M Weber identifies four types of social action. Theory of social action M

In order to enter into social relationships with each other, individuals must first of all act. It is from specific actions and actions of specific people that the history of society is formed.

Empirically, it seems that any human behavior is an action: a person acts when he does something. In reality this is not the case, and many behaviors will not be actions. For example, when we run away from danger in panic, without clearing the road, we do not act. Here we are simply talking about behavior under the influence of passion.

Action— ϶ᴛᴏ active behavior of people, based on rational goal-setting and aimed at changing objects in order to maintain or change their condition.

Since the action is purposeful, it differs from non-purposeful behavior in that the person clearly understands what he is doing and why. Affective reactions, panic, and the behavior of an aggressive crowd cannot be called actions. In the mind of a person who acts clearly, the goal and the means to achieve it are distinguished. Of course, in practice it is not always the case that a person immediately clearly and accurately defines a goal and correctly chooses the means to achieve it. Many actions are complex in nature and consist of elements with varying degrees of rationality.
For example, many familiar labor operations are so familiar to us due to repeated repetition that we can perform them almost mechanically. Who hasn't seen women knitting and talking or watching TV at the same time? Even at the level of making responsible decisions, much is done out of habit, by analogy. Let us note that every person has skills that he has not thought about for a long time, although during the learning period he had a good idea of ​​their expediency and meaning.

Not every action will be social. M. Weber defines social action as follows: “Social action... correlates in its meaning with the behavior of other subjects and is oriented towards it.” In other words, an action becomes social when its goal-setting affects other people or is conditioned by their existence and behavior. In this case, it does not matter whether this particular action brings benefit or harm to other people, whether others know that we have performed this or that action, whether the action is successful or not (an unsuccessful, disastrous action can also be social) In the concept of M. Weber sociology acts as a study of actions focused on the behavior of others. For example, seeing the barrel of a gun pointed at himself and the aggressive expression on the face of the person taking aim, any person understands the meaning of his actions and the impending danger due to the fact that he mentally puts himself in his place. We use an analogy with ourselves in order to understand goals and motives.

Subject of social action denoted by the term “social actor”. In the functionalist paradigm, social actors are understood as individuals performing social roles. In the theory of actionism by A. Touraine, actors are social groups that direct the course of events in society in accordance with their interests. It is worth noting that they influence social reality by developing a strategy for their actions. Strategy is about choosing goals and means to achieve them. Social strategies can be individual or come from social organizations or movements. The scope of application of the strategy is any sphere of social life.

In reality, the actions of a social actor are never entirely the result of manipulation of external social

by the forces of his conscious will, neither a product of the current situation, nor an absolutely free choice. Social action is the result of a complex interaction of social and individual factors. A social actor always acts within the framework of a specific situation with a limited set of possibilities and therefore cannot be absolutely free. But since his actions according to this structure will be a project, i.e. planning means in relation to a goal that has not yet been realized, then they have a probabilistic, free character. An actor can abandon a goal or reorient to another, albeit within the framework of its situation.

The structure of social action necessarily contains the following elements:

• actor;
• the actor's need, which is the immediate motive for action;
• action strategy (a conscious goal and means of achieving it);
• the individual or social group to whom the action is oriented;
• end result (success or failure)

T. Parsons called the totality of elements of social action its coordinate system.

Max Weber's Understanding Sociology

For creativity Max Weber(1864-1920), a German economist, historian and outstanding sociologist, is characterized primarily by deep penetration into the subject of research, the search for initial, basic elements with the help of which one could come to an understanding of the laws of social development.

Weber’s means of generalizing the diversity of empirical reality is the concept of “ideal type.” The “ideal type” is not simply extracted from empirical reality, but is constructed as a theoretical model, and only then is correlated with empirical reality. For example, the concepts of “economic exchange”, “capitalism”, “craft”, etc. are exclusively ideal-typical constructions used as a means of depicting historical formations.

Unlike history, where specific events localized in space and time are explained causally (causal-genetic types), the task of sociology is to establish general rules for the development of events regardless of the spatiotemporal definition of these events. As a result, we obtain pure (general) ideal types.

Sociology, according to Weber, must be “understanding” - since the actions of the individual, the “subject” of social relations, will be meaningful. And meaningful (intended) actions and relationships contribute to understanding (anticipating) their consequences.

Types of social action according to M. Weber

It is important to note that one of the central points of Weber’s theory is the identification of an elementary particle of individual behavior in society - social action, which will be the cause and consequence of a system of complex relationships between people. “Social action,” according to Weber, is an ideal type, where “action” is the action of a person who associates subjective meaning (rationality) with it, and “social” is an action, which, according to the meaning assumed by its subject, correlates with the action of other persons and focuses on them. The scientist identifies four types of social action:

• purposeful- using certain expected behavior of other people to achieve goals;
• value-rational - understanding behavior and action as intrinsically value-based, based on moral norms and religion;
• affective - especially emotional, sensual;
• traditional- based on the force of habit, the accepted norm. In a strict sense, affective and traditional actions will not be social.

Society itself, according to Weber's teaching, is a collection of acting individuals, each of whom strives to achieve their own goals.
It is worth noting that meaningful behavior, as a result of which individual goals are achieved, leads to the fact that a person acts as a social being, in association with others, thus ensuring significant progress in interaction with the environment.

Scheme 1. Types of social action according to M. Weber

Weber deliberately arranged the four types of social action he described in order of increasing rationality. The material was published on http://site
This order, on the one hand, serves as a kind of methodological device for explaining the different nature of the subjective motivation of an individual or group, without which it is generally impossible to talk about action oriented toward others; He calls motivation “expectation”; without it, action cannot be considered social. On the other hand, and in this regard, Weber was convinced that the rationalization of social action is at the same time a tendency of the historical process. And although this process does not proceed without difficulties, various kinds of obstacles and deviations, European history of recent centuries. the involvement of other, non-European civilizations on the path of industrialization is evidenced, according to Weber. that rationalization is a world-historical process. “It is important to note that one of the essential components of the “rationalization” of action will be the replacement of internal adherence to customary mores and customs by systematic adaptation to considerations of interest.”

Rationalization, also according to Weber, is a form of development, or social progress, which is carried out within the framework of a certain picture of the world, which is different in history.

Weber identifies three most general types, three ways of relating to the world, which contain fundamental attitudes or vectors (directions) of people’s life activity, their social action.

The first of them is associated with Confucianism and Taoist religious and philosophical views, which became widespread in China; the second - with Hindu and Buddhist, common in India; the third - with Judaism and Christianity, which arose in the Middle East and spread to Europe and America. Weber defines the first type as adaptation to the world, the second as an escape from the world, the third as mastery of the world. These different types of attitudes and lifestyles set the direction for subsequent rationalization, that is, different ways of moving along the path of social progress.

A very important aspect in Weber's work is the study of basic relationships in social associations. First of all, ϶ᴛᴏ concerns the analysis of power relations, as well as the nature and structure of organizations where these relations will be most pronounced.

From the application of the concept of “social action” to the political sphere, Weber derives three pure types of legitimate (recognized) domination:

• legal, - in which both the governed and the managers are subject not to some individual, but to the law;
• traditional- determined primarily by the habits and mores of a given society;
• charismatic- based on the extraordinary abilities of the leader’s personality.

Sociology, according to Weber, should be based on scientific judgments that are as free as possible from various personal preferences of the scientist, from political, economic, and ideological influences.

3. Theory of social action

Weber identifies four types of activities, focusing on the possible real behavior of people in life:

purposeful,

value-rational,

affective,

traditional.

Let us turn to Weber himself: “Social action, like any action, can be defined:

purposefully, that is, through the expectation of a certain behavior of objects in the external world and other people and using this expectation as “conditions” or as a “means” for rationally directed and regulated goals (the criterion of rationality is success);

value-rational, that is, in a conscious belief in the ethical, aesthetic, religious or any other understood unconditional intrinsic value (self-worth) of a certain behavior, taken simply as such and regardless of success;

affectively, especially emotionally - through actual affects and feelings;

traditionally, that is, through habit.”

