1

MAX WEBER THEORIES 1. SOCIAL ACTION The Magnum opus is Wirtschaft und
Gesellschaft, Economy And Society, an enormous masterpiece in which Weber tries to
summarize his whole theoretical enterprise. The first word of that important book is the
word sociology. In fact, Weber begins this study with a definition of sociology. In this
discipline, he says, we study social action. People can reflect on how they act, they can
tell us why they acted in this way or in that way. They may come up with motivations for
what they did. And this is why Weber didn't call it social behavior, but he calls it social
action, Understanding Social Action The action is social because it is directed towards
other people. A man who tries to cover his head against the pouring rain is not engaged in
social action. Weber argued that no action is considered a social action unless it has a
relationship with the present, past, or future behavior of other. But two people on the
sidewalk of a street who try not to bump into each other are involved in some kind of
social action, at least they take each other into account. Weber says that social action is
the basic stuff that constitutes the study object of the sociologist

2
Lastly, in order to explain an action we must interpret it according to its subjectively
intended meaning. What did the person who performed an action mean by his action? To
elaborate on this last point, consider this example: In a court proceeding, a witness is
called to testify against a gang leader. As the witness completes his testimony, the gang
leader, sitting in the audience drags a finger across his throat. What did he mean by this?
The gang leader was signaling to the witness the slicing of the throat, which we could
interpret as a physical threat.

3
TYPES OF SOCIAL ACTION Max Weber now presents his own classification of the four
ideal types of social action. T goal-rational or means, ends, rational The first one is called
which can be translated as goal-rational or means, ends, rational. This is social action that
is motivated by the desire to reach in the most efficient way, an end result that can also be
defended with rational arguments. In a calculating systematic way, the means are
selected that will lead to that goal VAUE-SOCIAL ACTION The second ideal typical
category consists of social action that seems to be irrational because it is directed at a
value that can not be motivated in rational terms. This is what labor calls value-rational

4
social action. In order to achieve that value, the individual may be just as rational as the
personal displaying goal-rational social action. Most people are not saints or military
heroes. And for them, it may be hard to understand. But if you sincerely strive for personal
salvation, then you might choose the aesthetic lifestyle of the hermit. Or if you really want
to defend your military honor, you may rationally choose a social action that inescapably
will result in you losing your life. Those actions can be understood in rational terms. But
only if you accept, without a rational argument, the value that they are oriented at. Number
three is called affective social action, and it is motivated by the emotional state of the
actor. When somebody is overcome with anger, he may react in a certain way that maybe
he regrets afterwards. But, that was the only possibility at that very moment. Weber
mentions a furious parent that beats a child purely out of anger. Maybe a better example
that you will not fined in Weber is a soccer player biting a member of the opposite team.
He knows very well that he will be severely punished, that his team will receive bad
publicity plus a financial penalty. That his social action may dramatically influence their
position in the competition. And still, he cannot stop himself from sinking his teeth in the
neck of his fellow soccer player. And then, there is traditional social action. When you ask
somebody why they do the things the way they do them? The answer will be, that's the
way we do this. In our community, we always did it this way. Our ancestors always did it
this way. We have been raised to do it this way. Again, an example that you will not find in
Weber but that I think helps you to understand what it means, is eating with a fork and a
knife. There may be hygienic advantages and rational reasons, but you can experience
the weight of tradition if you just try to do it, to eat your evening dinner. Just for once, as
an experiment, with your bare hand.

