Instrumental-Rational Social Action According To Max Weber

In the essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor,” Garret Hardin addresses the weakness of our current society with the long pondered questions of “who gets to live the happy life,” and if so, “why are others born just fated to suffer?” These questions reveal to readers how “bias/corrupt” society has become, especially in global affairs. If one really checks under the radar of international activities it is easy to see how skewed the worldwide trade system is towards lining the pockets of those in power. The rich only get richer while the poor are exploited and destitute. People have long condemned such discrimination/manipulation of those of apparent “weaker and or vulnerable” members of society. Yet, at the same time, the

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.

He contended that they were characterized by social conflict and he additionally presented the “thought of the working class which he saw as comprising of those occupations bunches with capabilities and aptitudes that furnished them with business points of interest. In Weber's perspective, advanced society, particularly the Western world, is developing progressively think. As the reader will see, Weber viewed organization as a definitive case of justification. Consequently, Weber can be seen as being centrally concerned with the rationalization of society all in all and, all the more particularly, its

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred to in some way in today’s contemporary world using examples of differing political leaders and systems. However, Weber’s writings were conducted in 1922 and may be considered as out-dated, and not as relevant as they were at his time of writing. Also, many dispute that Weber’s types of authority were perhaps not entirely relatable and Martin Spencer, like many other critics of Weber’s work in fact argue that there should have been four types of authority. Hence why these issues must be discussed in order to conclude whether Weber’s ideal types of authority are representative of political leaders and governments, and whether or not they can be associated with the contemporary world we live in today.

According to Max Weber, the economic and technological relationships that organized and most importantly grew out of the capitalistic production became fundamental forces in the society. This means that one has to adapt to the society that he/she was born into in regards to the division of labor, and the hierarchical social structure. When analyzed, this theory shows that it is difficult for one to envision a life that is alternative to what they were born into.

The article presents Weber’s argument regarding social stratification in contrast to Marx’s. In his discussion of his theory of social stratification, he outlines three ways in which society is divided: by class (economically), status (socially) and by party (ideologically). He argues that the individual identity is not determined by the class identity, and that status and party identities often cross class divisions.

The Social Action Theory and Symbolic Interactionism Max Weber believed that individuals were the key to society. He developed social action theory, the purpose of which was to find out why individuals function in certain ways. He thought that every social action performed by an individual had a meaning attached to it. Social actions are the result of conscious thought processes that take into consideration the reactions of other individuals. Weber identified four types of social action which include, reason (an instrumentally rational or calculated action), value or rational action (determined by belief), emotion or effectual action (dependent upon the feelings of the individual), and traditional

Weber argued that modern societies are characterized increasingly by a process of rationalization meaning that the world is increasingly governed by rationality in which tradition and affective forms of action are replaced by predominantly rational forms. This leads to disenchantment being seen as secularization, including the progressive disposal of non-rational elements from all spheres of life.  Weber feared that this process of rationalization would drive out the warmth and humanity of social life, the very things that give meaning to human existence.

In Garrett Hardin’s essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Hardin asks readers if every person on earth has an equal share of resources and then argues why he takes the position against helping the poor. Hardin uses the metaphor of a lifeboat that is almost filled to capacity, floating in an ocean where the “poor of the world” are overboard. This metaphor appeals greatly to one of humanities greatest instincts, survival. The main focus of Hardin’s essay and metaphor is to strip all morals, take the fault from the rich nations and place the responsibilities and blame on the poor. There are a few rebels who seem to think that the blame and responsibilities are incorrectly placed. One of these rebels is Alan Durning who presents his argument in his essay “Asking How Much is Enough.” Durning argues that overpopulation does not threaten the world’s resources. He believes the real culprit is overconsumption by the rich. Joseph K. Skinner is another rebel who argues against Hardin in his essay “Big Mac and the Tropical Forests.” Skinner argues that wealthy nations, including the United States, are responsible for the world’s resource problem because they use poor nations as main producers of goods they expend. The arguments made in the essays’ by Durning and Skinner make readers alert of Hardin’s rhetorical strategies and how he uses his

Instrumental rationality is a mode of thought and action that identifies problems and works directly towards their solution. An example would be an adult in his early 20s who is in a tight spot financially, for example struggling to make ends meet, living from paycheck to paycheck wishes. Thus he wishes to make a large substantial sum of money to uplift himself from his situation, in what he and society would term the working poor. Due to his plight he wishes to be financially free as fast as

The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and wars of religion and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any.

Karl Marx and Marx Weber The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved

Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.

The social theories that I find particularly insightful in the study of cities are the Durkheim and Weber classical theories. Durkheim’s theory argues that societies are held together by social cement known as collective consciousness, which forms a moral basis of team spirit. In contrast, the emergent society is characterized by change, complexity and demands division of labor among individuals in the society. According to Durkheim, complex societies gave rise to social interactions or moral density among individuals. Durkheim believed that division of labor arises from increasing moral density in the society. Consequently, cities arise from the need of people to remain in close contact with each other and to uphold collective consciousness (Bounds 7).

Rationalization is the most general element of Weber's theory. As per this theory, Weber saw the modern society as a growing rationalized society. People were moving away from the traditional beliefs which were based on superstitions, custom and religion. More and more people now started engaging in rational and instrumental calculations. This led to the development of science, modern technology and bureaucracy. Bureaucracy was regarded as an example of rationality by Weber. A capitalist society has more bureaucracy which leads to it being more rationalized. This happens because in a capitalist society you need bureaucracy at all levels as you need to make sure you are managing the society well. The more advanced the society becomes, more the laws develop. But at the same time Weber believed that rationalization is an iron cage. The reasons are pretty obvious. A rationalized society has way too many laws. Too much regulation at every level makes the people feel like they've been kept in a