Ideal Types of Social Action

	Target	Facilities	General characteristic
Purposeful	It is realized clearly and distinctly. Consequences are anticipated and assessed	Adequate (appropriate)	Completely rational. Assumes a rational calculation of the reaction of the environment
Value- rational	The action itself (as an independent value)	Adequate to the given goal	Rationality may be limited - by the irrationality of a given value (ritual; etiquette; dueling code)
Traditional	Minimal goal setting (awareness of the goal)	Habitual	Automatic response to habitual stimuli
Affective	Not realized	Henchmen	The desire for immediate (or as quickly as possible) satisfaction of passion, relieving nervous and emotional tension

3.1 Purposeful behavior

In “Economy and Society” it is called differently: first “rational”, later “target-rational”, which reveals two distinctive features:

1. It is “subjectively goal-rational”, i.e. is conditioned, on the one hand, by a clearly realized purpose of the action, which does not raise doubts regarding its implementation. On the other hand, there is a conscious idea that the action being carried out achieves the goal with the least cost.

2. This action is “correctly oriented”. This assumes that the action we are interested in is consistent with its purpose. This depends on the fact that the subject’s ideas about a given situation - let’s call them conditionally “ontological” knowledge - were correct, as well as ideas about what actions he could use to achieve the intended goal. We will conventionally call these representations “monological” knowledge. Schematically, goal-oriented action can be described thanks to the following determinants:

1. A clear awareness of the goal is crucial here in the sense that undesirable consequences for other subjective goals that may arise in the process of its implementation are called into question. This action is carried out in a given situation with the least expensive means for its implementation.

2. Purposeful rational action can be determined indirectly, thanks to the existence of two special determinants:

a) through correct information about the uniqueness of a given situation and the causal connection of various actions with the implementation of the goal pursued in a given situation, i.e. through correct “ontological” or “nomological” knowledge;

b) thanks to a conscious calculation of the proportionality and consistency of the action being taken based on the available information. This involves at least four operations:

1. Rational calculation of those actions that may be possible with a certain degree of probability. They can also be a means to achieve a goal.

2. Conscious calculation of the consequences of actions that can act as means, and this involves paying attention to those costs and undesirable consequences that may arise due to the frustration of other goals.

3. Rational calculation of the desired consequences of any action, which is also considered as a means. It is necessary to consider whether it is acceptable given the undesirable consequences that arise.

4. Careful comparison of these actions, taking into account which of them lead to the goal with the least cost.

This model must be used when explaining a specific action. At the same time, M. Weber outlines two fundamental classes of deviations from the model of goal-oriented action.

1. The actor proceeds from false information about the situation and about options for action that can lead to the realization of the goal.

2. The actor exhibits value-rational, affective or traditional action, which

a) is not determined through a clear awareness of the goal, calling into question the frustrations of other goals that arise during its implementation. They are characterized through goals that are achieved directly, without taking into account other goals.

b) Not determined by a rational calculation of the proportionality and consistency of action relative to the situation, carried out on the basis of available information. Such actions are seen as a limitation of rationality - the further they deviate from it, the more irrational characteristics they reveal. Therefore, Weber identifies the irrational with the irrational.

So, on the one hand, the basis of value-rational action is a goal, the implementation of which does not take into account the consequences that need to be foreseen. On the one hand, this action is to a certain extent consistent and planned. It follows from the establishment of those imperatives that are responsible for the choice of action alternatives.

Purposeful rationality, according to Weber, is only a methodological, and not an ontological, attitude of a sociologist; it is a means of analyzing reality, and not a characteristic of this reality itself. Weber specifically emphasizes this point: “This method,” he writes, “of course, should not be understood as a rationalistic prejudice of sociology, but only as a methodological means, and, therefore, it should not be considered, for example, as a belief in the actual predominance of the rational principle over life. For it says absolutely nothing about how rational considerations determine actual action in reality.” By choosing purposive-rational action as a methodological basis, Weber thereby dissociates himself from those sociological theories that take social “totalities” as the initial reality, such as “people”, “society”, “state”, “economy”, etc. d. In this regard, he sharply criticizes “organic sociology”, which considers the individual as part of a certain social organism, and strongly objects to considering society according to a biological model: the concept of an organism when applied to society can only be a metamorphosis - nothing more.

The organicist approach to the study of society abstracts from the fact that man is a being who acts consciously. The analogy between an individual and a cell of the body is possible only on the condition that the factor of consciousness is recognized as insignificant. Weber objects to this, putting forward a model of social action that accepts this factor as essential.

It is goal-oriented action that serves as Weber’s model of social action, with which all other types of action are correlated. This is the order in which Weber lists them: “there are the following types of action:

1) more or less approximately the correct type achieved;

2) (subjectively) goal-oriented and rationally oriented type;

3) action, more or less consciously and more or less unambiguously goal-oriented;

4) action that is not goal-oriented, but understandable in its meaning;

5) an action, more or less clearly motivated in its meaning, but disrupted - more or less strongly - by the invasion of incomprehensible elements, and, finally,

6) an action in which completely incomprehensible mental or physical facts are connected “with” a person or “in” a person by imperceptible transitions”

3.2 Value-rational behavior

This ideal type of social action involves the commission of such actions that are based on the conviction of the self-sufficient value of the act as such, in other words, here the action itself acts as the goal. A value-rational action, according to Weber, is always subject to certain requirements, in following which the individual sees his duty. If he acts in accordance with these requirements - even if rational calculation predicts a high probability of unfavorable consequences of such an act for him personally - then we are dealing with a value-rational action. A classic example of value-rational action: the captain of a sinking ship is the last to leave, although this threatens his life. Awareness of this direction of actions, correlating them with certain ideas about values ​​- about duty, dignity, beauty, morality, etc. - already speaks of a certain rationality and meaningfulness. If, in addition, we are dealing with consistency in the implementation of such behavior, and therefore intentionality, then we can talk about an even greater degree of rationality, which distinguishes a value-rational action, say, from an affective one. At the same time, in comparison with the goal-rational type, the “value rationality” of action carries within itself something irrational, since it absolutizes the value towards which the individual is oriented.

“Purely value-rationally,” writes Weber, “acts one who, regardless of foreseeable consequences, acts in accordance with his convictions and fulfills what, as it seems to him, duty, dignity, beauty, religious precept, requires of him, reverence or importance of some... “deed”. A value-rational action... is always an action in accordance with the commandments or demands that the actor considers to be imposed on himself. In the case of a value-rational action, the goal of the action and the action itself coincide, they are not divided, just as in the case of an affective action; side effects in both the first and second are not taken into account.

It seems that the difference between goal-rational and value-rational types of social action is approximately the same as between truth And true. The first of these concepts means “that which There is in fact," regardless of the system of ideas, convictions, and beliefs that have developed in a particular society. Obtaining this kind of knowledge is really not easy; you can simply approach it consistently, step by step, as the positivist Comte proposes to do. The second means comparing what you observe or intend to do with the generally accepted norms and ideas about what is proper and right in this society.

3.3 Affective behavior

Affect- this is emotional excitement that develops into passion, a strong emotional impulse. Affect comes from within, under its influence a person acts unconsciously. Being a short-term emotional state, affective behavior is not oriented towards the behavior of others or the conscious choice of a goal. The state of confusion before an unexpected event, elation and enthusiasm, irritation with others, depression and melancholy are all affective forms of behavior.

Due to the fact that this action is based on a goal, the implementation of which is not questioned given the established undesirable consequences for other goals. But this goal is not long-lasting as with value-rational action; it is short-term and unstable. Affective action also has a quality that is not subjective-rational, i.e. it is not associated with the rational calculation of possible alternatives to action and the selection of the best of them. This action means a devotion to a goal dictated by feeling, fluctuating and changing according to the constellation of feelings and emotions. Understanding an affectively established goal in relation to other goals from the point of view of their compatibility, as well as their consequences, is unproductive here.

“An individual acts under the influence of passion if he seeks to immediately satisfy his need for revenge, pleasure, devotion, blissful contemplation, or to relieve the tension of any other affects, no matter how base or refined they may be.”

3.4 Traditional behavior

It cannot even be called conscious, because it is based on a dull reaction to habitual irritations. It proceeds according to the once accepted scheme. Various taboos and prohibitions, norms and rules, customs and traditions act as irritants. They are passed on from generation to generation. This, for example, is the custom of hospitality that exists among all nations. It is followed automatically, due to the habit of behaving one way and not another.

Traditional action is associated with rules of some order, the meaning and purpose of which are unknown. With this type of action there is a goal, to achieve which a certain sequence of actions is necessary. In this case, this sequence is not calculated. With a traditional orientation, the scope for rational understanding is narrowed due to norms that prescribe in a certain case specific goals and means for their implementation.

However, actions determined through a stable tradition are preceded by incomplete processing of information about the existing situation, which contains a kind of “habitual charm”, to which they respond with traditional action, and actions leading in this situation to the goal.

