Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the relationship between pairs of concepts such as enlightenment/progress, evolution/stages of history, rationalization/bureaucracy and social solidarity/meritocracy. It will attempt look at the specific relationship and connection of these words and concept to one another.
The first pair of concept that needs to be discussed are the words enlightenment and progress. In order to give a clear and exact relationship between these two concepts, we must first give a comprehensive definition of these terms. Enlightenment can be used in philosophy, religion and psychology. Enlightenment in this context would therefore refer to a feeling and a state of spiritual awakening for an individual. It can connote a greater understanding of the inner workings of the world. Enlightenment can also connote a specific time period in the history of man where various new and fresh ideas, perspectives and thoughts are developed and entertained. Specifically, the enlightenment or more famously the Enlightenment period was an era where development and progress in many fields are being initiated in Europe.
Development and progress during the enlightenment period encompasses different subjects and areas. Discoveries and inventions in science are numerous, theories, political thoughts and social perspectives are formulated while there is an advancement in the theory of governance and society. The Enlightenment period was a period where there was a shift in the outlook and perspective of the people with regards to society. A certain view on governance and society was evident because of the writings and articles written by authors such as John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. In their writings a new idea on the proper and moral right to govern society was evident. Concepts such as social contract, state of man and the right to rule became popular and were used to advance the rights of the masses against monarchical oppression and abuse. Besides these, the enlightenment also fostered a greater examination of the human behavior.
During this period there is a mad dash to explain the human actions, deeds, behaviors and thoughts through scientific and methodological way. People and thinkers primarily focused in belief, piety and rationalization to guide and to direct their actions in life. During this period a piety and belief was integral in examining fields such as ethics and natural philosophy. Enlightenment was a also a period where important authorities such as the Catholic church and monarchs are defied and confronted. People specifically question the practices and doctrines being implemented by the church while monarchs have to contend with individuals or groups that constantly object and defy their authority to rule and hold power. Social criticism was evident in countries like England and France where politicians like Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift and Sir Richard Steele opposed and voiced out their extreme opposition to some policies implemented by the Crown.
Scientifically, the enlightenment was a period of advancement. Inventions and new process are discovered that enabled man to make his life and work easier and comfortable. Theories and hypothesis are also formulated in order to properly explain and rationalize certain physical conditions such as gravity which were never truly explained before. Isaac Newton combined mathematical principles with the mechanics of physical observation which resulted in an understandable and verifiable set of predictions that can be applied in the nature.
Ordering, stability and organization was also evident in this period of Enlightenment. Carolus Linnaeus used a system of categorization and systematic naming in order to classify and group together animals and other organisms while Adam Smith formulated a outlook that tends to examine the role and nature of economics.
One of the most violent examples of the Enlightenment is the French revolution, a social and political event that permanently changed the social and political landscape of France. This vital event changed the political system of the country by ending the reign of the monarchy while bringing back power and authority to the people. Although the aim of rehabilitating the French masses was not totally fulfilled, incidents that proceeded this significant event were largely affected. It contributed to the rise of Napoleon who divided the country into manageable departments and introduced the metric system for an uncomplicated system of measurements.
At this point we can see that the enlightenment and the progress that is enjoyed by a society are directly related. Enlightenment is the stimulus that makes progress possible. The idea of enlightenment pushed individuals and societies to question their beliefs, authority, religion, attitudes and behaviors. In questioning these beliefs, individuals gained understanding and explanation that enabled them to strongly refute or adhere to the doctrines being forced upon them. If societies felt that these perspectives are contrary to their better interests, they have the necessary power and capacity to reject these ideas and if they felt that these ideas are beneficial and advantageous to them, a society accepts it. Progress in this case therefore occurs when people started to think for themselves while not being dictated by any powerful individual or social institutions. Progress happens if man and society knows and chooses what is good, moral and upright. Enlightenment brought out the critical thinking man that enabled his to build machines and formulated theories and solution to age old problems making his life easier and his work lighter and faster.
Rationalization and Bureaucracy
This chapter discusses the comparison of the terms rationalization and bureaucracy. Rationalization is defined first in formulating differences for the other term.
