..
| Max
Weber, one of the three main "fathers of sociology," contributed to our
understanding of the sociological perspective, to the nature of social
change, and to the nature of social inequality. |
.
| Max
Weber (1864-1920) helped us to understand the nature of society. |
.
| He
disagreed with the approach of Marx, but in different ways than Durkheim
did. |
.
| Rather
than deny the importance of material factors, as with Marx, and rather
than deny the notion of social facts external to individuals, as with Durkheim,
he added that we should look at ideas, especially the meanings we put onto
things, and the role of changes of ideas that contribute to society and
to social changes. |
.
| In
his interest in the meanings people put to things, Weber used the German
word, "verstehen," to discuss our deeper understanding of those
meanings. |
.
| Since
culture is based on symbols, and symbols must have meanings in order to
be symbols, then our understanding of them is an essential element of understanding
society. |
.
| In
English, in sociology, today we continue to use his word, "verstehen,"
to analyse this important element of culture and society. |
.
| To
oppose the approach of Marx in the understanding of the industrial revolution,
Weber suggested that first came a radical change of ideas. |
.
| This
was manifested in the Protestant Reformation, and the preaching of protestant
leaders, especially John Calvin, in opposition to the prevailing thoughts
and practices of the Catholic church at the time. |
.
| Among
the various values advocated by the protestants, were ideas of self sufficiency,
frugality and independent relations with God instead of through a priest. |
.
| Frugality
was an essential attitude needed to encourage saving and investment, an
important element of capitalism and the industrial revolution. |
.
| They
said, furthermore, that they did not need a large, corrupt and decadent
organisation to tell them how to think, and that independence of thinking
contributed to people starting their own businesses, and contributing to
the growth of the capital owning class. |
.
| The
Protestant Reformation, according to Weber, was the main cause of the Industrial
Revolution and the rise of Capitalism, a very different approach from that
of Marx. |
.
| A
third contribution of Weber was about the social nature of inequality. |
.
| Marx
had emphasised relations to production. |
.
| Without
denying the importance of wealth, Weber added prestige, the value judgements
people make about each other, and which contribute to their social class. |
.
| Again,
Weber’s main concern was with ideas. |
.
| Karl
Marx saw class as related to the means of production..
He saw a shift from a feudal society based on agriculture, where the land
owning class was differentiated from the peasant class, through the industrial
revolution, which saw the capital owning class, factory owners,
differentiated from the factory workers, paid labour.. |
.
| Other
persons, such as scribes, information dealers, intelligencia and civil
servants, did not contribute to production in the economy, were therefore
useless (non productive), and did not constitute classes. |
.
| Max
Weber, writing a half century later, in contrast, saw class based upon
three factors, power, wealth and prestige. |
.
| In
today's sociology, we tend to see the same three factors, although Marxist
sociologists
still emphasise the relations to the means of production, including now
the production of ideas and information. |
.
| Weber
saw society as having several layers, not only two, and that factors other
than the material were important. |
.
| Between
the three of them, Marx, Durkheim and Weber, we now see social inequality
as having three major elements, wealth, power and prestige. |
.
| Labour
conflicts now tend to be between workers and the managers, the latter being
paid to take the side of owners, who are now mainly the holders of stocks
and bonds. |
.
| Weber’s
writings contributed to the Symbolic Interactionist Perspective, one of
the three classical perspectives in Sociology. |
.
| As
with the other two classical perspectives, Weber did not coin the term,
nor did he found or describe the perspective per se; Blumer did. |
.
| He
contributed much to our thinking, and those who went on to develop the
symbolic interactionist perspective –– Blumer,
Mead, Thomas, Park
–– drew deeply from
Weber’s writings. |
.
| Weber
also contributed to the sociological observation and analysis of organisations. |
.
| Among
his many works, he studied the nature of bureaucracies to investigate the
reasons why they held so much power. |
.
| He
looked at how bureaucracies grew and become stronger along with the industrial
revolution. |
.
| He
identified five elements of bureaucracies which gave them strength. hierarchy
of
authority; division of labour; written rules; written communications; and
impersonality. |
.
| Two
of these are problematical if we ask can they be used to strengthen communities. |
.
| A
"hierarchy of authority," especially if it is rigid, harsh and dictatorial,
and "impersonality," especially if it alienates community members, are
both elements which reduce the gemeinschaft of a community, thus
reducing the essential characteristic of that community. |
.
| Weber
wrote in response to Marx, with the intention of contradicting or reducing
the materialist approach. |
.
| He
saw that the major change was the rise of Protestantism, with values and
beliefs which contributed to the industrial revolution. |
.
| He
argued that the new values of Protestantism, frugality, independent thinking
and self reliance, were values and attitudes necessary to the creation
and growth of capitalist thinking and for actions necessary for the industrial
revolution. |
.
| From
our vantage point a century later, we can see that these different approaches
were not necessarily mutually exclusive, but could be complementary explanations. |
. |