As Weber himself points out,

"...purely traditional action...is on the very border, and often even beyond, of what can be called "meaningfully" oriented action."

Strictly speaking, only the first two types of action are completely social, because they deal with conscious meaning. Thus, speaking about the early types of society, the sociologist notes that traditional and affective actions predominated in them, and in industrial society - goal- and value-rational actions with a tendency for the former to dominate.

The types of social action described by Weber are not just a methodological device convenient for explanation. Weber is convinced that the rationalization of rational action is a tendency of the historical process itself.

The four indicated types of action are arranged by Weber in order of increasing rationality: if traditional and affective actions can be called subjective-irrational (objectively they can turn out to be rational), then value-rational action already contains a subjective-rational element, since the actor consciously correlates his actions with a certain value as a goal; however, this type of action is only relatively rational, since, first of all, the value itself is accepted without further mediation and justification and (as a result) the secondary consequences of the action are not taken into account. The actual behavior of an individual, says Weber, is oriented, as a rule, in accordance with two or more types of action: it contains goal-rational, value-rational, affective, and traditional aspects. True, in different types of societies certain types of action may be predominant: in societies that Weber called “traditional”, traditional and affective types of action orientation predominate; of course, two more rational types of action are not excluded. On the contrary, in an industrial society, goal-oriented action acquires the greatest importance, but all other types of orientation are present here to a greater or lesser extent.

Finally, Weber notes that the four ideal types do not exhaust the entire variety of types of orientation of human behavior, but since Since they can be considered the most characteristic, they represent a fairly reliable tool for the practical work of a sociologist.

The typology of increasing rationality of social action expressed, according to Weber, an objective tendency of the historical process, which, despite many deviations, was of a worldwide nature. The increasing weight of purposeful rational action, displacing the main types, leads to the rationalization of the economy, management, the very way of thinking and the way of life of a person. Universal rationalization is accompanied by an increasing role of science, which, being the purest manifestation of rationality, becomes the basis of economics and management. Society is gradually transforming from traditional to modern, based on formal rationalism.

Conclusion

The ideas of Max Weber are very fashionable today for modern sociological thought in the West. They are experiencing a kind of renaissance, rebirth. This indicates that Max Weber was an outstanding scientist. His social ideas, obviously, were of a leading nature, if today they are so in demand by Western sociology as a science about society and the laws of its development.

In Weber's understanding, human action takes on character social action, if there are two aspects in it: the subjective motivation of the individual and orientation towards another person. Understanding motivation and relating it to the behavior of other people are necessary aspects of sociological research. Weber also identified four possible types of real behavior of people in life: goal-oriented, holistic-rational, affective and traditional.

Having thus defined the meaning of social action, Weber came to the conclusion that the main position of rationality, which was reflected in Weber’s contemporary capitalist society, with its rational management and rational political power.

In all his studies, Weber pursued the idea of ​​rationality as a defining feature of modern European culture. Rationality is opposed to traditional and charismatic ways of organizing social relations. Weber's central problem is the connection between the economic life of society, the material and ideological interests of various social groups and religious consciousness. Weber viewed personality as the basis of sociological analysis.

Studying Weber’s works allows us to draw the necessary conclusion that a person’s behavior depends entirely on his worldview, and the interest that each person experiences in a particular activity is determined by the value system that a person is guided by.

Bibliography:

1. Weber M. Basic sociological concepts // Weber M. Selected works. M.: Progress, 1990.

3. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. History and rationality (Sociology of Max Weber and the Weberian Renaissance). M.: Politizdat, 1991.

4. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. History and rationality (Sociology of Max Weber and the Weberian Renaissance). M.: Politizdat, 1991.

5. Zborovsky G.E. History of sociology: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.

6. History of sociology in Western Europe and the USA. Textbook for universities./ Responsible editor - academician G.V. Osipov.- M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2001

7. History of theoretical sociology. In 4 volumes/hole. Ed. And the compiler Yu.N. Davydov.- M.: Kanon, 1997.

8. Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought. –M., 1993.

9. Goffman A.B. Seven lectures on the history of sociology. –M., 1995.

10. Gromov I. et al. Western theoretical sociology. - St. Petersburg, 1996.

11. Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A. Sociology. Lecture course. –M., 1996.

12. Sociology. Fundamentals of general theory. Tutorial. / G.V. Osipov et al. – M., 1998.

13. Sociology. Textbook./ Ed. E.V. Tadevosyan. –M., 1995.

14. Frolov S.S. Sociology. –M., 1998.

15. Volkov Yu.G., Nechipurenko V.N., Popov A.V., Samygin S.I. Sociology: Course of lectures: Textbook. – Rostov-n/D: Phoenix, 2000.

16. Lukman T. On the sociological vision of morality and moral communication // Sociology on the threshold of the 21st century: New directions of research. M.: Intellect, 1998.

17. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge / Trans. from English E.D. Rutkevich. M.: Academia-center, Medium, 1995.

18. Borovik V.S., Kretov B.I. Fundamentals of political science and sociology: Textbook. – M.: Higher School, 2001.

19. Kravchenko A.I. "Sociology of M. Weber".

20. Internet resources ( www.allbest.ru, www.5 ballov. ru, yandex. ru, www.gumer.ru)

M. Weber’s theory of social action………………………….....………………3

Political sociology of M. Weber……………………….....…………………...4

Religion in the sociology of M. Weber………………….………….………………….10

Conclusion……………………………………………………….………….……………………..14

Literature……………………………………………………..…………….…….16

M. Weber's theory of social action

Sociology according to Weber is a science that deals with social actions, interpreting and understanding these actions through explanations. Thus, social action is a subject of study. Interpretation, understanding  a method through which phenomena are causally explained. Thus, understanding is a means of explanation.

Weber introduces the sociological concept of action through the concept of meaning. Sociology examines the behavior of an individual only insofar as the individual associates a certain meaning with his action, that is, sociology is called upon to study rational behavior in which the individual is aware of the meaning and goals of his actions, without being subject to emotions and passions. Weber identified four types of behavior:

Purposeful behavior presupposes a free and conscious choice of goal: career advancement, purchase of goods, business meeting. Such behavior is necessarily free. Freedom means the absence of any coercion from the collective or the crowd.

Value-rational behavior is based on a conscious orientation or belief in moral or religious ideals. Ideals stand above immediate goals, calculations, and considerations of profit. Business success fades into the background. A person may not even be interested in the opinions of others: whether they condemn him or not. He thinks only about higher values, for example, the salvation of the soul or a sense of duty. He measures his actions against them.

Traditional behavior. It cannot even be called conscious, because it is based on a dull reaction to habitual irritations. It proceeds according to the once accepted scheme. Various taboos and prohibitions, norms and rules, customs and traditions act as irritants. They are passed on from generation to generation. This, for example, is the custom of hospitality that exists among all nations. It is followed automatically, due to the habit of behaving one way and not another.

Affective or reactive behavior. Affect is emotional excitement that develops into passion, a strong emotional impulse. Affect comes from within, under its influence a person acts unconsciously. Being a short-term emotional state, affective behavior is not oriented towards the behavior of others or the conscious choice of a goal. The state of confusion before an unexpected event, elation and enthusiasm, irritation with others, depression and melancholy are all affective forms of behavior.

The last two types of action are not, according to Weber, social actions in the strict sense of the word, since here we are dealing with a conscious meaning underlying the action. Weber notes that the four types described do not exhaust the entire variety of types of orientation of human behavior, but they can be considered the most characteristic.

The types of social action described by Weber are not just a methodological device convenient for explanation. Weber is convinced that the rationalization of rational action is a tendency of the historical process itself. Rationalization is the result of the influence of several phenomena that carried a rational principle, namely: ancient science, rational Roman law.

Political sociology of M. Weber

Weber's theory of rationalization is directly related to his interpretation of "social action", which in turn goes to the concept of domination, which is the basis of Weber's political sociology.

All this is clearly observed in Weber’s teaching about the types of legitimate domination, that is, domination that is recognized by the controlled individuals. Dominance presupposes a mutual expectation: of the one who orders that his order will be obeyed, and of those who obey, that the order will be of the nature expected by them, that is, recognized. In accordance with his methodology, Weber provides an analysis of legitimate types of domination. He distinguishes three pure types of domination.

