Max Weber Theory

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.

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.

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.

In class, we talked about discrimination in society through economic inequality with Marx, and then with Durkheim. We discussed the positive viewing of individualism in society through inequality. Max Weber is comparable to Karl Marx because they both focus on inequality and capitalism. However, unlike Marx, Weber views the uneconomic actions in society. He has an interpretive view, and as an interpretive sociologist, this means he focuses on the concerns of the society itself and not the people

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.

Max Weber is considered to be one of the first organization theorists. He theorized “the

Marx says, “Freeman and slave . . . e…lord and serf . . . …in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried an uninterrupted . . . d…fight.ht….” (McIntosh, 1997). In current world terms, Marx is telling us that when one person has power (whether that is physical, economic, educational or simply perceived) you naturally have a social class system based on inequality. One person is the one “in charge” and the other would be the one who is receiving the orders. There can be no equality in a system where the members of the society do not perceive each other as equals.

To finalize, the works of Weber were powerfully reforming to culture today. Ironically, just because his theories provide new ways of thinking doesn’t mean they don’t have flaws. For instance, Weber’s view of protestant’s affected his research which clearly would make his theory never realistic. This new knowledge would make anyone frustrated towards Weber’s ignorance. On the other hand, some of Weber’s theories provides reasoning of why the world is as it is today. In detail, Weber’s theory of Legitimacy points out how there are three eras of reign that still exist in some form today. On that note, the amount of charismatic authority there was and is will intrigue people. Clearly, though Weber has his flaws, sociology still continues to

Weber's view towards history is that it is not a series of staged progressions. As such his view towards Capitalism was not in accordance to Marx and Engels.

The word bureaucracy derived from “bureau” and “cracy”. The word “bureau” means office or desk and “cracy”means power or rule. Thus bureaucracy means desk government.

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.

The concept of power has been a topic of interest of many sociologists as they seek to define the term. Ensuring that the exercise of power is legitimate is a key integral to the concept of power in present day. However, although the power is seen as legitimate, it also has to be exercised appropriately as; ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (Dalberg-Acton, 1907: 504). Max Weber and Hannah Arendt are two sociologists whose ideology of what the concept of power is, are at the opposite ends of a pole. It is different in the fact that both theories approach different aspects of power. Weber’s account of power is more associated with everyday understanding and use of power, whereas Arendt’s account of power focuses more on power as a tool when speaking and acting in concert (Goverde H. & Lentner H, 2000).

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

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