Max Weber: Social Action | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

• In one of his most important works  Economy and Society Weber said:‘ Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences.’ By making this statement Weber was trying to spell out the precise limits of what could and could not be explained in sociological terms.
• To Weber, a social action was an action carried out by an individual to which a person attached a meaning; an action which, in his words,‘ takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course. Thus an action that a person does not think about cannot be a social action. For example, an accidental collision of bicycles or involuntary cries of pain are not social actions because they are not the result of any conscious thought process. Furthermore, if an action does not take account of the existence and possible reactions of others, it is not social. If a person prays in private, in secrecy, it cannot be a social action as nobody knows about it and the actor could not be taking account of the possible actions of others.

[Intext Question]

Social action and Verstehen

• First, he referred to oktuelles Verstehen, which can roughly be translated as direct observational understanding. For example, it is possible to understand that someone is angry by observing their facial expression. Similarly, it is possible to understand what is happening when a woodcutter hits a piece of wood with an axe that is, the woodcutter is chopping wood. However, this is not, to Weber, a sufficient level of understanding to begin to explain social action.

• The second type of understanding is erklarendes Verstehen, or explanatory understanding. In this case the sociologist must try to understand the meaning of an act in terms of the motives that have given rise to it. Thus erklarendes Verstehen would require an understanding of why the woodcutter was chopping wood. Was it in order to earn a wage, to make a fire, or to work off anger ? To achieve this type of understanding it is necessary to put yourself in the shoes of the person whose behaviour you are explaining. You should imagine yourself in their situation to try to get at the motives behind their actions.

Max Weber's Approach to Causality and Social Action in the Rise of Capitalism

• Even this level of understanding is not sufficient to explain a series of actions or events. For a full causal explanation it is necessary to determine what has given rise to the motives that led to the actions. Here Weber advocated the use of methods closer to a positivist approach. He attempted to discover connections between events and to establish causal relationships. This can be seen from his study  The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
• Weber tried to show that there was a relationship between ascetic Protestantism and capitalism. He claimed ascetic Protestantism  preceded  capitalism  and was found  almost exclusively  in  those countries that became capitalist. Nevertheless, this was not sufficient to convince Weber that there was a  causal connection  between  the  two,  because  it did not establish  how or why  ascetic Protestantism contributed to the rise of capitalism. In order to establish this link, Weber tried to understand the motives of ascetic Protestants for adopting capitalist behaviour. He believed their main motive was to convince themselves that they were predestined to go to heaven.
• Weber's work on the rise of capitalism illustrates his belief that social actions, particularly those involving large numbers of people behaving in similar ways, could lead to large-scale social changes such as the advent of capitalism. Furthermore, even when Weber sounds rather like a structuralist sociologist, he usually insists he is really describing a type of social action. Thus, while society might contain institutions and social groups, these institutions and social groups are composed of individuals engaged in social action. Weber said: When reference is made in a sociological context to a state, a nation, a corporation, a family or an army corps, or to similar collectivities, what is meant is only a certain kind of development of actual or possible social actions of individual persons. 

Social action and bureaucracy

• Weber’s general views on the relationship between institutions and social action can be illustrated by his important work on bureaucracies. Bureaucracies might be seen as institutions that closely control and direct human behaviour or social actions. Although Weber was aware of, and indeed concerned about, the power of bureaucracies in restricting human freedom, he nevertheless saw them  as composed of individuals carrying out social actions. Thus he believed bureaucracies consisted of individuals carrying out rational social actions designed to achieve the goals of bureaucracies.
• Significantly, Weber saw the whole development of modern societies in terms of a move towards rational social action.Thus.to Weber, modern societies were undergoing a process of rationalization, as affective or emotional action and action directed by custom and tradition (traditional action) became less important. Weber’s views on bureaucracy will now be examined in detail.

Bureaucracy and rationalization

• Weber believed bureaucratic organisations were the dominant institutions of industrial society. Weber saw bureaucracy as an organisation with a hierarchy of paid, full-time officials who formed a chain of command. A bureaucracy  is concerned with the business of administration: with controlling, managing and coordinating a complex series of tasks.
• Bureaucratic organisations are increasingly dominating the institutional landscape: departments of state, political parties, business enterprises, the military, education and churches are all organised on bureaucratic lines.
• To appreciate the nature of modern society, Weber maintained that an understanding of the process of bureaucratization is essential. Marxists see fundamental differences between capitalist and socialist industrial societies. To Weber, their differences are minimal compared to the essential similarity of bureaucratic organisation. This s the defining characteristic of modern industrial society.

[Intext Question]

Bureaucracy and rational action

• Affective or emotional action stems from an individiual's emotional state at a particular time.A loss of temper that results in verbal abuse or physical violence is an example of affective action.
• Traditional action is based on established custom. Individuals act in a certain way because of ingrained habit: because things have always been done that way They have no real awareness of why they do something their actions are simply second nature.
• By comparison, rational action involves a clear awareness of a goal: it is the action of a manager who wishes to increase productivity or of a builder contracted to erect a block of flats. In both cases the goal is clearly defined. Rational action also involves a systematic assessment of the various means of attaining a goal and the selection of the most appropriate means to do so. Thus, if a capitalist in the building trade aimed to maximize profit, he or she would carefully evaluate factors such as alternative sites, raw materials, building techniques, labour costs, and the potential market, in order to realize his or her goal. This would entail a precise calculation of costs and the careful weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of the various factors involved. The action is rational since, in Weber’s words, rational action is the methodical attainment of a definitely given and practical end by means of an increasingly precise calculation of means .
• Weber believed rational action had become the dominant mode of action in modern industrial society. He saw it expressed in a wide variety  of areas: in state administration, business, education, science,and even in Western classical music. He referred to the increasing dominance of rational action as the process of rationalization'.
• Bureaucratization is a prime example of this process.  A bureaucratic organisation  has a clearly defined goal. It involves the precise calculation of the means to attain this goal and systematically eliminating those factors that stand in the way of the achievement of its objectives. Bureaucracy is therefore rational action in an institutional form.