23 Feb In what ways do you use the method of verstehen in your own life? In other words, how do you engage the process of figuring out what is going on in other peoples heads? Think about it. It mi

sociology multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

This is the first discussion forum. Please post your answers (by replying to this post)) to the questions at the end of the Instructor’s Comments before 11:59 PM Tuesday evening. The deadline to complete reading others’ posts and making your replies is 11:59 PM on Wednesday evening.
Discussion Questions:
(1) In what ways do you use the method of verstehen in your own life? In other words, how do you engage the process of figuring out what is going on in other peoples heads? Think about it. It might not be as foreign a concept as it appears on the surface. Give examples.
(2) Weber’s conceptualizes rationalization as an historical force that is shaping society. Rationalization is present in all efforts to produce efficiencies through reproducing the same set of human relationships, tasks, and experiences across time and place. What are two or three examples of “rationalization” that affect your day-to-day experiences?
Requirements: NA
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 1 Instructor’s Comments Topic 9: Max Weber: Meaning, Social Action, and Social Change This topic focuses on the sociological theories and methods of Max Weber (pronounced VAY-ber?). Many consider him one of the giants of sociological theory (along with Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim) and he gets quite a bit of attention in mainstream theory texts. We certainly are not flowing down the mainstream, but his ideas do merit careful consideration because they have been very influential to the discipline. In addition, he offered an interesting and persuasive view of both sociologys proper subject matter and the research methods he encouraged sociologists to use. These views have been especially influential in the development of social psychology and interpretive sociology. My comments will first address his views on sociology’s appropriate subject matter and methods. I will then describe a few of his more influential theories of society. Sociology’s Subject Matter: Social Action Weber’s conception of sociology’s subject matter reflects his assumptions about what drives human behavior and, thus, society. Unlike Durkheim, Weber was very interested in the roles that individual actions play in the unfolding of social history (if you are curious about this line of thought, I highly recommend reading Leo Tolstoys novels, especially War and Peace, and/or Victor Hugos commentary about the battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables). Weber’s ultimate goal was to produce theories of society and social relations that gave us some deeper sense of the various factors that led to any particular social event, organization, etc. Integral to this understanding, for Weber, was a deep understanding of what accounted for the actions of the people who were experiencing/creating the social situation (whether it be a large-scale social organization or the relations between friends and lovers). This orientation forced Weber to consider the factors that explained individual behavior. Weber argued that human behavior was unique (compared to the behavior of other species) in that our actions were primarily the result of the meanings that we gave to stimuli in our environment. Working in the shadow of learning theorists in psychology (e.g., Pavlov), Weber argued that the “stimulus-response rules” that governed animal behavior were too simplistic to explain human actions. In the case of humans, we might associate certain responses with specific stimuli (like studying (response) when presented with an exam (stimulus), but that our responses usually are shaped by the meanings that we give the stimulus. For example, some people might view the exam as a threat to their identity and thus study hard, while others might see the exam as a manifestation of capitalist exploitation and refuse to study and/or take the exam. Thus, where we might think of other species’ behavior as reflecting the association of
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 2 stable responses with specific stimuli (stimulus => response), human behavior involves the intervention of meaning before an action is selected (stimulus => meaning => response). Therefore, Weber’s view was that to understand a society, one must understand the behaviors of actors in that society. The only way to understand why people do what they do is to gain an understanding of the meanings that people give to the stimuli in the social setting. Aha!!! We have here the seeds from which one can develop an interpretive sociology–a discipline that must pay keen attention to the role of meanings (and subjectivity) in shaping social reality. From this perspective, the discipline of Sociology should attend primarily to the ways meanings both guide behavior and emerge from social interaction. The title of this section declares that Weber advocated that sociologists study “social action.” How does that