Weber calls the first type of domination legal. In his opinion, the contemporary European states of England, France and the USA belong to this type. In such states, it is not individuals who are subject to, but clearly established laws to which both the governed and those who govern are subject. The management apparatus (“control headquarters”) consists of specially educated officials who are charged with the duty of acting regardless of persons, i.e. according to strictly formalized regulations and rational rules. The legal principle is the principle underlying legal domination. It was this principle that turned out to be, according to Weber, one of the necessary prerequisites for the development of modern capitalism as a system of formal rationality.

Weber considered bureaucracy to be the purest type of legal domination. True, he immediately stipulates that no state can be completely bureaucratic, since at the top of the ladder there are either hereditary monarchs, or presidents elected by the people, or leaders elected by the parliamentary aristocracy. But daily continuous work is carried out by specialist officials, i.e. control machine.

This type of domination is most consistent with the formal-rational structure of the economy. The rule of bureaucracy is domination through knowledge, and this is its specifically rational character.

Weber viewed bureaucracy in two senses - positive and negative. The embodiment of bureaucracy in a positive sense is the state administrative apparatus. If it consists of honest and incorruptible people, if its staff is made up of specially trained officials, then they will treat their subordinates objectively. The basic law of bureaucracy is clear and error-free functioning aimed at maximum profit. To achieve this, you need to know that:

1. The organization is free to choose any means to ensure its sustainability;
2. People work in such a way that they can be interchangeable, so everyone is required to perform only one task;
3. Labor is the most appropriate measure of a person's success and is the basis of his existence;
4. The behavior of performers is completely determined by a rational scheme, which ensures accuracy and rationality of actions, and allows one to avoid prejudice and personal sympathy in relationships.

Job positions in a bureaucratic organization are strictly subordinate to each other and arranged in a hierarchical order. Each official is responsible to his superiors for both his personal decisions and the actions of his subordinates. Employees of an organization are, first and foremost, employees. They are remunerated in the form of a salary, and after retirement they are granted a pension.

Weber was convinced that bureaucracy is the most complex and rational device ever invented by man, but he was well aware that in its pure form bureaucracy - a hierarchical organization of highly qualified experts - does not exist anywhere in reality.

It is important to note that the “ideal type of formal-rational management” described by Weber, of course, did not and does not have full empirical implementation in any of the industrial states. Actually, Weber meant a “control machine,” a machine in the most literal sense of the word, but a human machine that has no other interest than the interest of the cause. However, like any machine, a control machine needs a reliable program. It itself does not have such a program, being a formal-rational structure. Therefore, a program can only be set by a political leader who sets himself certain goals, i.e. in other words, placing the formal mechanism of government in the service of certain political goals.

Weber designates the second type of legitimate domination as traditional. This type is determined by morals, the habit of certain behavior. In this regard, traditional domination is based on faith not only in the legality, but even in the sacredness of ancient orders and authorities.

The purest type of such domination is, according to Weber, the patriarchal state. This is the society that preceded modern bourgeois society. The type of traditional domination is similar in structure to the structure of the family. It is this circumstance that makes this type of legitimacy especially strong and stable.

The headquarters of the government here consists of household officials, relatives, personal friends or vassals personally dependent on the lord. Unlike other types of domination, it is personal loyalty that serves here as the basis for appointment to a position, as well as for promotion up the hierarchical ladder. Traditional domination is characterized by the absence of formal law and, accordingly, the absence of a requirement to act “regardless of persons”; the nature of relationships in any area is purely personal.

Weber shows the difference between the rational mode of government (and the rational type of state) and the mode of government in traditional society by comparing a modern Western official with a Chinese mandarin.

The Mandarin, unlike the manager of the bureaucratic “machine,” is a completely unprepared person for management matters. Such a person does not manage independently - all affairs are in the hands of clerical employees. A Mandarin is, first of all, an educated person, a good calligrapher who writes poetry, who knows all the literature of China for a thousand years and knows how to interpret it. At the same time, he does not attach any importance to political duties. A state with such officials, as Weber notes, is something completely different from a Western state. In this state, everything is based on the religious-magical belief that the perfection of their literary education is quite enough to keep everything in order,

The third type of domination is, according to Weber, charismatic domination. The concept of charisma plays an important role in Weber's political sociology. Charisma, in accordance with the etymological meaning of this word, is a certain extraordinary ability, a certain quality of an individual that distinguishes him from the rest. This quality is not so much acquired as it is given to man by nature by God, by fate. Weber includes magical abilities, prophetic gifts, and outstanding strength of spirit and words as charismatic qualities. Charisma, according to Weber, is possessed by heroes, generals, magicians, prophets and seers, outstanding politicians, founders of world religions and other types (for example, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Caesar).

The charismatic type of legitimate domination is the direct opposite of the traditional one. If the traditional type of dominance is based on adherence to the ordinary, established once and for all, then the charismatic, on the contrary, relies on something unusual, never previously recognized. The main basis of charismatic dominance is the affective type of social action. Weber views charisma as a great revolutionary force in traditional societies, capable of bringing about changes in the dynamism-free structure of these societies. However, it should be noted that with all the differences and even opposition between the traditional and charismatic types of dominance, there is something in common between them, namely: both are based on personal relationships between the master and the subordinate. In this respect, both of these types oppose formal-rational domination as impersonal.

The source of personal devotion to a charismatic sovereign is not tradition or recognition of his formal right, but, above all, an emotionally charged belief in his charisma and devotion to this charisma. Therefore, as Weber emphasized, a charismatic leader must take care of maintaining his charisma and constantly prove its presence. The control headquarters under this type of domination is formed on the basis of personal loyalty to the leader. It is clear that the rational concept of competence, as well as the class-traditional concept of privilege, is absent here. Another point. Charismatic differs from both the formal-rational and the traditional type of domination in that there are no established (rationally or traditionally) rules and decisions on all issues are made irrationally, on the basis of “revelation,” intuition or personal example.

It is clear that the charismatic principle of legitimacy, in contrast to the formal-rational one, is authoritarian. Essentially, the authority of a charismatic leader is based on his strength - not on the brute, physical, but on the strength of his inner gift. Weber, true to his cognitive principles, considers charisma completely irrespective of the content of what the charismatic leader proclaims, stands for, and carries with him, that is, he is emphatically indifferent to the values ​​brought into the world by a charismatic personality.

Legal domination, according to Weber, has a weaker legitimizing force than traditional and charismatic domination. A legitimate question arises: on what basis is such a conclusion made? To answer it, we should once again pay attention to what constitutes a legal type of domination. As already noted, Weber takes goal-rational action as the basis for legal domination. In its pure form, legal domination has no value foundation; it is no coincidence that this type of domination is carried out formally and rationally, where the “bureaucratic machine” should serve exclusively the interests of the case.

It is also important to note that relations of domination in a “rational” state are considered by Weber by analogy with relations in the sphere of private enterprise. Purposeful action has economic action as its model. The economy is the “cell” in which the legal type of domination exists. It is the economy that is most amenable to rationalization. It frees the market from class restrictions, from merging with morals and customs, transforming all qualitative characteristics into quantitative ones, that is, clearing the way for the development of a purely rational capitalist economy.

Rationality, in Weber’s understanding, is a formal, functional reality, that is, free from any value issues. This is legal domination. But precisely because formal rationality does not carry its own goal in itself and is always determined through something else, legal domination does not have a strong enough legitimacy and must be supported by something else - tradition or charisma. In political language it will sound like this: parliamentary democracy, recognized by classical liberalism as the only legitimate legislative (legitimating) body, does not have sufficient legitimizing power in the eyes of the masses. Therefore, it must be supplemented either by an inherited monarch (whose rights are limited by parliament) or by a plebiscitary elected political leader. As we see, in the first case, the legitimacy of legal domination is enhanced by an appeal to tradition, in the second - by an appeal to charisma.

Returning directly to Weber's idea of ​​strengthening the legitimacy of legal domination, we can say: it was the formal nature of legal domination, which does not have any values ​​in itself and requires as its complement a political leader who would be able to formulate certain goals, that led him to recognize plebiscitary democracy. Plebiscitary democracy as a form of political system, according to Weber, was most consistent with the situation that developed in contemporary Western European society. Only a plebiscite, in his opinion, can provide a political leader with the power of legitimacy that will allow him to pursue a certain oriented policy, as well as put the state-bureaucratic machine at the service of certain values. It is clear that for this the political leader must be charismatically gifted, because otherwise he cannot gain the approval of the masses. Weber's plebiscitary theory of bureaucracy is essentially an attempt to find some ideal model of the organization of a political system with the necessary elements to ensure its dynamism.

Religion in the sociology of M. Weber

Weber's research in the field of religion began with the work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1905) and ended with large historical and sociological excursions devoted to the analysis of world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism.