5
2. Religion and the Origin of Capitalism. Weber disagreed with Marx's claim that
economics is the central force in social change. That role, he said, belongs to religion.
Weber (1904/1958) theorized that the Roman Catholic belief system encouraged followers
to hold on to traditional ways of life, while the Protestant belief system encouraged its
members to embrace change. Roman Catholics were taught that because they were
Church members they were on the road to heaven, but Protestants, those of the Calvinist
tradition, were told that they wouldn't know if they were saved until Judgment Day.
Uncomfortable with this, the Calvinists began to look for "a sign" that they were in God's
will. They found this "sign" in financial success, which they took as a blessing that
indicated that God was on their side. To bring about this "sign" and receive spiritual
comfort, they began to live frugal lives, saving their money and investing it in order to
make even more. This, said Weber, brought about the birth of capitalism. Weber called
this self-denying approach to life the Protestant ethic. He termed the desire to invest
capital in order to make more money the spirit of capitalism. To test his theory, Weber
compared the extent of capitalism in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. He found
that capitalism was more likely to flourish in Protestant countries. Weber's conclusion that
religion was the key factor in the rise of capitalism was controversial when he made it, and
it continues to be debated today
6
3. THEORY OF SOCIAL CLASS: Max Weber: Property, Power, and Prestige Max Weber
(1864–1920) was an outspoken critic of Marx. Weber argued that property is only part of
the picture. Social class, he said, has three components: property, power, and prestige
(Gerth and Mills 1958; Weber 1922/1978). Some call these the three P's of social class.
(Although Weber used the terms class, power, and status, some sociologists find property,
power, and prestige to be clearer terms. To make them even clearer, you may wish to
substitute wealth for property.) Property (or wealth), said Weber, is certainly significant in
determining a person's standing in society. On this point he agreed with Marx. But, added
Weber, ownership is not the only significant aspect of property. For example, some
powerful people, such as managers of corporations, control the means of production even
though they do not own them. If managers can control property for their own benefit-
awarding themselves huge bonuses and magnificent perks-it makes no practical
difference that they do not own the property that they use so generously for t Power, the
second element of social class, is the ability to control others, even over their objections.
Weber agreed with Marx that property is a major source of power, but he added that it is
not the only source. For example, prestige can be turned into power. Two well-known
examples are actors Arnold Schwarzenegger, who became governor of California, and
Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California and president of the United
States. Figure 7.2 shows how property, power, and prestige are interrelated Prestige, the
third element in Weber's analysis, is often derived from property and power, for people
tend to admire the wealthy and powerful. Prestige, however, can be based on other
factors. Olympic gold medalists, for example, might not own property or be powerful, yet
they have high prestige.

Some gold medalists, for example, might not own property or be powerful, yet they have
high prestige. Some are even able to exchange their prestige for property-such as those
who are paid a small fortune for endorsing a certain brand of sportswear or for claiming
that they start their day with "the breakfast of champions." In other words, property and
prestige are not one-way streets: Although property can bring prestige, prestige can also
bring property

8
To exist, every society must have a system of leadership. Some people must have power
over others. As Max Weber (1913/1947) pointed out, we perceive power as either
legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimate power is called authority. This is power that people
accept as right. In contrast, illegitimate powercalled coercion-is power that people do not
accept as just Max Weber (1922/1978) identified three sources of authority: traditional,
rational-legal, and charismatic. Let's examine each. Traditional Authority Throughout
history, the most common basis for authority has been tradition. Traditional authority,
which is based on custom, is the hallmark of tribal groups. In these societies, custom
dictates basic relationships. For example, birth into a particular family makes an individual
the chief, king, or queen. As far as members of that society are concerned, this is the right
way to determine who shall rule because "We've always done it this way."

9
Although traditional authority declines with industrialization, it never dies out. Even though
we live in a postindustrial society, parents continue to exercise authority over their children
because parents always have had such authority. From generations past, we inherit the
idea that parents should discipline their children, choose their doctors and schools, and
teach them religion and morality Rational-Legal Authority The second type of authority,
rational-legal authority, is based not on custom but on written rules. Rational means
reasonable, and legal means part of law. Thus rational-legal refers to matters that have
been agreed to by reasonable people and written into law (or regulations of some sort).
The matters that are agreed to may be as broad as a constitution that specifies the rights
of all members of a society or as narrow as a contract between two individuals. Because
bureaucracies are based on written rules, rational-legal authority is also called
bureaucratic authority, Rational-legal authority comes from the position that someone
holds, not from the person who holds that position. In the United States, for example, the
president's authority comes from the legal power assigned to that office, as specified in a
written constitution, not from custom or the individual's personal characteristics. In
rational-legal authority, everyone-no matter how high the office held-is subject to the
organization's written rules. In governments based on traditional authority, the ruler's word
may be law; but in those based on rational-legal authority, the ruler's word is subject to the
law. Charismatic Authority Joan of Arc is an example of charismatic authority, the third
type of authority Weber identified. (Charisma is a Greek word that means a gift freely and
graciously given Arndt and Gingrich 1957).