relate to his concern with meaning? Well, Weber argued that any meaningful response (i.e., not just a reflex) to a stimulus must reflect the prior social experiences in which the actor learned the meanings they now associate with the stimulus in question. Whew! Did you follow that one? Here is another go at it: people are not born with a set of meanings for the world, instead they learn to give meanings to things through interacting with others. Anything that is subjectively meaningful must have become so as the result of earlier social experiences. If meanings guide most human responses to stimuli, then social interaction is the root of human behavior. Weber used this logic to argue that most human behavior is social action.? In making this argument, Weber outlined what he saw as the subject matter for sociological inquiry: the social processes of meaning making and their impacts on the individual and social behaviors. Sociological Methods: Verstehen Weber advocated that the goal sociological inquiry should be to ascertain the meanings that ultimately explain behavior and the resulting social formations. In other words, sociologists should make every attempt to uncover the meanings that guide social action. Weber attempted to spell out how sociologists could uncover these meanings using what he referred to as the method of verstehen (meaning “to understand” in German). Central to this method was a deep exploration of both the individual’s meanings (when the sociologist had access to the individuals involved in what s/he was studying) and of the available meanings that existed culturally. This exploration required very intimate knowledge of the situation, from both the microscopic views of the actors and the macroscopic views of the entire culture. One really needed to know what meanings were possible (cultural analysis) as well as the idiosyncratic meanings that any individual might have had based on her/his prior biographical experiences. As you might imagine, Weber’s brand of sociology is very time intensive. It requires that the sociologist gain an encyclopedic knowledge of the culture(s) that one is examining, as well as the unique biographies of the social actors.
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 3 One of the consequences of the verstehen approach is that flies in the face of the scientific emphasis on objectivity because subjectivity lies at the heart of the analysis. Weber, however, did not completely reject positivism because he believed that social phenomena have a clear line of prior causal events/behaviors. What he argued was that the causes of the actions (objective events) were meanings (subjectively experienced). This meant that sociologists had to do the hard work of explaining the causes of behavior by thoroughly understanding the meanings that the actor(s) gave to the underlying stimuli (applying verstehen). Using this kind of understanding the sociologist could then map out the casual chains linking prior social experience, meanings, and behaviors. Webers line of argument leads to an interesting philosophical question: if objective events (behaviors) are the result of unobservable subjective processes, what is the foundation of reality?? Is reality some singular thing we all inhabit, which is objectively observable or, at least, measurable, and agreed upon by multiple observers? Or is reality? something less clear cut, less universal, residing in the imaginative realm of each of our own subjective thoughts, feelings, and perceptions? It turns out this question is an important one that will help explain some of the theories we will be examining later in the course. Some of Webers More Influential Theories I will now move on to examine a few of Max Weber’s more influential insights. He was quite prolific, so it is difficult to decide just which of his insights to explore. I made my choices to reflect what I think have been his most enduring legacies to the field. The first insights I chose are his theories about what holds social groups together and what leads to social changes (recall that these were central questions in Durkheims work on social solidarity). Theory of Social Order and Change One could argue that Max Weber’s primary goal in his sociological work was to provide a scientific account of the origin and development of modern Western societies. He seemed very preoccupied with trying to understand just how in the world social life (and individual thought and action) had taken such a remarkably dismal turn. Like most of the other sociological theorists we have discussed, Weber was unhappy with current social conditions and hoped to offer people a way to begin improving their lot. Keep in mind that Weber viewed society as a dialectic (of sorts) between individual subjectivity (which leads to the behaviors that constitute society) and larger social structural and cultural processes. Society reflects the behavior of social actors who act based on the meanings they give to their situations, and these meanings derive from their interactions with other social actors. I hope that last sentence does not make you dizzy?but it is worth a few minutes meditation.
