MAX WEBER AND CONCEPTS OF GOVERNMENT German Professor. Born 1864 Died 1920, Generally considered (with Durkheim) to be one of the two main founders of sociology. Lecture contrasts Weber and Durkheim, but useful if we begin with a brief contrast with Marx. In Weber's writings the significance is given to the political rather than the economic. Marx argued the primacy of economics over politics and said that they were inextricably linked. Weber said that politics comes first and that the two are separate. In Weber's work ideas come first. He criticizes Marx's historical materialism. SOCIOLOGY: A THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION Weber believed that the central concern of sociology should be a theory of social action. By this he meant that sociology should start with the subjective meanings that individuals see in what they do. Sociology should start inside the individual with what his or her actions mean to him or her, and work outwards to understanding any laws or regularities that govern the whole of society. Sociology.. is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects. In "action" is included all human behaviour when and in so far as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. page 1 of 6
THE TYPES OF SOCIAL ACTION Weber says that social action can be classified into four types: (1) Rational action in relation to a goal. This would include actions motivated by self-interest. For example actions with an economic motive, market place actions like those Adam Smith described. (2) Rational action in relation to a value (3) Affective or emotional action (4) Traditional action THESE ARE WHAT WEBER CALLS "IDEAL TYPES". They are unlikely to be found in a pure form in reality, but they help us to analyze reality. In any particular action that we take there will probably be a mixture of orientations. page 2 of 6
ANALYSING SOCIAL ACTION LETS US BE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS These subjective motivations lead to regularities in human conduct. They underlie the regularities of behaviour which sociologist take an interest in. Here are some examples that Weber gives: "If furniture movers regularly advertise at the time many leases expire, this uniformity is determined by self-interest in the exploitation of opportunities. If a salesman visits certain customers on particular days of the month or the week, it is either a case of customary behaviour or a product of some kind of self-interested orientation...when a civil servant appears in his office at a fixed time, it may involve these elements, but is not determined by custom or selfinterest alone.. As a rule his action is also determined by the validity of an order (viz, the civil service rules), which he fulfils party because disobedience would be disadvantageous to him but also because its violation would be abhorrent to his sense of duty (of course, in varying degrees)" POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY EXPERIMENT: Ask people to note down why they obey the state in any particular instance. The results will be varied, but they will not all be based on rational calculation of benefit. Even when people give this reason it is not necessarily convincing. A person may say that they do not steal because they do not want to be punished. But the same person may refrain from stealing when given an opportunity to do so with no possibility of being caught out. page 3 of 6
Within our motive for obeying can come any of those listed by Weber as types of social action: 1) We can obey because it is the way to gain a reward or avoid a punishment, 2) we can obey because we are adhering to a value, 3) we can obey because the person commanding has captured our imagination, 4) or we can obey because it is the done thing, the normal or traditional course of action. This means that corresponding to types of action are types of power: A) If a person is pursuing self-interest you can exercise power over her by offering or withholding economic rewards, or by threatening physical punishment. Let us call this type of power "force". B) Force is not the only type of power. You also exercise power over people if you win their allegiance by a) convincing them to adhere to a value system. Religious leaders, for example, exercise power over their followers, and religion can be used as part of the state's power. b) charisma: the force of your personality or your style of presentation, c) occupying a traditional power role. An hereditary king, for example, has power by virtue of tradition. page 4 of 6
These levers of power based on ideas, images and emotion, Weber refers to as legitimacy. According to Weber, all states are built on force. This is an essential component of the state. But equally important, and in practice more often relevant, is legitimacy. The grounds of legitimacy vary from society to society and from time to time. TYPES OF LEGITIMACY Weber says there are three main types of legitimacy: 1) traditional, 2) charismatic 3) and rational/legal TRADITIONAL: Traditional authority is based on the sacredness of precedent. There is a widespread belief that "old is best". A conservative conviction that what is, is right. It is a type of authority that is ill-suited to social change. CHARISMATIC: Charismatic authority is an innovating and revolutionary force. It involves devotion to a person thought to possess authority by virtue of revelation (from God), heroism or other qualities of personal leadership. RATIONAL/LEGAL: Rational/legal authority requires obedience not to a person, but to a system of rational rules. page 5 of 6
THE MODERN STATE Weber's definition of the modern state:- "In the past, the most varied institutions...have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however.we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". " This comes from Weber's own lecture on Politics as a Vocation. It is a very long lecture, but we would recommend that you read part of it. I will point out some features of the quotation: Earlier forms of the state, for example the feudal state, do not have a monopoly of legitimate violence. This is a distinguishing feature of the modern state, along with the fact that it exercises this monopoly in a given territory. In Feudal time different authorities could exercise legitimate force over the same area. The big question that must be answered regarding the legitimate use of violence within a given territory is: WHAT IS THE TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE MODER STATE MAY PRACTICE VIOLENT ACTIONS; WHO DEFINES THE TERRITORY AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE IS IT TO BE DEFINED? IS THE DEFINITION TO EMERGE FROM OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE PROCESSES? page 6 of 6