Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 25 (Sociology)
Book Name – Masters of Sociological Thought
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. THE WORK
1.1. NATURAL SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND VALUE RELEVANCE
1.2. THE IDEAL TYPE
1.3. CAUSALITY AND PROBABILITY
1.4. TYPES OF AUTHORITY
1.5. THE FUNCTION OF IDEAS
1.6. CLASS, STATUS, AND POWER
1.7. BUREAUCRACY
1.8. RATIONALIZATION AND DISENCHANTMENT
2. THE MAN
2.1. IN THE FATHER’S HOUSE
2.2. THE EARLY ACADEMIC CAREER
2.3. THE YEARS OF MASTERY
2.4. AN EXEMPLARY MORALIST
3. THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT
3.1. WEBER AND THE INHERITANCE OF IDEALISM
3.2. WEBER AND GERMAN HISTORICISM AND SOCIOLOGY
3.3. TWO CRUCIAL INFLUENCES: NIETZSCHE AND MARX
4. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
4.1. THE FAMILY NETWORK
4.2. THE PUBLIC SCENE
4.3. THE ACADEMIC MAN
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- Sociology (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + Sociology
LANGUAGE
Max Weber
Chapter – 6
Table of Contents
THE WORK
- Max Weber conceived sociology as a comprehensive science of social action, focusing on the subjective meaningshuman actors attach to their actions within specific social-historical contexts.
- Unlike predecessors like Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx, who focused on social structures, Weber’s primary focus was on individual human actors and their mutual orientations.
- Weber distinguished four major types of social action:
- Purposeful rational action (zweckrational): Goal-oriented action where both goals and means are rationally chosen (e.g., an engineer building a bridge).
- Value-oriented rational action (wertrational): Action based on striving for a substantive goal, which may not be rational but is pursued rationally (e.g., ascetic self-denial in pursuit of holiness).
- Affective action: Motivated by emotions rather than rationality (e.g., participants in religious services of a fundamentalist sect).
- Traditional action: Guided by customs or traditions, relying on the “eternal yesterday” (e.g., behavior of members in an Orthodox Jewish congregation).
- This classification allows Weber to make typological distinctions and investigate the course of Western historical development.
- Raymond Aron saw Weber’s work as “the paradigm of a sociology which is both historical and systematic.”
- Weber was primarily concerned with modern Western society, where behavior was dominated by goal-oriented rationality, contrasting earlier periods when behavior was influenced by tradition, affect, or value-oriented rationality.
- Weber’s studies of non-Western societies aimed to highlight the distinctive Western development of rationalization.
- Karl Mannheim noted that Weber’s work was directed toward understanding what social factors led to the rationalization of Western civilization.
- Weber argued that in modern society, rationality in politics, economics, law, and interpersonal relationships dominated and replaced other sources of social action.
- Earlier theorists like Toennies, Maine, and Durkheim described historical shifts in structural terms, but Weber viewed these shifts as associated with changes in human action within changing social and historical situations.
- Weber’s analysis was not strictly materialistic or idealistic, instead focusing on the concrete acting person as the central unit of analysis.
- Interpretative sociology considers the individual and their action as the basic unit or “atom” of analysis, with concepts like state, association, and feudalism representing human interactions.
- The task of sociology, according to Weber, is to reduce abstract concepts to understandable action, specifically the actions of individual actors.
- Weber’s focus on the mutual orientation of social actors and their understandable motives was rooted in methodological considerations that made his approach distinctive.
NATURAL SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND VALUE RELEVANCE
- Weber rejected both the positivist view that the cognitive aims of natural and social sciences are the same, and the German historicist doctrine that generalizations are impossible in the realm of history because human actions do not follow regularities like the natural world.
- Against historicism, Weber argued that the method of science always involves abstraction and generalization, regardless of subject matter (things or men).
- Against positivists, Weber emphasized that human behavior can be understood not only in external manifestations (behavior) but also in the underlying motivations.
- Weber emphasized value-bound problem choices of investigators and value-neutral methods in social research.
- Differences between the natural and social sciences arise from differences in the cognitive intentions of the investigator, not in the methods of investigation.
- Both natural and social sciences involve abstraction; however, natural sciences focus on abstract laws, while social sciences consider the meanings and motivations behind human actions.
- Social scientists may use a generalizing method, which abstracts from unique aspects of reality, or an individualizing approach, which focuses on specific features or historical actors. Both methods are valid, provided they don’t claim to encompass totality.
- The problems chosen by scholars and the level of explanation depend on the values and interests of the investigator. The choice of what is considered “worthy to be known” is always value relevant.
- There is no absolutely ‘objective’ scientific analysis of culture or social phenomena independent of special viewpoints.
- Rational knowledge of causal sequences is achievable in the natural world, but human action, though unpredictable and irrational, can be understood through interpretation of the subjective meanings that actors attach to their behavior.
- Weber opposed positivists, stating that social facts are intelligible and can be understood through Verstehen—the interpretative understanding of human action.
- A sociology of human groups has the advantage of accessing the subjective aspects of action, including meaning and motivation.
- Weber defined sociology as “that science which aims at the interpretative understanding (Verstehen) of social behavior to explain its causes, course, and effects.”
- The concept of interpretative understanding originated with historian Droysen and was used by Dilthey and others, but Weber saw it as a preliminary step for establishing causal relationships.
- Weber argued that empathy (Einfuehlung) and reliving (Nacherleben) an experience facilitate grasping its subjective meaning, but interpretative explanation (verstehende Erklaerung) must lead to causal explanation to achieve scientific status.
- Verstehen and causal explanation are correlative principles in social science, and immediate intuitions of meaning must be incorporated into theoretical structures that aim for causal explanation.
- Weber countered the objection that interpretation could be contaminated by the values of the investigator, stating that interpretations can be tested by evidence.
- He emphasized that while the choice of interpretation can be tested, the selection of subject matter is influenced by the investigator’s value orientation.
- There are no intrinsically scientific criteria for selecting topics; each investigator must follow their own moral stance, but this does not undermine the objectivity of social science.
- Value relevance refers to the selection of problems, not to the interpretation of phenomena, and does not affect the scientific validity of findings.
- Parsons stated that once a phenomenon is described, causal relations can be established through a formal schema of proof independent of any value system, except the value of scientific proof.
- Value neutrality must be distinguished from value relevance. Ethical neutrality requires the social scientist to set aside their personal values while conducting research, even if the results contradict their beliefs.
- Value neutrality also involves the disjunction between the world of facts and the world of values—science cannot derive “ought” statements from “is” statements.
- Empirical science can clarify what someone can or wants to do but cannot tell them what they should do.
- Scientific treatment of value judgments may involve understanding and critically analyzing the underlying ideals, but it cannot make moral judgments.
- Weber was opposed to a morality based on science and disagreed with those who used science to advise on adjustment or self-actualization.
- A scientist can evaluate the probable consequences of actions but cannot make value judgments.
- Weber believed science is a vocation for self-clarification and knowledge, not a divine gift or a means to dispense sacred values.
- The realm of moral values involves contradictory ethical notions, and the scientist qua scientist cannot answer the question, “What shall we do?”
- Academic prophecy creates fanatical sects, not genuine community; the scientist should find fulfillment in the quest for truth.
- When asked about his studies, Weber replied, “I wish to know how much I can take,” reflecting his commitment to knowledge over moral guidance.