Weber’s Basic Concepts of Sociology reviews his definitions of sociology, meaning, action and understanding. He claims something is social if its actions affect another individual. Weber states that our actions can be meaningful or not meaningful and the interpretations of whether an action is meaningful or not may be rational or empathetic. He claims that any emotional action is just a deviation of a rational action. Furthermore, he states that our understanding of actions may be either direct or explanatory. In The Distribution of Power within the Political Community, Weber addresses how law affects the distribution of power and economics. He describes three groups (classes, status groups, and parties) that are products of “the distribution of power within a community”. He separates class situations into ‘property’ and ‘lack of property’ (they exist in the economic order). Unlike classes, Weber describes status groups as communities. Although status groups can be related to class, they differ in that they exist in the social order. Lastly, parties operate as part of the political order. In The Three types of Legitimate Domination, Weber describes legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority.
I found Weber’s description of understanding to be interesting and reminiscent of Marx’s notion of alienated labor. Weber states “every artifact…can be understood only in terms of the meaning which its production and use have had or will have for human action”. I feel this idea may relate back to Marx’s concept of the laborer being isolated from his work. My interpretation of Weber’s reading would coincide with Marx’s ideas in that a laborer’s actions have no meaning because his behaviors are not related to what he is actually creating.
However, I found it difficult to understand why Weber believes the human life cycle has no meaning. Furthermore, I don’t comprehend why he claims that emotional actions are irrational. In his example of understanding why a person may chop wood, he claims it is irrational for a person to chop wood to release anger or aggression, however I feel that may be a very legitimate and rational reason to chop wood.
I agree that this is a very good reason to chop wood and I also disagree with Weber that the human life cycle has no meaning. Generally speaking, I think what Weber means when he says that emotional actions are irrational because when people are highly emotional (upset, angry, happy) they will do things for no good reason. We are thinking that chopping wood is a great way to release this anger or aggression; but Weber thinks it is irrational becuase you are not doing it specifically to burn the wood later to be warm. I could have taken this too literally, but this was my understanding.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you i do not think that Weber was correct in saying that the human life cycle has no meaning and the fact that he said emotional actions are irrational. However if you look back decades ago over the years it has become more and more accepted to share your emotions. As a society i think we are becoming more emotional and more accepting of being emotional where as at the time Weber wrote this emotions were a peronal thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree about human emotions. Human emotions can be irrational but they can also be rational. Rational emotions is how we as a species still exist, but also irrational behavior and mistakes sometimes serve its purpose, like discovering penicillin.
ReplyDelete