Research Articles Base: Max Weber

Discuss how the work of ‘Weber’ is still relevant for our understanding of social change

Max Weber (1864-1920) is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating and important social scientists of the last century. He had complementary insights which help illuminate other social scientist’s views on the genesis and nature of social rationality.   Weber’s work is still very much relevant for our understanding of social change. Societal and institutional change does not mean that similar changes will occur in the community, just as attitudinal change does not mean that there has been a similar change in a social institution. Social change is normal and continual, but in various directions, at various rates, and at multiple levels of social life (Lauer, 1977). We understand social change more if we look in to Max Weber’s ideas. They help us gain more insights on what social change is all about.   Social change is viewed as an inclusive concept that refers to alterations in social phenomena at various levels of human life from the individual to the global. The various levels, some representative areas of analysis within each level, and some representative units of analysis are given in. Change may be studied at one or more levels, using various areas of study and units of analysis (Lauer, 1977). Social change therefore involves the whole world itself. Wherever changes occur, it is reflective of the whole society and the world itself.   According to Max Weber, we live in an age that is “characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the ‘disenchantment of the world.’” The world is no longer considered a sacred phenomenon. To many individuals, life is no longer an unfathomable mystery. It is just like something that is there all along which doesn’t spark interest in people into asking questions about it.   The fate of humanity is no longer in the hands of some ethereal, superhuman being. Indeed, the religion which may at one time have abetted human development is no longer needed. Protestantism facilitated the rise of capitalism, but capitalism is now triumphant, rests upon “mechanical foundations,” and no longer needs the support of religion (Lauer, 1977).   Unlike Weber, some scientists like Veblen did not believe that capitalism epitomizes rationality; indeed, his dislike for business irrationality caused him to articulate one of his most flamboyant oxymorons, to describe the “astute mismanagement” of industry by business (Tilman, 2004).   To Weber, zweckrational was basically expedient rationality that indicated a system of action whereby the actor weighed the alternative ends and means open to them in terms of his or her goals and chose the course of action most appropriate for him or her. A system of particular ends existed for the actor, but before action was taken to achieve them, the likely costs and consequences must be taken into consideration.   In Weber’s analysis, wertrational was distinguishable from zweckrational because the incorporation of an “absolute value” eliminated the possibility of the actor’s choosing alternative ends, and ultimately, therefore, also barred the possible choice of certain means. The only important consideration of the actor was the realization of the cherished value be it ethical, aesthetic, religious, or otherwise (Tilman, 2004).   In summation and synthesis, Weber’s typology of rationality subsumes five important aspects of rationality which include (1) inductive inference, (2) causal attribution, (3) symbolic abstraction, (4) systematization of belief, and (5) rules of conduct. The machine process cannot function effectively without inculcating the cognitive skills so essential to these aspects of rationality, or so he claims (Tilman, 2004).   Two aspects of traditional Hindu religion which have been said by Max Weber, among others, particularly to hinder social change are caste ritualism and the beliefs in fate, rebirth, duty, and salvation through escape from the present world. Weber claimed that within such a system a rational economy is impossible (Lauer, 1977).   Many writers would agree with Weber that modernization is a process that slowly but surely pushes religion to the periphery of human existence. Like Dmitri in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, they see the acceptance of science as the loss of God. While modernization does involve secularization, it does not necessarily involve the decline of religion. The polarity between modernization and religion, like that between modernization and tradition, is a distortion of reality (Lauer, 1977).   As changes occur in society, we see more and more people lose faith in God and believe in machines and the power of technology instead. But although this is commonplace, it doesn’t reflect the billions of other people who, although have been awed and are using modern technologies, are still believers in God. This is one example of social change – the continuing modernization has brought about societal changes. This affects many things, most especially the concept of religion.   Modernization may be treated very much from within a Weberian conceptualization of modern social change. Modernity is an effect of the processes of social rationalization which had their origins in the asceticism of the Protestant sects, in the ethic of world mastery of the seventeenth century, in the evolution of positivistic experimental sciences (especially in English and Dutch experimental medicine), in Enlightenment rationalism and in the slow and uneven formation of a general secular culture (Turner, 1993).   Weber noted a number of reasons for the bureaucratization of the modern world. One was the development of a money economy. Weber argued that if officials are paid in produce or commodities rather than money, the bureaucratic structure will gradually change (Lauer, 1977). Either way, there really is a change in the bureaucratic structure at present.   A second reason was the quantitative and qualitative increase of administrative tasks in the modern state. The technical requirements of administering a large, complex state, with all the social, political, and economic demands made upon it, are such as to demand a bureaucratic type of administration (Lauer, 1977). All these increases of tasks have paved way for changes within the society.   Finally, bureaucratization has occurred because it is technically superior to any other form of administration – in terms of efficiency (Lauer, 1977). Application of rigid rules seems to be the main thing that is effective in promoting changes in society. And this is very much true. More people obey rules if and when they are imposed rigidly.   Although ‘interests’ provide the dynamic of social change, charismatic leaders are also important because they generate new ideas which, when systematized as ‘world-images’, determine the direction of social change. Weber complicates and modifies this position by noticing that only those charismatic ideas which attract an audience and which are propagated by social carriers become historically significant (Turner, 1993). This is very true at present. We can see changes occurring in places where leaders are charismatic and there are many followers. In this kind of environment, Weber’s idea of leaders being important in social change, is being realized.   Max Weber considered the role of social rationality in human affairs in the promotion of social change. There is a focus on the genesis and development of social rationality and the kinds of rationality engendered or suppressed by different social forms and the cultures within which these forms are embedded (Tilman, 2004). Weber, to be sure, wrote on the societies and social changes as is really reflected in reality. Up to this day, his ideas are very important in helping us understand social thoughts and social changes.             REFERENCES Lauer, R.H. 1977, Perspectives on Social Change, Allyn & Bacon. Miller, S.M. 1963, Max Weber, Thomas Y. Crowell. Moland, J. 1996, Social Change, Social Inequality, and Intergroup Tensions, Social Forces. Tilman, R. 2004, Karl Mannheim, Max Weber, and the Problem of Social Rationality in Thorstein Veblen, Journal of Economic Issues. Turner, B.S. 1993, Max Weber: From History to Modernity, Routledge. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Discuss how the work of ‘Weber’ is still relevant for our understanding of social change

Max Weber (1864-1920) is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating and important social scientists of the last century. He...