10

Charismatic Authority Joan of Arc is an example of charismatic authority, the third type of
authority Weber identified. (Charisma is a Greek word that means a gift freely and
graciously given (Arndt and Gingrich 1957).) People are drawn to a charismatic individual
because they believe that individual has been touched by God or has been endowed by
nature with exceptional qualities (Lipset 1993). The armies did not follow Joan of Arc
because it was the custom to do so, as in traditional authority. Nor did they risk their lives
fighting alongside her because she held a position defined by written rules, as in rational-
legal authority. Instead, people followed her because they were attracted by her
outstanding traits. They saw her as a messenger of God, fighting on the side of justice,
and they accepted her leadership because of these appealing qualities The Transfer of
Authority The orderly transfer of authority from one leader to another is crucial for social
stability. Under traditional authority, people know who is next in line. Under rational-legal
authority, people might not know who the next leader will be, but they do know how that
person will be selected. Charismatic authority has no rules of succession, making it less
stable than either traditional or rational Because charismatic authority is built around a
single individual, the death or incapacitation of a charismatic leader can mean a bitter
struggle for succession. To avoid this, some charismatic leaders make arrangements for
an orderly transition of power by appointing a successor,

11
5. The Characteristics of Bureaucracies "Bureaucratic administration means
fundamentally domination through knowledge "-Max Weber(15) The German sociologist
Max Weber was the first to formally study bureaucracy and his works led to the
popularization of this term.[47] In his 1922 essay Bureaucracy,[1],[48] published in his
magnum opus Economy and Society, Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public
administration, government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public
or private, is characterized by:

12
1. Clear Hierarchy: clear levels, with assignments flowing downward and accountability
flowing upward. Each level assigns responsibilities to the level beneath it, while
each lower level is accountable to the level above it for fulfilling those assignments.
Figure 5.1 on page 135 shows the bureaucratic structure of a typical university A
division of labor. Each worker is assigned specific tasks, and the tasks of all the
workers are coordinated to accomplish the purpose of the organization. In a college,
for example, a teacher does not fix the heating system, the president does not
approve class schedules, and a secretary does not evaluate textbooks. These tasks
are distributed among people who have been trained to do them. 3. Written rules. In
their attempt to become efficient, bureaucracies stress written procedures. In
general, the longer a bureaucracy exists and the larger it grows, the more written
rules it has. 4. Written communications and records. Records are kept of much of
what occurs in a bureaucracy ("Be sure to CC all immediate supervisors"). In some
organizations, workers spend a fair amount of time sending memos and e-mail back
and forth. Impersonality and replaceability. It is the office that is important, not the
 individual who holds the office. You work for the organization, not for the
replaceable person who heads some post in the organization Impartiality: The head
of a small, nonbureaucratic organization might prefer to hire people she or he knows
and promote them on the same basis. Weber thought that impartiality in hiring,
promotion, and firing would be much better for a large organization, as it guarantees
people will advance through a firm based on their skills and knowledge, not on
whom they know.
13
The Disadvantages of Bureaucracy Taking all of these features into account, Weber
(1921/1978) thought bureaucracies were the most efficient and effective type of
organization in a large, complex society. At the same time, he despaired over their
impersonality, which he saw reflecting the growing dehumanization that accompanies
growing societies. As social scientists have found since his time, bureaucracies have
other problems that undermine their efficiency and effectiveness: 1. Impersonality and
alienation. The first problem is the one just mentioned: bureaucracies can be very
alienating experiences for their employees and clients alike. A worker without any sick
leave left who needs to take some time off to care for a sick child might find a
supervisor saying no, because the rules prohibit it. A client who stands in a long line
might find herself turned away when she gets to the front because she forgot to fill out
every single box in a form. We all have stories of impersonal, alienating experiences in
today's large bureaucracies. Red tape. A second disadvantage of bureaucracy is "red
tape," or, as sociologist Robert Merton (1968) called it, bureaucratic ritualism, a greater
devotion to rules and regulations than to organizational goals. Bureaucracies often
operate by slavish attention to even the pickiest of