In the study of religion, Weber did not pose as a central question the origin of religion, and therefore did not consider the question of its essence. He was interested primarily in the study of existing structural forms, composition and type of religion. Weber's focus is on the great world religions, which presuppose a relatively high level of social differentiation, and therefore significant intellectual development, the emergence of an individual endowed with a clear logical self-awareness.

Weber, through observation and comparison, records where and under what social conditions, among which social strata and groups the ritual-cult moment predominates in religion, and where the ascetic-active (meaning worldly activity), where the mystical-contemplative, and where the intellectual- dogmatic. For example, magical elements are most characteristic of the religion of agricultural peoples and, within the framework of highly developed cultures, of the peasant class. Belief in fate is a characteristic feature of the religion of the conquering peoples and the military class.

Considering the individual appearance of the world's religious and ethnic systems, Weber gives their classification in accordance with which social strata were their main carriers:

The bearer of Confucianism is the bureaucrat who organizes the world;

Hinduism - a magician who orders the world;

Buddhism - a wandering monk around the world;

Islama is a world-conquering warrior;

Christianity is a wandering artisan.

Weber also classifies religions on the basis of different attitudes towards the world. Thus, Confucianism is characterized by acceptance of the world, and on the contrary, denial of the world is characteristic of Buddhism. Some religions accept the world on the terms of its improvement and correction (Christianity, Islam).

World religions, as a rule, are soteric in nature (soter - savior, Greek). The problem of salvation is one of the central ones in religious ethics. There are two possible options for salvation: saving a person through one’s own action (Buddhism) and with the help of an intermediary savior (Islam, Christianity)

In his book, M. Weber also conducts a detailed analysis of statistical data reflecting the distribution of Protestants and Catholics in various social strata. Based on data collected in Germany, Austria and Holland, he comes to the conclusion that Protestants predominate among capital owners, entrepreneurs and the highest skilled classes of workers.

In addition, differences in education are quite obvious. Thus, if among Catholics people with a humanitarian education predominate, then among Protestants, who, according to Weber, are preparing for a “bourgeois” way of life, there are more people with a technical education. He explains this by the peculiar mentality that develops in the process of initial education.

Weber also notes that Catholics, not occupying key positions in politics and commerce, refute the tendency that national and religious minorities are opposed as subordinate to any other “dominant” group... concentrate their efforts in the field of entrepreneurship and trade.

He wonders what is the reason for such a clear definition of social status in connection with religion. And, despite the fact that there are indeed objective historical reasons for the predominance of Protestants among the wealthiest segments of the population, he is still inclined to believe that the reason for different behavior should be sought in “stable internal originality”, and not only in the historical and political situation .

Protestantism is not the direct cause of capitalism, but it did give rise to a culture that emphasized hard work, rational behavior, and self-reliance.

By the spirit of capitalism, Weber understands the following: “a complex of connections existing in historical reality, which we conceptually unite into one whole from the point of view of their cultural significance.”

Weber divides capitalism into “traditional” and “modern”, according to the way the enterprise is organized. He writes that modern capitalism, bumping into traditional capitalism everywhere, struggled with its manifestations. The author gives an example of the introduction of piecework wages at an agricultural enterprise in Germany. Since agricultural work is seasonal in nature, and during harvesting the greatest intensity of labor is required, an attempt was made to stimulate labor productivity through the introduction of piecework wages, and, accordingly, the prospects for its increase. But the increase in wages attracted the man born of “traditional” capitalism much less than the ease of work. This reflected the pre-capitalist attitude towards work.

Weber believed that for the development of capitalism, a certain surplus of population is necessary to ensure the availability of cheap labor on the market. But low wages are by no means identical to cheap labor. Even in purely quantitative terms, labor productivity falls in cases where it does not meet the needs of physical existence. But low wages do not justify themselves and give the opposite result in cases where skilled labor and high-tech equipment are involved. That is, where a developed sense of responsibility and a way of thinking in which work would become an end in itself are necessary. Such an attitude towards work is not characteristic of a person, but can only develop as a result of long-term upbringing.

Thus, the radical difference between traditional and modern capitalism is not in technology, but in human resources, or more precisely, in the attitude of man to work.

Weber defined the ideal type of capitalist, which some German industrialists of that time approached, as follows: “ostentatious luxury and wastefulness, intoxication with power are alien to him, he is characterized by an ascetic lifestyle, restraint and modesty.” Wealth gives him an irrational sense of duty well done.

Traditional man	Modern Protestant
Works to live	Lives to work
Profession is a burden	Profession is a form of existence
Simple production	Advanced Manufacturing
If you don't cheat, you won't sell	Honesty is the best guarantee
Main activity - trade	Main activity - production

Weber analyzes modern society and comes to the conclusion that the capitalist economy no longer needs the sanction of one or another religious teaching and sees in any (if possible) influence of the church on economic life the same hindrance as the regulation of the economy by the state.

This is how the Weberian entrepreneur appeared - hardworking, proactive, modest in his needs, loving money for its own sake.

CONCLUSION

From the point of view of M. Weber, sociology is the science of social behavior, which it seeks to understand and interpret. Social behavior , according to M. Weber, this is a person’s attitude, in other words, an internally or externally manifested position focused on action or abstinence from it. This attitude is behavior when the subject associates it with a certain meaning. Behavior is considered social when, according to the meaning that the subject gives it, it is correlated with the behavior of other individuals.

The tasks of M. Weber's understanding sociology: 1). Find out through what meaningful actions people try to fulfill their aspirations, to what extent and for what reasons they succeeded; 2). What consequences, understandable to the sociologist, did their aspirations have for the meaningful behavior of other people. The cornerstone of his theory was the concept of ideal types, which served as a methodological justification for pluralism. He believed that the main thing was to search for motives: why did the person act this way and not otherwise? This is how M. Weber approached the creation of the theory of social action and identified the following types:

Goal-oriented (when a person clearly imagines the goal and ways to achieve it, takes into account the possible reactions of other people),

Value-rational (when an action is performed through a conscious belief in ethical, aesthetic, religious value),

Affective (action occurs subconsciously, in a state of passion)

And traditional (action is carried out through habit).

The last two are not included in the subject of sociology, since only the first two are done consciously.

According to Weber, religion can be a great force, as he demonstrates through the example of Protestantism (“The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”). He was one of the first to examine the phenomenon of bureaucracy at the beginning of the twentieth century, characterizing it as rational and highly effective.

Finally, he created the famous theory of 3 types of states: legal, where bureaucracy and laws rule; traditional, where submission and obedience reign; and charismatic, in which the ruler is identified with God. The ideas of M. Weber permeate the entire edifice of modern sociology, constituting its foundation.

A huge stage in the development and enrichment of knowledge about society and social reality ended by the beginning of the twentieth century. A new era was coming that required further understanding - the twentieth century.

LITERATURE

1. Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. "History and Rationality: Weber's Sociology and the Weberian Renaissance"
2. Gromov I., Matskevich A., Semenov V. “Western theoretical sociology”
3. Zarubina N.N. “Modernization and economic culture: Weber’s concept and modern theories of development”
4. Kravchenko A.I. "Sociology of M. Weber"

The concept of sociology and the “meaning” of social action. Methodological foundations.

Max Weber defines sociology as a science that seeks to interpret and understand social action. Based on cause and effect, the process and interaction of social action can be explained. The object of such science is

Weber identifies such concepts as “Action” and “Social Action”. So, let's look at these concepts separately and find their differences.

« Action“is a human action that has a subjective meaning in relation to acting individuals or an acting individual” (see page 602).

« Social action- this is a human action that has a relationship with the actions of other people and who are oriented towards it, in relation to the actor or actors"

These two concepts that Weber defines have significant differences. In fact, these “disagreements” are as follows: For example, if we take "action", then it no matter that of an external or internal nature, which “reduces to non-interference and to a patient friend”(see page 602), and "social action", on the contrary, includes non-interference and patient acceptance.

Max Weber defines two meanings of the word "meaning". First: “really subjectively assumed by the actor in a given historical situation, or an approximate, average meaning, subjectively assumed by the actors in a certain number of situations”(see page 603). Second: “a theoretically constructed pure type of meaning, subjectively assumed by a hypothetical actor or actors in a given situation”(see page 603).

This interpretation of the word “meaning” makes the author think about the fact that it separates sociology as an empirical science from dogmatic sciences, such as ethics, logic and jurisprudence. This is due to the fact that the interpretation given by Weber to the word “meaning” is not "right and true" meaning, in contrast to these sciences, which seek to determine "right and true" meaning.

