Weber
Note: the additional Weber reading is on e-reserve, listed as "Intellectual Orientations" by Mills.Here are some discussion questions. Feel free to begin now, or discuss after tomorrow's lecture:
Marx saw power as one thing, from one source, but Weber, we are told, saw political power and economic power as distinct entities. Why--what is the importance of keeping this distinction?
For Marx, interests drive, define, shape, and perhaps even create ideologies. How does Weber differ on the interest/ideology relationship?
For Marx, 'capitalism' was the central defining institution of modern society. For Weber, it was the 'rational bureaucracy' whether it was a military, a religious organization, a corporation or a government. Why the shift in emphasis?
What is the significance of the concept of 'charisma' to Weber? Why would Marx be skeptical of such a concept?
Weber distinguishes between different types of action and different forms of power:
--rational
--traditional
--affectual
Each of these types of action must be understood as stemming from different forms of power. What is the difference between these types of action, and how can we tell the difference?
Marx accepts the notion of objective interests, while Weber rejects it. Why do they make the choices they make? What are the consequences of those choices?
How does Weber define power (see Power, pg. 29)? How is power different from domination? Why does this distinction matter for Weber?
posted by djw @ 3:29 PM
4 Comments:
What is the significance of 'charisma' to Weber? Why would Marx be skeptical of such a concept?
To Weber, the charisma of a particular individual is not that significant, its the legacy or lasting effect of that persons work that is more significant. The followers behind the charismatic character shape the future, into "routinization or bureaucratization." How did that charismatic person contribute to society which then shaped and created current/future systems and orders.
Marx: Marx would be skeptical because he believes that a systematic change doesn’t start with a charismatic leader but with the proletariat, the workers or the ruled. As a collective entity, the masses start and finish the revolution.
Weber distinguishes between different types of action and different forms of power:
Rational: "pursuit of absolute ends"
Traditional: "instinctual conduct"
Affectual: "flows purely from sentiment. . .less rational . . ." ('sentiment'- I could use clarification)
Actions can be broken down as rational or irrational. Where one action lies, is in its relationship between the means and the end.
However, what determines rational and irrational, what means are justifiable and for what end? - These are subjective terms that take on effectual meaning only when there is group consensus, and even then there is resistance to the status quo.
Marx accepts the notion of objective interests, while Weber rejects it. Why do they make the choices they make? What are the consequences of those choices?
Marx: Argued that people are blind to the causes of their actions and instead "rationalize" them, which ends up establishing a "false consciousness."
Why does Marx believe in a unseen guiding hand? I find it ironic considering he wrote "religion is the opiate of the masses." A contradiction in his argument perhaps?
Weber: Focused on the "subjective interests of the actor" and the quantification of specific events and actors.
The consequence of this method is that Weber tries hard to rationalize, placing events in camp A or camp B. It would seem that instead of studying an event and reasoning out why it occurred, he brought his theory to the event and explained it that way. Quantifying with absolutes is dangerous because systems are dynamic and history is seldom made up of a set of particular factors. (I wonder weather or not Weber was trying so hard that he created a self fulfilling prophesy in his argumentations, to the effect that he was blind to the truth. If you've seen the movie "pie" you know what I mean.)
Weber saw political power and economic power as distinct entities and it was important to keep this distinction because it was important to distinguish political authority from other forms, as a unique form of power in a historical and analytical sense. 'Economic relevance' is important to Weber, and in the reading he thinks Marx is less careful in distinguishing between economic and political power.
Weber defines power in different forms. Rational bureaucratic power can be found in the government, military, or religion. There was a shift from traditional authority to modern authority. Modern world rules are written down, but seem bizarre. While traditional world rules are not written down, and were not based on any formal institution but based on family, friends etc.
Tim Allar
For Weber, the importance of keeping economic and political power separate comes down to this: Weber beliefed that a nation can be motivated to participate in some kind of conquest, and while they will gain economically from that endeavor, it is not necessarily motivated by economic desires but perhaps just to export "religious or political ideas."
It also seems to me that Weber is not affraid to take many factors into account when it comes to analyzing the state and what motivates them. He refers to the state as a monopoly that is successful at implementing legitimate force over a nation in the areas of economic and military stability (implyed as necessesary for survival. With this understanding, he does not hesitate to include factors that may affect or alter this end by mentioning that a nations geography will shift the emphasis on the style of government.
Weber differs from Marx on the interest/idiology relationship in this way: While Marx thought that interests drive, define, shape and create idiologies, Weber thought that interests and idiologies were in reality not really connected as Marx here suggests. Weber uses a "debunking technique" to reveal that ideological assertions of a state are just a cover up for self centered "less respectable" interests.
He shows his skeptical side by really suggesting that a nation can't really be a force for good. This may be my inference but he follows this discussion about intersts and idiologies by saying that "At best there sill be strong socialist nation-states energetically exploiting weaker states."
Weber emphasized that capitalism was a "rational bureaucracy" less than he did that it was a "defining
institution" as Marx did because be felt that with every structured organization, capitalism naturally spured these institutions to be efficient and compell man to be productive.
For Weber, a rational bureacracy is central for defining the institution of a modern society. This is because, for Weber, there will be a new organizational form found in the state, churches, military etc. In a traditional society decisions are based on ties, loyalties, long standing practices, and social networks. Also, rules are known by all but not written down. Weber believes this will all shift in a modern society. Instead there will be a formal rule base for decisions. This means that power will shift from people to rules, regulations and technicalities. While this system may appear inefficient, it also has the potential to create great efficiency. Also, in a modern society all the rules will be written down, but not as commonly known or understood as they are in a traditional society.
Post a Comment
<< Home