14
rules and regulations. If every t isn't crossed and every i isn't dotted, then someone
gets into trouble, and perhaps a client is not served. Such bureaucratic ritualism
contributes to the alienation already described. 3. Trained incapacity. If an
overabundance of rules and regulations and overattention to them lead to bureaucratic
ritualism, they also lead to an inability of people in an organization to think creatively
and to act independently. In the late 1800s, Thorstein Veblen (1899/1953) called this
problem trained incapacity. When unforeseen problems arise, trained incapacity may
prevent organizational members from being able to handle them. 4. Bureaucratic
incompetence. Two popular writers have humorously pointed to special problems in
bureaucracies that undermine their effectiveness. The first of these, popularly known
as Parkinson's law after its coiner, English historian C. Northcote Parkinson (1957),
says that work expands to fill the time available for it. To put it another way, the more
time you have to do something, the longer it takes. The second problem is called the
Peter Principle, also named after its founder, Canadian author Laurence J. Peter
(1969), and says that people will eventually be promoted to their level of incompetence.
In this way of thinking, someone who does a good job will get promoted and then get
promoted again if she or he continues doing a good job. Eventually such people will be
promoted to a job for which they are not well qualified, impeding organizational
efficiency and effectiveness. Have you ever worked for someone who illustrated the
Peter Principle? 5. Goal displacement and self-perpetuation. Sometimes bureaucracies
become so swollen with

15
creatively and to act independently. In the late 1800s, Thorstein Veblen (1899/1953)
called this problem trained incapacity. When unforeseen problems arise, trained
incapacity may prevent organizational members from being able to handle them. 4.
Bureaucratic incompetence. Two popular writers have humorously pointed to special
problems in bureaucracies that undermine their effectiveness. The first of these,
popularly known as Parkinson's law after its coiner, English historian C. Northcote
Parkinson (1957), says that work expands to fill the time available for it. To put it
another way, the more time you have to do something, the longer it takes. The second
problem is called the Peter Principle, also named after its founder, Canadian author
Laurence J. Peter (1969), and says that people will eventually be promoted to their
level of incompetence. In this way of thinking, someone who does a good job will get
promoted and then get promoted again if she or he continues doing a good job.
Eventually such people will be promoted to a job for which they are not well qualified,
impeding organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Have you ever worked for
someone who illustrated the Peter Principle? 5. Goal displacement and self-
perpetuation. Sometimes bureaucracies become so swollen with rules and personnel
that they take on a life of their own and lose sight of the goals they were originally
designed to achieve. People in the bureaucracy become more concerned with their job
comfort and security than with helping the organization accomplish its objectives. To
the extent this happens, the bureaucracy's efficiency and effectiveness are again
weakened. Iron cage bureaucracy Because of these aforementioned reasons, there will
be an evolution of an iron cage, which will be a

16
Iron cage bureaucracy Because of these aforementioned reasons, there will be an
evolution of an iron cage, which will be a technically ordered, rigid, dehumanized
society.[5] The iron cage is the one set of rules and laws that we are all subjected and
must adhere to. 151 Bureaucracy puts us in an iron cage, which limits individual human
freedom and potential instead of a "technological utopia" that should set us free.[6][16]
It is the way of the institution, where we do not have a choice anymore. 17 Once
capitalism came about, it was like a machine that you were being pulled into without an
alternative option;.18 Laws of bureaucracies include the following:(191 1. The official is
subject to authority only with respect to their official obligation 2. Organized in a clearly
defined hierarchy of offices 3. Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence
4. The official has a free contractual relationship; free selection 5. Officials are selected
through technical qualification 6. The official is paid by fixed salaries

17

5. Officials are selected through technical qualification 6. The official is paid by fixed
salaries 7. The office is the primary occupation of the official 8. Promotion is based on
an achievement which is granted by the judgment of superiors 9. The official works
entirely separated from ownership of the means of administration 10. The official is
subject to strict and systematic discipline within the office