenges, forces, and processes mentioned and described above, it is evident that the contemporary legal system operating in the United States can be characterized by several specific features. To begin with, the system is complicated, as any positive change in the social and legal frameworks is inseparable from resentment and the necessity to involve ordinary people and interest groups in promoting novelties. That said, each strength is directly connected with the challenge.
Another specific feature of the contemporary system is the robust impact of powerful classes on the decision-making process and fostering social and legal changes. This one is closely related to the interconnectedness of different elements of the legal system. This peculiarity is characterized by the influential role of interest groups and exchanges between different elements of the system (Cole 143). Finally, the influence of the courts in the whole system is vital so that courts have the right to interpret the law from the necessary perspective (Cole 147).
It is directly associated with numerous controversies in legal cases that are commonly viewed as opportunities for protecting the rights and addressing the needs of interest groups instead of establishing universal equality (Casper 210).
When viewed in light of Weber’s theory, the contemporary legal system is characterized by the significant impact of particular classes – those with property and education – on the overall development of the society in general and the legal system in particular. Moreover, due to the involvement of professional staff (courts) in guaranteeing that the law is followed, the system is mature. Also, all of the engaged staff members are formally rational, as it is a common characteristic of the mature system. At the same time, it is formally rational because social status – the combination of money and education, and other generally acceptable values – determines the right to become involved in managing the legal system or expecting particular outcomes of the legal process or social justice issues.
Conclusion: The Future of Formal Legal System in the United States
All of the specificities identified and discussed above are the foundation for speculating on the future of the formal legal system in the United States from the perspective of Weber’s theory of formal legal rationality. Even though it can be perceived as mature and formally rational, the system is experiencing more evolutionary processes. It means that is will be altered over time. For me, this change will be demonstrated in the set of values, identifying potential outcomes of legal proceedings and the social justice system.
Even though they will remain quantitative – easily calculated – I believe that there will be a significant shift from money to personal characteristics just like there was a shift from male dominance to gender-blind society. Of course, it is impossible to state that the role of money will be diminished when it comes to administering socially vital decisions, but the belief is that financial background will be supplemented with education, innovativeness, and personal experience – some qualitative aspects measured quantitatively.
This assumption is made based on the recent changes in society and the increased significance of creative and innovative thinking in managing affairs. That said, the system will remain formally rational, but it will grow more complicated, and it will become more complex to become the representative of the staff administering legal provisions and protecting the law due to the necessity to possess an impressive potential rather than just be financially successful.
Works Cited
Baron, Ava. “Feminist Legal Strategies: The Powers of Difference.” Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, edited by Beth Hess and Myra Marx Ferre, SAGE, 1987, pp. 475-497.
Birch, Elizabeth. Birch Testimony at Anti-Gay Marriage Hearing. US Government Publishing Office, 1996.
Burns, Haywood. “Racism and American Law.” Law against the People: Essays to Demystify Law, Order and the Courts, edited by Robert Lefcourt, Random House, 1971, pp. 38-54.
Casper, Jonathan D. “Did You Have a Lawyer When You Went to Court? No, I had a Public Defender.” Yale Review of Law and Social Action, vol. 1, no. 4, 1971, pp. 4-9.
Cobb, Jean. “Power Struggles.” Common Cause Magazine, vol. 13, no. 4, 1987, pp. 17-21.
Cole, George F. “The Decision to Prosecute.” Law and Society Review, vol. 4, no. 3, 1970, pp. 313-343.
Coleman, James William. “Law and Power: The Sherman Antitrust Act and Its Enforcement in the Petroleum Industry.” Social Problems, vol. 32, no. 3, 1985, pp. 264-274.
Colson, Charles, and Nancy Pearcey. “Why not Gay Marriage?” Christianity Today, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 104.
Eskridge, William N. Sexuality, Gender and the Law: 2003 Supplement. Foundation Press, 2003.
Eskridge, William N., and Han D. Hunter. 2000 Supplement to Sexuality, Gender and the Law. Foundation Press, 2000.
Finder, Alan, and Richard Levine. “Some of the Rich Pay Less Tax than the Other Homeowners.” The New York Times, 29 May 1990, p. 1.
Friedman, Lawrence M., and Jack Ladinsky, “Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 67, no. 1, 1967, pp. 50-82.
Knight, Robert H. Why We Need the Defense of Marriage Act. Family Research Council, 1996.
Pear, Robert, “As Welfare Overhaul Looms, Legal Aid for Poor Dwindles.” The New York Times, 5 Sep. 1995, p. 1A.
Sutton, John R. Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change. Pine Forge Press, 2001.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, 1922. Google Books. Web.
Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, 443 U.S. 193 (1979). Supreme Court of the United States.