It is impossible to draw a clear line between meaningful and reactive behavior.. Because between themno connection with subjectively intended meaning. In the first case, there is no action as such or it can be detected with the help of specialists. In the second case, those experiences that “cannot be understood by those to whom they are inaccessible” (see p. 603).

According to Weber, every interpretation strives for “evidence.” It defines kinds"obvious" understanding. First-rational (logical or mathematical).Second- as a result of “empathy and feeling - emotionally and artistically receptive”(see page 604).

Max V. is convinced that those actions that have a logical or mathematical "form", that is, they represent semantic connections, we can understand more clearly. And those actions that focused on “higher goals and values” we can understand less obviously.

The author says that there is a typological type of research and that all irrational semantic connections (with this type of research) should be considered as a “deviation” in contrast to the purposeful one. In other words, “irrational factors (affects, delusions) of behavior can be understood as a “deviation” from a purely rationally constructed one”(see pages 605-606 ). Only in this sense is the method of “understanding” sociology “rationalistic”. It must be said that This method should be understood only as a methodological device.

Weber proposes to interpret material artifacts based on the fact that that a person associates them with the manufacture and use . In a word, a person must see in an artifact either a goal or a “means.”

The author also says that there are phenomena that cause alien meaning. For example, alien meanings include “all processes or phenomena (living or dead nature, associated with a person or occurring outside of him), devoid of the intended semantic content, acting not as a “means” or “goal” of behavior, but representing only its reason , stimulus or hindrance"(see pages 605-606). Weber even gives an example that proves the “theory” described above. He cites storm surge as an example. . This example clearly demonstrates that a phenomenon is not a “means and goal” of behavior, but it represents, in this case, a reason and an obstacle.

Weber further identifies types of understanding: « 1 ) n direct understanding the intended meaning of the action. This is when we understand the meaning of the rules, for example, 2x2=4 . 2) explanatory understanding. This type can be described as “understanding” motivationally. If you take the example that was in the first case, then you can ask the following questions: Why do you get exactly this number and not another? Who wrote down this example?(see page 607).

Weber also says that “in science, the subject of which is the meaning of behavior, “to explain” means to comprehend the semantic connection, which, according to its subjective meaning, includes an action accessible to direct understanding”(see pages 608-609). In other words, we will understand rational action or irrational action, since they form semantic connections, which means they are understandable.

Further in his work, Max Weber gives concepts such as “motive” and action “adequate to the meaning” . So, what does the author think is the motive? « Motive- this is a semantic unity that appears to the actor or observer as a sufficient reason for a certain action. " Action adequate to the meaning- this is an action that is unified in its manifestations to the extent that the relationship between its components appears to us from the standpoint of our habitual thinking and emotional perception as a typical (we usually say, correct) semantic unity. " Causally adequate- sequence of events if, in accordance with experimental rules, it can be assumed that it will always be so"(see pages 610-611).

« Sociological patterns are called statistical types of regularity that correspond to the subjectively understandable meaning of social action, are (in the meaning accepted here) types of understandable action"(see page 612).

Weber draws parallels between sociological statics and statics and this is what he found. It turns out that sociological statics deals only with the calculation of meaningful processes, and statics, both meaningful and not meaningful.

Max V. says that It is unacceptable for sociology to consider individuals as a union of cells or a set of biochemical reactions, so like this the rule of behavior will not be clear to us. It is very important that For sociology, the semantic connection of actions is important.

In understanding sociology there is suchmethod-functional. Now let's look at it basic goals: « 1. Practical clarity and preliminary orientation 2. Determination of that type of social behavior, the interpretive understanding of which is important for explaining certain connections"(see page 615).

Weber defines sociological laws- represent a confirmation of the observed probabilities that “under certain conditions, social behavior will take on a character that will make it possible to understand it based on the typical motives and typical subjective meaning that guide the acting individual”(see page 619).

Sociology is not in closer relation to psychology than to all other sciences. Because psychology does not try to explain any human actions using methods that would be close to such a science as sociology.

The author also compares sociology and history. Unlike history, sociology "means" standard concepts and establishment of general rules of phenomena and processes . There are such types of concepts such as “average” and “ideal”.

"Middle Types" , as a rule, are formed where “we are talking about differences in the degree of qualitatively homogeneous behaviors defined in their meaning”(see page 623).

"Ideal Types"( pure) are necessary in sociology for one simple reason - this is an expression of the “greatest” semantic adequacy. It is this type that represents the presence of sociological casuistry.

There are some heuristic criteria for ideal types such as: “The more clearly and unambiguously they are constructed, the further the ideal types are, therefore, from reality, the more fruitful their role in the development of terminology and classification”(see page 623).

“In sociological research, the object of which is concrete reality, it is necessary to constantly keep in mind its deviation from the theoretical structure; establish the degree and nature of such deviation - direct task of sociology"(see page 624).

According to Weber, social actions can be oriented : on the past, present or expected future behavior of other people. As "others" can strangers, many individuals, acquaintances.

It is worth noting that uniform behavior of many and the influence of mass on the individual are not a social action , since this behavior is not focused on the behavior of other people, but is simply accompanied by “mass conditioning”(according to Weber).

Max Weber highlights four types of social action: 1) purposeful, 2) value-rational based on faith 3) affective, above all emotional, 4) traditional; that is, based on a long-term habit.

First view purposeful, whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and side results of his actions. Second type value-rational, has the property of “conscious determination of one’s direction and consistently planned orientation towards it”(see page 629). Third type affective“is on the border and often beyond the limit of what is “meaningful”, consciously oriented; it may be an unimpeded response to a completely unusual stimulus.”(see page 628). And the last, fourth type traditional “is located on the very border, and often even beyond the limit of what can be called “meaningfully” oriented action”(see page 628).

Weber further defines "social attitude" So, in his opinion, « social attitude- this is the behavior of several people, correlated in their meaning with each other and oriented towards this”(see page 630). A sign of such an action is the degree of relationship of one individual to another. And the content can be different, for example, love, friendship; estate, national or class community.

Exists "two-way" social relationship. It, as a rule, must meet the expectations of partners . Here's what Weber writes about this in his book: “the acting individual assumes (perhaps mistakenly or to some extent incorrectly) that a certain attitude towards him (the actor) is also inherent in his partner, and he orients his behavior towards such an expectation, which can in turn have (and usually have) serious consequences both for his behavior and for further relationships between these individuals.”(see pages 631-632).

Weber in his labor claims that “friendship” or “state” exists . But what does this mean? And this means that the people who watch it “assume the presence in the present or past of the possibility that, based on a certain kind of attitude of certain people, their behavior usually takes place within the framework of averaging the intended meaning”(see page 631).

The meaning of social relations can be established for a long time in “maxims” that are averaged or approximate in their meaning. The parties to such relationships, as a rule, direct their behavior towards their partners.

The content of a social relationship can only be formulated by mutual agreement. But how does this happen? It happens like this: the participants in these social relations give each other assurances that they will observe in the future. He orients his behavior towards “in turn “keep” the agreement in accordance with his understanding of its meaning”(see page 632).

Sociology deals with types of behavior that are similar to each other, that is, there is some uniformity . In other words, there is a sequence of actions with a typical identical intended meaning that is repeated by individuals.

If there is uniformity in the setting of social behavior, then these are morals, according to Weber. But only if if such existence is within a certain circle of people, which in turn is explained by habit.

And we will call morals customs, but only when habits have taken root over a long period of time. So, we will define custom as "interest-driven". This means that the orientation of the behavior of individual individuals should be aimed at the same expectations.

The stability of a custom is built on the fact that there is some individual who does not orient his behavior towards it. It “finds himself outside the framework of the “accepted” in his circle, that is, he must be ready to endure all kinds of minor and major inconveniences and troubles, while the majority of the people around him take into account the existence of the custom and are guided by it in their behavior”(see page 635).

It should also be noted that there is stability of the constellation of interests. It is based on the fact that individual, which “does not focus his behavior on the interests of others - does not “take into account” them, - causes their opposition or comes to a result that is not desired and not intended by him, as a result of which damage to his own interests may be caused”(see page 635).

Weber in his work mentions such a concept as the importance of the legitimate order. But what could this mean? And this means that social behavior, social relationships are focused on the individual. This individual, in turn, focuses on the idea of ​​the existence of a legitimate order. This is precisely what will be the significance of the legitimate order.

