Weber, Part 1

Weber's writings cover a wide range of topics, but are particularly concerned with the motivations of individuals comprising groups within society in making their actions. In "The Basic Concepts of Sociology," Weber sets out to define sociology, describing it as a science (a theme repeated throughout this piece) that seeks to understand social action by explaining it through a causal analysis of its "course and effects". Action is only social if it is enacted and oriented with the behaviors of others in mind, and each action has an accompanying meaning. This is subjective, and although Weber praises his field as having the tools others do not (such as the natural sciences) to uncover these explanations for social actions, he recognizes that there is never a "right or wrong" answer, particularly because humans have implicit and subconscious influences upon their understanding. The meanings of these actions can be either rational or emotional, having little other explanation besides an irrational reaction beyond the control (in some cases) of the individual. Sociologists, Weber says, have the means to gain an understanding of these actions through intellectual approaches (the rational) or empathetic participation (the unique tool of sociology), through which the observer can interpret the emotional (i.e. irrational) meaning.

In "Economically Determined Power and the Social Order," Weber introduces his views on the role of money and power in the social realm. He finds that, while certainly a determining factor in creating social class, it does not necessarily improve one's social honor or status group, which relates more to how one leads their life. Weber explains the behavior of the social elite, which could only be equated to the "bourgeoisie" in my mind, as valuing more than just economic power as status symbol -- it extended to their cultivation of a class identity, and while not a community necessarily, members of this group would recognize this culture. One idea I found particularly interesting was the notion that any writing or artistic endeavors was considered beneath this elite status if pursued with any interest in profiting from it -- a truly luxurious view of an occupation as a pass time by those with too much money and time on their hands. In my mind, I linked this understanding of the elite back to the Great Gatsby. The idea of Gatsby's attempts to join the elite status group (WASPS) were illegitimate because he was new wealth -- of the same class as these rich individuals based on economic power, to be sure, but not imbued with the same tradition of upper class culture (i.e. not of the same status group). I found this to be a good example of Weber's views of the elite's perception of economic power and its equation with social validity.

In relation to the discussion of classes, Weber writes about authority in "Three Types of Legitimate Domination," taking up his self-defined role as a sociologist in explaining the motives behind the lower classes in obeying the rules of those in power. Weber argues that purely material motives are not enough to explain such obedience, and introduces three types of legitimate power: rational, traditional, and charismatic. Authority grounded in rational thought holds that those in power derive their legitimacy from qualification, and thus have a right to rule -- they can be evaluated and removed from power in many cases, but they head bureaucracies, which Weber points out have spread into most if not all institutions of society (business, church and state). Traditional rule is grounded in customs observed since time immemorial that lend legitimacy to such a ruler -- however, this authority is limited in that it must be careful not to arouse resistance amongst the people along traditional grounds. The same customs that lend this individual or group power also bind it in terms of what is traditionally accepted by the ruled, who also have expectations of those in power. Finally, Charismatic authority originates from an individual whose exemplary character, sanctity or heroism have made him a legitimate choice of leadership for the people -- this form of rule must eventually incorporate the characteristics either of rational authority (for example, George Washington, who had an opportunity to become a king of sorts, but instead abdicated in favor of rational rule by evaluation and qualification) or traditional authority (the Shogunate in Japan, based upon the right to rule by primogeniture).

I found Weber's writing on his views of the basic concepts of sociology to be somewhat redundant at times, but interesting nonetheless. Although I feel I have a basic grasp of the concept of meaning behind action, I would like some further clarification on how it differs from motive or implicit action/ instinct. The latter part of that writing on the concepts of action was also a bit unclear to me as well. Finally, Social Honor remains ambiguous in my mind -- I understand that it is related to a sense of class dignity, but he also argues that American "clubs" are preferable to German ones because their chiefs do not look down upon their clerks with benevolence due to their mutual birth rights. This seems completely contradictory to his later arguments on the views of the upper class on mixing with the proletariat -- certainly he understood that the sense of birth right was not something that prevented condescension in American society at this time -- what does he mean by this in his early discussion of social honor then? I felt that Weber beat around the bush at times in his writing, and I look forward to a discussion of these concepts in class on Monday.