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 4 Have you finished meditating? Okay, let me try to paint a little clearer picture. Weber was arguing that there is a dialectical relationship between ideas and social structures. Remember how Marx and Hegel used dialectical reasoning to make their cases. In Webers view, ideas cannot exist without social cultures and structures. Think about it: social structures and cultures cannot exist without the ideas and ways of thinking that support them. Conversely, thoughts, ideas, and meanings shape the patterning of behaviors that we come to think of as social structure. Therefore, these ideas come from the very social structures that we create with our behaviors, but these behaviors reflect the ideas we carry around in our heads (which come from the cultures and structures we inhabit?). Still dizzy. Still going in circles. Of course, we are not just social robots, are we? Are our hopes, dreams, thoughts, feelings, and actions just a reflection of the ideas that circulate within our culture? Is there no room for free will and individuality? If there is no free will, how is social change possible? Weber left room for creative social change by arguing that people are not completely programmed by society but have agency (the ability to think and act somewhat autonomously from cultural ideas). Though constrained by cultural ideas (Marx’s false consciousness or Gilman’s “wrong ideas”), it was possible, in Weber’s view, for people to think and behave “outside the box.” In fact, it was the ability to think outside the box that led to social change. What was Weber so concerned about?? Was it capitalism? Sexism? Racism? For Weber, the most pressing problem facing Western societies was an evolution of ideas and social structures that were increasingly dehumanizing. The main culprit was something he referred to as “rationalization.” He saw rationalization as ultimately undermining human agency, the quality of thought (and behavior), and, ultimately, human society. I will discuss his views on this process below. The Rationalization of Society Before you go any further, I’d like you to read a quote from Max Weber’s Gesammelte Aufsaetze zur Soziologie and Sozialpolitik. In this passage he describes his vision of the modern person: someone laboring within a bureaucratic structure, whose thoughts and behaviors come to be more and more centered on moving up (or down) the chain of positions within the bureaucracy. For Weber, the bureaucracy represented the leading edge of social structural changes that were being driven by increasing rationalization in society. In his words: “Imagine the consequences of that comprehensive bureaucratization and rationalization which already today we see approaching. Already now, throughout private enterprise in wholesale manufacture, as well as in all other economic enterprises run on modern lines, Rechenhaftigkeit, rational calculation, is manifest at every stage. By it, the performance of each individual worker is mathematically measured, each man (sic) becomes a little cog in the machine and, aware of this, his one preoccupation is whether he can become a bigger cog…. The problem which besets us now is not: how can this
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 5 evolution be changed?–for that is impossible, but: what will come of it? We willingly admit that there are honorable and talented men at the top of our administration; that in spite of all the exceptions such people have opportunities to rise in the official hierarchy, just as the universities, for instance claim that, in spite of all the exceptions, they constitute a chance of selection for talent. But horrible as the thought is that the world may one day be peopled with professors (laughter)–we would retire on to a desert island if such a thing were to happen (laughter)–it is still more horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those little cogs, little men (sic) clinging to little jobs and striving towards bigger ones–a state of affairs which is to be seen once more, as in the Egyptian records, playing an ever-increasing part in the spirit of our present administrative system, and specially in its offspring, the students. It is…as if we were deliberately to become men who need “order” and nothing but order, who become nervous and cowardly if for one moment this order wavers and helpless if they are torn away from their total incorporation in it. That the world should know no men but these: it is in such an evolution that are already caught up, and the great question is therefore not how we can keep a portion of mankind free from this parceling-out of the soul, from this supreme mastery of the bureaucratic way of life. The answer to this question today clearly does not lie here.? Max Weber, from Gesammelte Aufsaetze zur Soziologie and Sozialpolitik. What did Weber mean by rationalization? He was mainly referring to the process of rational calculation: trying to gain the greatest efficiencies in service of producing some desired end. He argued that rational calculation had become the central cultural ethic driving the development of industrialized (primarily capitalist) countries. [Note: Whatever you do, though, dont confuse Webers meaning of rationalization (seeking economic efficiencies), with the psychological rationalization?which is the process of finding justifications (excuses) for things one does or is considering doing (e.g., Xavi rationalized that it was OK that he ate the entire cake alone by