Weber defines the content of social order as order. This happens when the individual’s behavior is guided by clearly defined maxims. The author says that “an order whose stability is based only on purposeful and rational motives is, on the whole, significantly more stable than that order, the orientation towards which is based only on custom, the habit of a certain behavior"(see page 637).

Weber defined two classes of guarantees of legitimacy, namely : convention and law.

The legitimacy of the order within these classes that the author identifies is as follows:: 1) purely affective: emotional devotion, 2) value-rational: belief in the absolute significance of order as an expression of values ​​(for example, moral), 3) religiously: faith in the dependence of good and salvation on the preservation of a given order.

Now let’s look in detail at what Weber means by convention, and what's under right and we'll find their difference, if there are any.

So, a convention is a custom that is considered very important in a particular environment. And if someone from this environment will have a deviation, then he will be condemned.

Right- the presence of a special enforcement group.

Literature:

M. Weber. Basic sociological concepts. // Favorites prod. M., 1990. P. 602-633. (Fragment).

Weber defines action(regardless of whether it manifests itself externally, for example in the form of aggression, or is hidden inside the subjective world of the individual, like patience) as such behavior with which its subject associates a subjectively assumed meaning. “An action becomes “social” only if, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, it correlates with the action others people and focuses on it."

Social action focused on the expected behavior of other people. Yes, it may be motivated the desire to take revenge on someone for past grievances, to protect themselves from present or even future dangers.

Sociological workshop

Some actions, M. Weber believed, do not fall under the category of social. For example, it started to rain, and all the passers-by opened their umbrellas. There is no orientation towards other people, and motivation is determined by the climate, but not by the reaction and behavior of other people.

Give other examples of this kind.

Sociology is the study of actions focused on the behavior of others. So, for example, we understand what it means to have a gun pointed at us and the aggressive expression on the face of the person holding it, since we ourselves have been in similar situations or at least put ourselves in such conditions. We'll find out meaning act as if by analogy with oneself. The meaning of a aimed gun can mean the individual's intention to do something (shoot us), or not to do anything. In the first case motive is present, in the second it is not. But in any case, the motive has a subjective meaning. Observing a chain of real actions of people, we must construct a plausible explanation of them based on internal motives. We attribute motives due to the knowledge that in similar situations most people act in the same way, because they are guided by similar motives. Thanks to this, the sociologist can only use statistical methods.

Reference. Weber gives the example of the famous flood of 1277 in Ireland, which acquired historical significance because it caused widespread migration of people. In addition, the flood caused huge casualties, disruption of the usual way of life, and much more, which should attract the attention of sociologists. However, the subject of their study should not be the flood itself, but the behavior of people whose social actions are in one way or another oriented towards this event.

As another example, Weber considers E. Mayer's attempt to reconstruct the influence of the Marathon battle on the fate of Western civilization and the development of Greece; Mayer gives an interpretation of the meaning of those events that were supposed to happen according to the predictions of the Greek oracles in connection with the Persian invasion. However, the predictions themselves can be directly verified, Weber believes, only by studying the actual behavior of the Persians in those cases when they were victorious (in Jerusalem, Egypt and Asia). But such verification cannot satisfy the strict taste of the scientist. Mayer did not do the main thing - he did not put forward a plausible hypothesis offering a rational explanation of the events, and did not explain the method for its verification. Often a historical interpretation only seems plausible. In each specific case, it is necessary to indicate the initial hypothesis and the method for testing it.

Motive for Weber, it is a complex of subjective meanings that seem to the actor or observer to be an adequate basis for behavior. If we interpret this or that chain of actions, in accordance only with our common sense, then such an interpretation must be considered subjectively acceptable (sufficient) or correct. But if the interpretation is based on inductive generalizations, i.e. is intersubjective in nature, then it should be considered casually adequate. It shows the probability that a given event will actually occur under the same conditions and in the same order. Statistical methods that measure the degree of correlation of events or the stability of the connection between repeating phenomena are applicable here.

Structure of social action includes two components: the subjective motivation of an individual or group, outside of which, in principle, one cannot talk about any action (1), and orientation towards others, which Weber calls expectation, or attitude, and without which action is not social (2).

Weber identifies four types of social action (Figure 11.4):

• 1) purposeful behavior when an individual focuses primarily on the behavior of other people, and he uses these orientations, or expectations (anticipations), as means, or tools, in his strategy of action;
• 2) value-rational determined by our faith in religious, moral and other values, ideals, regardless of whether such behavior leads to success or not;
• 3) affective, i.e. emotional;
• 4) traditional.

There is no impassable boundary between them; they have common elements, which allows them to be placed on a single scale in order of decreasing degree of rationality.

Rice. 11.4.

The four types of social action represent a kind of scale, or continuum, at the top level of which there is a purposive-rational action, which is of maximum interest for sociology, at the bottom - an affective one, to which sociologists, according to Weber, show almost no interest. Here, goal-oriented action acts as a kind of standard with which other types of human action can be compared, revealing the degree of sociological expression in them. The closer the action is to goal-oriented, the lower the coefficient of psychological refraction.

This scale is built on the principle of comparing any action with a goal-oriented action. As rationality decreases, actions become less and less understandable, goals become clearer, and means become more definite. A value-rational action, in comparison with a goal-rational action, has no goal, result, or orientation toward success, but has a motive, meaning, means, and orientation toward others. Affective and traditional action has no goal, result, desire for success, motive, meaning and orientation towards others. In other words, the last two types of action are devoid of signs of social action. Because of this, Weber believed that only goal- and value-rational action are social actions. On the contrary, traditional and affective actions are not one of them. All types of actions are arranged from bottom to top in order of increasing rationality.

Weber believes that studying individual behavior you can’t do it the same way as they research meteorite fall or precipitation. To find out why, for example, strikes occur and people oppose the government (and Weber encountered such a situation in one of his first studies in industry), one must project yourself into the situation strikes and explore values, goals, expectations people who inspired them to take such action. It is impossible to know the process of freezing water or falling meteorites from the inside.

Social action, Weber admits, is a rather narrow segment of reality, like an extreme case of human actions or, more precisely, an ideal type, an ideal case. But the sociologist must start from such a rare type as a certain scale with the help of which he measures the whole variety of real actions and selects only those that are subject to the methods of sociology.

In total, Weber identifies six levels of behavior similar to rational - from completely rational (a person is aware of his goals) to completely incomprehensible, which only a psychoanalyst can solve (Fig. 11.5).

Rice. 11.5.

Weber considers goal-oriented action to be the most understandable in its semantic structure, where the goal corresponds to the means of achieving it. Such an action presupposes a free and conscious choice of goal, for example, promotion in a service, purchase of a product, business meeting. Such behavior is necessarily free. When we take a shortcut, walk straight across the lawn to the bus stop, violating the rules of decency, that is exactly what we are committing. Using cheat sheets, giving a bribe to a teacher in order to get a grade in a diploma or in entrance exams are from the same category.

Purposeful behavior is an economic action where there is a motive, orientation towards another, freedom to choose means, a goal, a willingness to act, take risks and take responsibility. Reasonable risk, which manifests itself both in business and in politics, is a mandatory feature of purposeful, rational action. In economics, an individual calculates all the consequences, benefits and disadvantages of his actions, and consciously and freely chooses the appropriate means to achieve his goal. Economy is impossible without purposeful and rational actions.

Purposeful rational action characterizes consumer and acquisitive behavior, the spread in the minds of people of mercantile, purely monetary priorities and goals.

An entrepreneur and a manager strive for purposeful, rational action, but they understand it differently: for the first, it consists in obtaining maximum profits, for the second, in the accurate performance of official duties. Two different models of goal-oriented action reflect the fundamental difference between two spheres of economic activity - economic and labor behavior.

When a soldier shields his commander from the bullets with his chest, this is not goal-oriented behavior, since such an action does not bring him any benefit, but value-rational behavior, since he believes in some ideals that encourage him to do this. When a knight sacrifices his life for a lady, he is not committing a purposeful action. He is guided by a certain code of honor, or the etiquette of a worthy person.

Sociological workshop

The punk prayer “Virgin Mary, drive Putin away” by the notorious group Pussy Riot in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow in 2012 outraged all Russians, and not just believers, whose feelings were offended.

Find a description of this story on the Internet and analyze it from the perspective of the teachings of M. Weber.

If value-rational action is widespread in society as a mass case, then feelings of duty, patriotism, virtue or religious devotion should prevail in the public consciousness. During the Hajj period, Muslims all over the world flock to the most ancient shrine of believers; perform daily five-fold prayer, facing the temple. An Orthodox pilgrimage to the Holy Land or to the Seraphim-Deveevsky Monastery is another method of value-rational action. On the one hand, such an action characterizes moments of spiritual uplift, associated, for example, with the defense of the homeland from foreign invaders, liberation movements, and religious wars. On the other hand, it resembles a traditional action, as in the case of hajj or pilgrimage, or affective, as in the case of a heroic act.

Values ​​and spiritual crisis. What do the “new Russians” do when they have money? The meaning of life seems to them to be replacing a good car with a better one, a rich dacha with an even more luxurious villa, a chic woman with an even more irresistible one. Demonstrative wastefulness has no purposeful rational basis. Having risen from rags to riches, they strive to capture the imagination of their neighbors and arouse their envy.

Although in this case, as in knightly behavior, we observe value-oriented behavior, but the highest values ​​are supplanted by the lower ones. This is a sign of a spiritual crisis.

Thus, the dominance in society of value-rational action in itself does not guarantee the absence of deep spiritual crisis. The whole point is what kind of values ​​these are - higher or lower. Only those who, regardless of foreseen consequences, act in accordance with their convictions and do what duty, dignity, beauty, honor or religious principles require of them, act in a value-rational manner.

An example of value-based and rational actions in the high meaning of this word are spiritual practices and ethical teachings, which are an integral part of all world religions. Curbing base passions for the sake of high values, devotion to ideals, to your parents (filial piety), to your overlords (knights and samurai), to your homeland (patriotism), to your God (monasticism, asceticism). Harakiri is an example of a value-rational act in its extreme form.

In 1920-1930s. mass heroism was the most important characteristic of the social behavior of large groups of people. The communists deliberately used the emotional impulse of people in situations where routine actions could not ensure quick success, in particular when constructing gigantic construction projects in a short time. Inspiration is undoubtedly an affective action. But, being adopted by large masses of people, inspiration acquires a social connotation and turns into a subject of sociological research. At the same time, inspiration was achieved for the sake of certain moral values, for example, building a bright future, establishing equality and justice on earth. In this case, the affective action acquires the features of a value-rational one or completely passes into this category, remaining an emotional action in content.

Value-based and rational behavior, guided by high, but formally or generally misunderstood ideals, can lose its positive function and become a negative affective action. This is Islamic fundamentalism, which ultimately led to widespread terrorism. According to the fair remark of experts on Islam, its spiritual leaders, fundamentalists have distorted the high values ​​of Islam and in their actions are not guided by a code of honor (protecting the ideals of Islam from desecration by infidels), but by purely rational goals - the complete destruction of dissidents and dissenters, the creation of a global caliphate and destruction of its enemy, Christianity.

Vandalism - the desecration of cultural monuments and collective shrines - is fundamentally an immoral command. But more often than not, this is a conscious, purposeful action designed to violate and trample on sacred objects respected and valued by the people. Denying some values, they affirm others. At the same time, vandalism is committed in an extremely affective form.

Traditional actions – These are actions performed automatically, due to habit. Every day we brush our teeth, get dressed, and perform many other habitual actions, the meaning of which we don’t even think about. Only if a difficulty arises and we cannot determine, for example, what color shirt to wear this time, the automaticity is destroyed and we think. Traditional action is carried out on the basis of deeply learned social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual action.

Dyeing eggs for Easter is a Christian custom that has grown into a tradition, and many people, even non-believers, still continue to dye eggs for Easter. Many people bake pancakes for Maslenitsa. This custom has remained in our society since paganism, but many people continue to follow the tradition, although they do not always experience hunger. Traditionally, when blowing out birthday candles, people make a wish.

Compliance with the knightly charter is an example of etiquette, and therefore traditional, behavior. It formed a special psychology and norms of behavior in people.

Seeing off relatives or guests is a traditional social action. It has deep historical roots - in the days of the Scythians, when there were many hostile tribes, our ancestors escorted guests (merchants) to a safe place. Since then, this has become a tradition for us as their descendants.

The most incomprehensible, in this case, is affective action, where neither the ends nor the means are clear. Someone said an offensive word to you, you turned around and slapped you in the face. Your actions are guided by emotions, but not by rational considerations, or by consciously chosen means to achieve your goal. An affective action has no purpose; it is committed in a fit of feeling, when emotions overcome reason. Affective behavior presupposes a behavioral act that occurs in individuals under the influence of a momentary mood, an outburst of emotions, or other incentives that do not have a social origin in the strict sense.

The typology of affective action includes such types as revolutionary neurosis, lynch mob, panic, medieval persecution of witches, persecution of enemies of the people in the 1930s, mass psychoses, various phobias and fears, mass hysteria, stress, unmotivated murder, fights, alcoholism, addictive behavior, etc.

To understand goal-oriented action, according to Weber, there is no need to resort to psychology. But only psychology can understand affective action. The sociologist is out of place here. Fatigue, habits, memory, euphoria, individual reactions, stress, likes and dislikes are devoid of any meaning. They are impulsive. The sociologist, according to Weber, uses them simply as data, i.e. something that influences social action but is not part of it. Of course, a sociologist is obliged to take into account the influence of such factors as race, the effect of aging of the body, the biologically inherited structure of the body, and nutritional needs. But we can use them only if we have statistically proven their influence on the corresponding behavior of people.

Sociology as science of social action deals not with a concretely experienced meaning, but with a hypothetically typical or average meaning. If, for example, a sociologist, through repeated observation, has discovered a statistically repeating connection between two actions, then this in itself means little. Such a connection will be significant from a sociological point of view if probability proven this connection, i.e. if the scientist has substantiated that the action And with with a high degree of probability entails action IN and there is more than just a random (statistical) connection between them. And this can only be done by knowing the motives of people’s behavior; this knowledge will tell us that the connection between two events is internally conditioned and follows from the logic of motives and meaning that people put into their actions.

Therefore, sociological explanation is not only subjectively significant, but also factually probabilistic. With this combination, a causal explanation in sociology arises. True, the individual does not always realize the meaning of his actions. This happens when he acts under the influence of traditions, collective norms and customs, or his behavior is affective, i.e. determined by emotions. In addition, the individual may not be aware of his own goals, although they exist but are not realized by him. Weber does not consider such actions rational (meaningful and having a purpose), and therefore, social. He places such actions outside the sphere of sociology proper; they should be studied by psychology, psychoanalysis, ethnography or other “spiritual sciences.”

Sociological workshop

Which of the four types of social action include the following situations: divorce due to “didn’t get along”, giving a bribe, denying one’s guilt when violating traffic rules, speaking at a scientific conference, passing an exam, standing in line at a store?

Max Weber's concept of social action has received universal recognition abroad. The starting points formulated by the German scientist were developed in the works of J. Mead, F. Znaniecki, E. Shils and many others. Thanks to the generalization of Weber's concept by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) the theory of social action became the foundation of modern behavioral science. Parsons went further than Weber in analyzing elementary social action by including the actor, the situation, and the conditions.

Social Action Today

In this sense, it is understandable that many researchers have recently turned to the works of M. Weber, who proposed a classification of types of social action, including goal-rational, post-rational, traditional and affective types of social action. D.V. Olshansky, for example, made an attempt to differentiate types of social behavior in accordance with Weber’s classification based on the distribution of respondents’ answers to the question: “What do you think is the most worthy behavior in today’s crisis situation?” D. Olshansky attributed the desire to find one’s place in a market economy to the value-rational type of behavior, the goal-oriented type corresponds to the answer option “trust in the policy of reforms requires active personal actions of everyone,” the affective type assumes an active protest against the ongoing reforms, and the desire to devote more time to the family corresponds to traditional behavior.

• Weber M. Basic sociological concepts / trans. with him. M. I. Levina // His own. Selected works. M.: Progress, 1990. P. 602-603.
• Cm.: Weber M. Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Vol. 1. P. 11.
• Let us immediately note that not all sociologists agree with Weber. For example, the revolutionary syndrome, based on affective behavior, has served as the subject of research for many thinkers, including P. Sorokin.
• Cm.: Ionia L.G. Weber Max // Sociology: encyclopedia / comp. A. A. Gritsanov, V. L. Abushenko, G. M. Evelkin, G. N. Sokolova, O. V. Tereshchenko. Mn.: Book House, 2003. P. 159.
• Cm.: Olshansky D. V. Social adaptation: who won? Macro-mechanism of reforms // Economic reforms in Russia: social dimension. M., 1995. pp. 75–83.