User:سائغ/H2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weber's methodology was developed in the context of a wider debate about methodology of social sciences, the Methodenstreit ("method dispute").[1] Weber's position was close to historicism, as he understood social actions as being heavily tied to particular historical contexts and its analysis required the understanding of subjective motivations of individuals (social actors).[1] Thus Weber's methodology emphasises the use of comparative historical analysis.[2] As such, Weber was more interested in explaining how a certain outcome was the result of various historical processes rather than predicting an outcome of those processes in the future.[3]

Theories[edit]

Bureaucratic model (rational-legal model)[edit]

Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, also known as the "rational-legal" model, attempts to explain bureaucracy from a rational point of view.[4] Firstly, Weber argued that bureaucracy is "based on the general principle of precisely defined and organized across-the-board competencies of the various offices" which are "underpinned by rules, laws, or administrative regulations."[5]: 76 

In particular, Weber notes three aspects that "constitute the essence of bureaucratic administration" in the public sector, and "the essence of a bureaucratic management of a private company" in the private sector:[5]: 76–77 

  • A rigid division of labor is established that clearly identifies regular tasks and duties of the particular bureaucratic system.
  • Regulations describe firmly established chains of command and the duties and capacity to coerce others to comply.
  • Hiring people with particular, certified qualifications supports regular and continuous execution of the assigned duties.

In this sense, Weber would explain bureaucracy through nine main characteristics/principles:

  1. Specialized roles
  2. Recruitment based on merit (e.g. tested through open competition)
  3. Uniform principles of placement, promotion, and transfer in an administrative system
  4. Careerism with systematic salary structure
  5. Hierarchy, responsibility and accountability
  6. Subjection of official conduct to strict rules of discipline and control
  7. Supremacy of abstract rules
  8. Impersonal authority (e.g. office bearer does not bring the office with them)
  9. Political neutrality

Benefits of bureaucracy[edit]

As Weber noted, real bureaucracy is less optimal and effective than his ideal-type model. Each of Weber's principles can degenerate, especially when used to analyze individual levels in an organization. However, when implemented in a group setting in an organization, some form of efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved, especially with regard to better output. This is especially true when the Bureaucratic Model emphasizes qualification (merits), specialization of job-scope (labour), hierarchy of power, rules, and discipline.[6]

Weaknesses of bureaucracy[edit]

Competencies, efficiency and effectiveness can be unclear and contradictory, especially when dealing with oversimplified matters. In a dehumanized bureaucracy – inflexible in distributing the job-scope, with every worker having to specialize from day one without rotating tasks for fear of decreasing output – tasks are often routine and can contribute to boredom. Thus, employees can sometimes feel that they are not part of the organization's work vision and mission. Consequently, they do not have any sense of belonging in the long term. Furthermore, this type of organization tends to invite exploitation and underestimate the potential of the employees, as creativity of the workers is brushed aside in favour of strict adherence to rules, regulations and procedures.[4]

A page from the typescript of the sociology of law within Economy and Society

Rationalisation[edit]

Many scholars have described rationalisation and the question of individual freedom in an increasingly rational society, as the main theme of Weber's work.[7][8][9][10] This theme was situated in the larger context of the relationship between psychological motivations, cultural values and beliefs (primarily religion), and the structure of the society (usually determined by the economy).[3]

Weber understood rationalisation, first, as the individual cost-benefit calculation; second, as the wider bureaucratic organisation of the organisations; and finally, in the more general sense, as the opposite of understanding the reality through mystery and magic (i.e. disenchantment).[10]

  • The fate of our times is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation and, above all, by the "disenchantment of the world".[11]

Weber began his studies of the subject in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he argued that the redefinition of the connection between work and piety in Protestantism and especially in ascetic Protestant denominations, particularly Calvinism, shifted human effort towards rational efforts aimed at achieving economic gain.[12][13] In the Protestant religion, piety towards God was expressed through one's secular vocation (secularisation of calling).[13] The rational roots of this doctrine, he argued, soon grew incompatible with and larger than the religious and so the latter were eventually discarded.[14]

Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on bureaucracy and on the classification of legitimate authority into three types – rational-legal, traditional and charismatic – of which the rational-legal (through bureaucracy) is the dominant one in the modern world.[7] In these works Weber described what he saw as society's movement towards rationalisation.[7] Similarly, rationalisation could be seen in the economy, with the development of highly rational and calculating capitalism.[7] Weber also saw rationalisation as one of the main factors setting the European West apart from the rest of the world.[7] Rationalisation relied on deep changes in ethics, religion, psychology and culture; changes that first took place in the Western civilisation:[15]

  • What Weber depicted was not only the secularisation of Western culture, but also and especially the development of modern societies from the viewpoint of rationalisation. The new structures of society were marked by the differentiation of the two functionally intermeshing systems that had taken shape around the organisational cores of the capitalist enterprise and the bureaucratic state apparatus. Weber understood this process as the institutionalisation of purposive-rational economic and administrative action. To the degree that everyday life was affected by this cultural and societal rationalisation, traditional forms of life – which in the early modern period were differentiated primarily according to one's trade – were dissolved.|Jürgen Habermas|Modernity's Consciousness of Time (1985)

Features of rationalisation include increasing knowledge, growing impersonality and enhanced control of social and material life.[7] Weber was ambivalent towards rationalisation; while admitting it was responsible for many advances, in particular, freeing humans from traditional, restrictive and illogical social guidelines, he also criticised it for dehumanising individuals as "cogs in the machine" and curtailing their freedom, trapping them in the bureaucratic iron cage of rationality and bureaucracy.[7][8][16][17] Related to rationalisation is the process of disenchantment, in which the world is becoming more explained and less mystical, moving from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones and finally to the Godless science of modernity.[7] However, another interpretation of Weber's theory of disenchantment, advanced by historian of religion Jason Josephson-Storm, claims that Weber does not envision a binary between rationalisation and magical thinking, and that Weber actually referred to the sequestering and professionalisation of magic when he described disenchantment, not to the disappearances of magic.[18]: 299–300  Regardless, for Weber the processes of rationalisation affect all of society, removing "sublime values ... from public life" and making art less creative.[19]

In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism:[7] "How is it at all possible to salvage any remnants of 'individual' freedom of movement in any sense given this all-powerful trend?"[7]

Sociology of religion[edit]

Weber's work in the field of sociology of religion began with the essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and continued with his analyses in The Religion of China, The Religion of India, and Ancient Judaism. His work on other religions, however, would be interrupted by his sudden death in 1920, which prevented him from following Ancient Judaism with studies of early Christianity and Islam.[20] The three main themes within the essays were: the effect of religious ideas on economic activities; the relation between social stratification and religious ideas; and the distinguishable characteristics of Western civilisation.[21]

Weber saw religion as one of the core forces in society.[2] His goal was to find reasons for the different development paths of the cultures of the Occident and the Orient, although without judging or valuing them, like some of the contemporary thinkers who followed the social Darwinist paradigm; Weber wanted primarily to explain the distinctive elements of the Western civilisation.[21] He maintained that Calvinist (and more widely, Protestant) religious ideas had a major impact on the social innovation and development of the economic system of the West, but noted that they were not the only factors in this development. Other notable factors mentioned by Weber included the rationalism of scientific pursuit, merging observation with mathematics, science of scholarship and jurisprudence, rational systematisation and bureaucratisation of government administration and economic enterprise.[21] In the end, the study of the sociology of religion, according to Weber, focused on one distinguishing part of the Western culture, the decline of beliefs in magic, or what he referred to as "disenchantment of the world".[21]

Weber also proposed a socio-evolutionary model of religious change, showing that in general, societies have moved from magic to polytheism, then to pantheism, monotheism and finally, ethical monotheism.[22] According to Weber, this evolution occurred as the growing economic stability allowed professionalisation and the evolution of ever more sophisticated priesthood.[23] As societies grew more complex and encompassed different groups, a hierarchy of gods developed and as power in the society became more centralised, the concept of a single, universal God became more popular and desirable.[24]

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism[edit]