Thematically, rationalization means freeing from irrational parts or bringing into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable. For instance, it is substituting a natural for a supernatural explanation of a certain thing. Furthermore, it is attributing one’s action to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives. As an industry or its operations, rationalization is defined as applying the principles of scientific management for a desired result.
Rationalization as an ideal type and as an historical force appears in much of Weber’s writings. He regards the development of rational forms to be one of the most important characteristics of the development of Western society and capitalism. Weber viewed traditional and charismatic forms as irrational, or at least non-rational. The latter may rely on religion, magic, or the supernatural as a way of explaining the social world and authority may also derive from these. These may have no systematic form of development, but may rely on personal insight, revelation, emotions and feelings, features that are non-rational in form.
In contrast, rationality consists of a set of social actions governed by reason or reasoning, calculation, plus rational pursuit of one’s interests. Rationality forms a large part of rational-legal authority and there are several characteristics that Weber considers as aspects of rationality (Ritzer, pp. 124-125). Actions in the economic sphere or in formal organizations such as universities have most of these characteristics and many of these can be taken as examples of rationality.
- Calculability. Results can be calculated or estimated by adopting assumptions and considering the methods by which results will be achieved. This is especially the case in formal institutions or in businesses
- Efficiency. Actors have various ends and attempt to find the best means to achieving these ends.
- Predictability. Organizations have rules and regulations, and actors are subject to structures and authority. This, along with established procedures and ends, mean that the results of social action can often be predicted, perhaps not precisely, but certainly probabilities attached to the outcomes.
- Non-Human Technology. Technologies such as tools, machinery, and information technologies make predictability greater. That is, these technologies are constructed with certain purposes, and so long as they assist in achieving the desired ends, the results are generally predictable.
- Control Over Uncertainties. This can never be complete, but rules and methods are adopted that deal with many possible contingencies. Rules are set up not so much to deal with specific people or personalities, but attempt to be generic, dealing with a variety of possibilities. These allow outcomes to be constrained within certain limits, thereby reducing uncertainties about outcomes.
These principles of rationality can be applied to many activities and actions in the economic sphere, and have become highly developed and visible there. In modern society similar principles emerge in most areas of the social world, even including religion, politics, administration, sports, and music. Organizations and actions governed by rationality may produce an overall rationality for the system as a whole, but this is not a necessary result. For example, studies of economics show how many producers each acting rationally to maximize their own profits, may produce too many products. As a result, the consequences for people involved in formally rational systems may not always be desirable. Weber considered rationality to be necessary for organizations to operate efficiently, and he felt that the trend was that rationality would may take over more and more spheres of society. At the same time, Weber feared that this could result in increased control over individual action, stifling charisma and tradition, and allowing few alternatives for creative human action.
Rationalization refers to a large-scale social trend marked by the disenchantment of the world and the rise of capitalism in the rational calculation and efficiency are highly valued. Actually, rationalization can refer and be used to more than one thing. In psychology, it is the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. In economics, rationalization is an attempt to change a pre-existing ad-hoc workflow into one that is based on a set of published rules. In sociology, it is the means of transition from a traditional society into a rationalized one. In British history it was the process of destroying old factories and gradually replacing them with newer and better ones. In Engineering, it is the process of multiplying the numerator and denominator by the complex conjugate of the denominator to remove the imaginary numbers from the denominator while converting admittance to impedance.
In business, rationalization may refer to a reorganization of a company in order to increase its efficiency. This reorganization may lead to an expansion or reduction in company size, a change of policy, or an alteration of strategy pertaining to particular products. Similar to reorganization, a rationalization is more widespread, encompassing strategy as well as structural changes.
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy on the other hand, is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules is socially organized. Bureaucracy is a servo-mechanism according to Moore’s definition. It computes an error signal by processing the current state of the external system against the desired state. Consequently, it then generates corrective commands to minimize the future error signal, and hence drive the state of the system in the desired direction.
