Impact Of Max Weber's Theories Of Society

Before discussing Marx and Weber’s theories we must look at their upbringing and who has influenced their works. Karl Marx was born in West Germany in a small business city called Trier, in 1818 (Karl Marx, Intro. to Part III, Pg.135). Karl Marx was the son of a rich family and

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

Max Weber was a German sociologist who first described the concept of bureaucracy, an ideal form of organizational structure. He defines bureaucratic administration as the exercise of control on the

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

Marx and Weber’s characteristics of modern societies were different. Marx stressed capitalism and class conflict and Weber stressed rationalization and bureaucracy.  Marx and Weber identified problems within modern society.  Marx had a generally optimistic view about the future and believed his theory could improve human conditions. Weber on the other hand was more pessimistic.

Max Weber concluded that the formation of a government bureaucracy is critical to its success in administrating public goods and the interests of the government. The disadvantages and advantages are numerous on both sides of bureaucratic theory. One of the major cons of bureaucracy is the system of patronage. The patronage system is basically where the president appoints individuals to certain positions as Public Administrators as a reward for their service to them. This system of bureaucracy also supports the spoils system which runs along the lines of political parties. In this system all Public Administrators are fired by the new political party in office to ensure their ideals and agenda are promoted.

Some have seriously misinterpreted Weber and have claimed that he liked bureaucracy, that he believed that bureaucracy was an "ideal" organization. Others have pronounced Weber "wrong" because bureaucracies do not live up to his list of "ideals". Others have even claimed that Weber "invented" bureaucratic organization. But Weber described bureaucracy as an “ideal type” in order to more accurately describes their growth in power and scope in the modern world. His studies of bureaucracy still form the core of organizational sociology.

Bureaucracy is ahierarchical organization which follows strict rules and regulations in achieving desired goals and which has tendency to gain supremacy over other organizations. Famous German sociologist theorized ideal- type of bureaucracy. Max Weber thought bureaucracy is the highest efficient organization which falls under legal rational authority. Soon after the theory came out, like other theory, ideal-type bureaucracy theory encountered severe criticisms.Alvin Gouldner, Robert Merton, Phillip Selznick, Peter Blau are some of them who criticized the ideal-type of bureaucracy.

Weber states that organizations regulations are formed by few people and this people are the boss, administration employee who tends to have representation powers (Roth and Wittich, 1968). Weber states that the state tends to use bureaucracy on its people in order to establish authority. Bureaucracy is present in various areas in the environment and once bureaucracy is produced then it becomes difficult to

Weber’s bureaucratic approach focuses on the importance of hierarchy by putting great emphasis on the use of rules, procedures and making impartial personnel decisions when managing. He put great emphasis on the jurisdiction, explaining that work should be “divided according to type and purpose” staying within the correct working unit just as the organization’s rules and laws would state (Milakovich, et. al., 2013, p. 146). A hierarchy would be established with a chain of command clearly identifying a system of super- and

While he highlights a lot of positives, he also saw a lot of issues within bureaucracy. Webers’ bureaucracy is a bottom line model that values calculable decision making over all else. Within this model are the people, or parts, that can be replaced if they cause a decrease in productivity. The issue becomes that the rationalized view of bureaucratic systems is unable to see individuals and respond to individual needs. There is a format and if someone does not fit in, or if they begin to fall behind, there is no understanding or support. His argument is that the bureaucratization of our world has made it depersonalized.

Max Weber a German sociologist born in 1864. He was primarily concerned with the modern western society. He saw that the behaviour of individuals was increasingly

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920) are two remarkable founding fathers of Sociology. Both of them spent huge effort to study the rise of capitalist society. Marx created conflict theory paradigm called Marxism while Weber inspired the symbolic interactionism, both paradigm are still influential nowaday. This paper would try to discuss the differences and similarities of their understanding of the historical development of capitalist society; their view on social stratification on capitalist society and their understanding on the operation and future prediction of the capitalist society in three parts.

This essay has more humble ambitions. Although it takes issue in the final section with part of the exhaustive view laid out by Portis, this essay does not purport to put forth yet another definitive interpretation of Weber's views on objectivity. Rather it seeks to shed light on Weber's view of the applicability of objectivity by attempting to answer the overarching question that sits at the foundation of those posed above: Was Weber an advocate of value-free social science?

Although his theories are now considered mechanistic and outdated, Weber's views on bureaucracy provided important insight into efficiency, division of labor, and the hierarchy of authority. Post industrial revolutionary America began to adopt a less mechanical view of organizations and to pay more attention to human influences. The notable Hawthorne experiments shed light on the function of human fulfillment in organizations and were conducted in the mid 1920s and 1930s at a Western Electric Company plant known as the Hawthorne Works. The company wanted to determine the degree to which working conditions affected output.