Main article: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is Weber's most famous work.[25] It has been argued that this work should not be viewed as a detailed study of Protestantism, but rather as an introduction into Weber's later works, especially his studies of interaction between various religious ideas and economic behaviour as part of the rationalisation of the economic sphere.[26] In the essay, Weber puts forward the thesis that Calvinist ethic and ideas influenced the development of capitalism.[26] He notes the post-Reformation shift of Europe's economic centre away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, and toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany. Weber also notes that societies having more Protestants were those with a more highly developed capitalist economy.[27]: 15–16  Similarly, in societies with different religions, most successful business leaders were Protestant.[26] Weber thus argued that Roman Catholicism impeded the development of the capitalist economy in the West, as did other religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism elsewhere in the world:[13]

  • The development of the concept of the calling quickly gave to the modern entrepreneur a fabulously clear conscience – and also industrious workers; he gave to his employees as the wages of their ascetic devotion to the calling and of co-operation in his ruthless exploitation of them through capitalism the prospect of eternal salvation.|Max Weber|title=The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905)

Christian religious devotion had historically been accompanied by rejection of mundane affairs, including economic pursuit.[28] Weber showed that certain types of Protestantism – notably Calvinism – were supportive of rational pursuit of economic gain and worldly activities dedicated to it, seeing them as endowed with moral and spiritual significance.[12] Weber argued that there were many reasons to look for the origins of modern capitalism in the religious ideas of the Reformation.[29] In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.[26] The notion of calling meant that each individual had to take action as an indication of their salvation; just being a member of the Church was not enough.[13] Predestination also reduced agonising over economic inequality and further, it meant that a material wealth could be taken as a sign of salvation in the afterlife.[26][30] The believers therefore justified pursuit of profit with religion, as instead of being fuelled by morally suspect greed or ambition, their actions were motivated by a highly moral and respected philosophy.[26] Weber would call this the "spirit of capitalism": it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably led to – the capitalist economic system.[26] This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx's thesis that the economic "base" of society determines all other aspects of it.[12]

Weber abandoned research into Protestantism as his colleague Ernst Troeltsch, a professional theologian, had begun work on the book Social Teachings of the Christian Churches and Sects. Another reason for Weber's decision was that Troeltsch's work already achieved what he desired in that area: laying the groundwork for a comparative analysis of religion and society.[31]

The phrase "work ethic" used in modern commentary is a derivative of the "Protestant ethic" discussed by Weber. It was adopted when the idea of the Protestant ethic was generalised to apply to the Japanese people, Jews and other non-Christians and thus lost its religious connotations.[32]

The Religion of China[edit]

Main article: The Religion of China

The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism was Weber's second major work on the sociology of religion. Hans H. Gerth edited and translated this text into English, with an introduction by C. K. Wang.[33] Weber focused on those aspects of Chinese society that were different from those of Western Europe, especially those aspects that contrasted with Puritanism. His work also questioned why capitalism did not develop in China.[34] He focused on the issues of Chinese urban development, Chinese patrimonialism and officialdom and Chinese religion and philosophy (primarily, Confucianism and Taoism), as the areas in which Chinese development differed most distinctively from the European route.[34]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Calhoun2002-166 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-153 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-148 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Chun Hai, Jeong, and Nor Fadzlina Nawi (2012). Principles of Public Administration: Malaysian Perspectives. Kuala Lumpur, MY: Pearson Publishers. ISBN 978-967-349-233-6.
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Fesler, James W. 1965. "Bureaucratic Phenomena". Administrative Science Quarterly 10:163.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference plato.stanford.edu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Calhoun2002-167 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ritzer2009-30 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-151 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference Koshul2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Bendix60 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-162 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Andrew J. Weigert was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference Habermas, Jürgen 1990 p2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ritzer2009-38-42 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-177 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Josephson-Storm, Jason (2017). The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-40336-6. Archived from the original on 10 June 2019. Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-151-152 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bendix285 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference BendixChapter9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-154 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-155 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference AllanAllan2005-158 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference EESoc-22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference Ritzer2009-35-37 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bendix57 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bendix54 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ritzer2009-37-38 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bendix49 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference SwedbergAgevall2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Weber, Max. 1968 [1915]. The Religion of China. New York: Free Press. Lay summary at Google Books
  34. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bendix98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:سائغ/H2&oldid=1217196721"