telling himself that his roommates probably wouldnt be hungry when they came home anyway).] Webers views on the power of economic rationalization to shape society isn’t that far from Marx’ notion that the capitalist profit motive was the key determinant of the structure of society and individuals’ thoughts and actions. The key difference between the two theorists is that where Marx saw material conditions (especially class conflict) as having produced capitalism (as well as all prior exploitive economic arrangements), Weber emphasized the primacy of ideas. Part of Weber’s contribution to sociological theory was the recognition that ideas could emerge, somewhat independently, from material conditions that could shape the future development of material living conditions. Weber’s most important insights about the role that ideas play in social evolution can be found in his work: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this book,
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 6 he takes on Marx’s ideas (somewhat indirectly) by arguing that one could explain the emergence of capitalism because of the emergence of particular religious ideas (rather than because of class conflict between the landed aristocracy and peasants). His basic argument was that a particular idea in Calvinism led people to become much more interested in producing wealth than they had been in earlier times. The idea Weber identified was the belief that one’s eternal fate (whether going to heaven or not) was pre-determined before birth. This belief, in Weber’s thinking, led to incredible anxiety among Calvinists, who would be obsessed with discovering any signs of their eternal status while they were on earth. To make a long story short, Calvinists came to believe that one’s successes (especially economic) were signs from God that one was “elect” (going to heaven). So, this led people to value things like thrift, productivity, and efficiency. Weber argues that the emphasis on these values pervaded Western cultures and promoted the development of Capitalism. But capitalism was only one manifestation of the “protestant ethic.” The more pervasive legacy, according to Weber, was the ethic of rationalization (increasing efficiency). Certainly, one can think of the profit motive as one manifestation of rationalization–the more efficient an organization becomes, the greater the potential profit. But rationalization is more encompassing according to Weber. It becomes part of our thoughts and actions. We think of our lives as problems of minimizing inefficiencies. We become obsessed with time management, productivity, maximizing rewards, etc. The notion of “free time” becomes obsolete as we try to cram as many activities as possible into smaller and smaller units of time. We think only of getting through our daily activities in the most efficient manner possible. And on and on goes the Weberian nightmare. One of the key innovations of rationalizations is the bureaucracy. This is a way to structure the relations between people in the most efficient way possible. Each “cog” in the bureaucratic gears is designed to interlock with other cogs in ways that maximize output and minimize “waste.” Each cog is defined by a set of specific tasks and responsibilities that the “cog-holder” must perform. Each of these tasks then dovetail with other tasks performed by other people. Weber was concerned that this form of relations was pervading society, and therefore, the human psyche. George Ritzer has produced a very interesting application of Weber’s ideas in his book: The MacDonaldization of Society. In this book, Ritzer argues that rationalization has reached its pinnacle in organizations like MacDonalds that produce incredible efficiencies through reproducing the same set of human relationships, tasks, and experiences in each of its millions of restaurants throughout the world. This rationalization produces a kind of “sameness” and predictability that allows innovations to spread throughout the organization quickly (imagine that someone at the MacDonald’s University discovers a way to shave 1/10 second off the time it takes to cook one of their burgers?that innovation can be spread quickly to every restaurant, resulting in a time savings of millions of seconds per day?and greater profits).
SOC 320: Sociological Theory Robert E. L. Roberts Copyright ? 2023. Robert E. L. Roberts. All rights reserved Page 7 I think this is a useful and powerful image. Weber saw rationalization as something that would continue to move forward, reshaping society and individual consciousness in more destructive ways, unless the ideas could be supplanted with more humanistic notions. Other theorists we’ll read later (like Habermas) take his idea a bit further. I’d like you to just take some time to think about Weber’s vision, read Seidman, and then join the discussion forum. Discussion Questions: (1) In what ways do you use the method of verstehen in your own life? In other words, how do you engage the process of figuring out what is going on in other peoples heads? Think about it. It might not be as foreign a concept as it appears on the surface. Give examples. (2) Weber’s conceptualizes rationalization as an historical force that is shaping society. Rationalization is present in all efforts to produce efficiencies through reproducing the same set of human relationships, tasks, and experiences across time and place. What are two or three examples of “rationalization” that affect your day-to-day experiences?

Related Tags