One major type of organization that has emerged in modern, western society has been bureaucracy or bureaucratic administration. This is the primary way that rational-legal authority has developed in formal organizations. The dominance of bureaucratic organizations in modern society shows the effectiveness of formal rationality as a way of organizing society. Hadden notes that “bureaucratic administration is generally capable … of efficiency, precision, and fairness” (p. 140). The ideal type of formal bureaucracy has a continuous and hierarchical organization of official functions or offices, with rules that govern each positions and relationships in the organization. Ten characteristics are associated such an ideal type (Hadden, p. 140):
These two terms have an apparent relationship. In Max Weber’s interest in the nature of power and authority, as well as his pervasive preoccupation with modern trends of rationalization, led him to concern himself with the operation of modern large-scale enterprises in the political, administrative, and economic realm. Bureaucratic coordination of activities, Weber argued, is the distinctive mark of the modern era. Bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles.
Social Solidarity and Meritocracy
Social Solidarity is the degree or type of integration of a society. This use of the term is generally employed in Sociology and the other social sciences. The types of Social Solidarity are generally understood to correlate with types of society. In simpler societies (e.g., tribal), solidarity is usually based on kinship ties or familial networks. In more complex societies (e.g., democracies), solidarity is more organic (or mechanistic). Organic here is referring to the interdependence of the component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food). For more information on these two types of social solidarity.
“Social life comes from a double source, the likeness of consciences and the division of social labor.” (Durkheim, 1933, p.226)
Mechanical Solidarity – Social cohesion based upon the likeness and similarities among individuals in a society, and largely dependent on common rituals and routines. Common among prehistoric and pre-agricultural societies, and lessens in predominance as modernity increases.
Organic Solidarity – Social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals in more advanced society have on each other. Common among industrial societies as the division of labor increases. Though individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interests, the order and very survival of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific task.
Meritocracy
Meritocracy is an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. It is a system which such persons are rewarded and advanced. Thus, this is a leadership by able and talented persons.
Meritocracy is, as the suffix “-cracy” implies, a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth, race or other determinants of social position.
However, the word “meritocracy” is now often used to describe a type of society where wealth, income, and social status are assigned through competition, on the assumption that the winners do indeed deserve (merit) their resulting advantage. As a result, the word has acquired a connotation of Social Darwinism, and is used to describe aggressively competitive societies, with large inequality of income and wealth, contrasted with egalitarian societies.
Meritocratic governments and organizations stress talent, formal education, and competence, rather than existing differences such as social class, ethnicity, or sex. In practice, research on social mobility indicates that all these supposedly neutral criteria favour the children of those who are already privileged in some way.
In a representative democracy where power is theoretically in the hands of the elected representatives, meritocratic elements include the use of expert consultants to help formulate policies, and a meritocratic civil service to implement them. The perennial problem in advocating meritocracy is defining exactly what one means by merit.
The concept of meritocracy involves the idea that the things people attain their lives are done so on the basis of their individual merit. According to Lawson and Garrod, the concept of meritocracy is defined as “a social system in which rewards and occupational positions are allocated justly on the basis of merit, rather than ascriptive factors such as class, gender, ethnic group or wealth. It is often claimed that modern industrial societies are more meritocratic than in the past, and that the education systems in such societies are also meritocratic. However, there is much evidence to show that ascriptive factors such as those listed above exert a considerable influence on an individual’s life chances”.
In some ways, of course, it could be argued that schools in our society are meritocratic institutions. They do not, for example, overtly discriminate against different genders, classes or ethnic groups (although whether or not schools exercise covert forms of discrimination is something that’s much more open to question). Similarly, students take the same exams under the same conditions which give the schooling system at least a veneer of equality of opportunity.
However, as Bilton et al (“Introductory Sociology“) concluded that “the myth of meritocracy – the view that schools stimulate individual talents and, without regard for ascribed characteristics such as social class or gender, reshuffle children according to ability – is one of the most cherished myths of our time. The overwhelming evidence is that the British education system, like that of many other countries, favors those who are already privileged, and puts further obstacles in the path of those who are disadvantaged.”.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment