CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY:
A Review of Themes, Concepts, and Perspectives (Part I)Mathieu Deflem
Deflem@gwm.sc.edu
www.mathieudeflem.netThis edition, January 1999.
This is Part One on:..Karl Marx..Max Weber Click here to go to Part Two on: Durkheim, Simmel, and Mead
MAX WEBER (1864-1920):
THE RATIONALIZATION OF SOCIETYLiterature:
(1905) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
(1910-1914) Economy and Society
(1915-) ReligionssoziologieA. Methodological Approach Weber stressed the need for social theory to break through materialist and idealist models of explanation to indicate the "elective affinity" of different social conditions. However, his interests were not revolutionary oriented to praxis (Marx), nor scientifically directed at the establishment of a science of society (Durkheim), rather, his sociology is inspired by the concrete political concerns of Weber as a citizen of Germany: his attention goes out to the ways in which German political life should be ordered with the advent of bureaucracy and industrial capitalism and the decline of traditional world-views.
1. Objectivity and Value-Freedom
a) An Objective Sociology of Subjectivity
The differentiation of subject and object (and the corresponding distinctions between social and natural sciences) does not mean that the social sciences, which necessarily deal with ideal phenomena, cannot be objective. Social sciences cannot scientifically establish the ideals or normative principles which define what ought to be. But one can distinguish means and ends of action, and science can determine what the best means are, given that end. Sociology can, then, also say that some ends are useless since there are, and can be, no means to achieve those goals. Or sociology can also determine and explicitly state the axioms on which certain attitudes and statements rest.
There is therefore no universal ethics. No single set of ideals can be shown scientifically to be right or wrong. This is why there is religion, it is directed towards ultimate ends (Gesinnungsethik). On the other hand, sociology can assist in an ethics of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik), which seeks to find the rational calculus by which means are employed to ends, and the consequences they actually have, regardless of (despite of) the intentions.
b) Causality and Ideal-Types
Science seeks causes, but it also rests on ideals which it cannot justify scientifically, mainly the selection of relevant facts out of reality. So we must know the values that guide knowledge. This cannot lay in the formulation of laws; the uniqueness of historical events has to be explained (e.g. why is there capitalism only in the West?). Note that the natural sciences also seek to unravel the uniqueness of things.
The identification of causes of effects necessarily rests on certain assumptions, as a minimum this involves the selection of events, and the identification of the one factor or set of factors, in a broader frame of factors (which is basically a stream of events), without which a certain effect would not have been brought about. This identification is selective, and in this sense, subjective, but any such identification, then, must be verifiable by others (a sort of consensus theory of truth).
Ideal-types are specifically constructed with the purpose of interpreting and explaining a historical event. It is constructed by abstracting and combining a limited number of elements which are seldom found, in purity, in reality. However, the ideal-type is not an ideal, it is, rather, an idealization with a purpose: the ideal-type is not description nor hypothesis, but it is a metrological device that aids in describing and explaining, it makes reality describable and explainable at all.
c) Value-Freedom
Scientists should be value-free (in the meaning indicated above), but this does not mean, according to Weber, that scientists cannot have and propagate values. The scientist as educator must seek to specialize in knowledge and education, but the scientist can, not as scientist but as political animal, outside the university, express political and moral judgments. The sphere of science and politics, then, must and can be kept separate.
2. Understanding and Explanation
a) Interpretative Sociology
Weber was interested in the formulation of general principles of social action, but these cannot be conceived as laws: sociology must seek to understand human action inasmuch as it is (non-)meaningful. Human action is subjective: it is guided by the motivations and intentions of the actors involved. Sociology seeks to understand those motives and meanings from an emphatic attitude (Sinverstehen). This does not exclude explanation: sociology understands human action, with reference to an ideal-type or with regard to a specific meaning of action, and thereby explains its course and consequences. Also, sociology can identify both the meaningful and non-meaningful elements of action. The techniques to grasp meaning must be replicable, and verifiable on the basis of the established standards of methodology. These techniques include a) direct observation of emotive action (e.g. anger), and b) explanatory understanding by identifying an intervening motivational link between meaning and action (e.g. chop wood). The latter implies the identification of a particular motive which is always linked to a broader frame of normativity. This does not mean psychological reductionism (cf. there are explainable structures within which meaning is given).
b) Social Relationships
A social relationship is defined as a reciprocal interaction between two or more individuals, which does not necessarily mean that the meanings of all actors are identical, but that there must be meaning involved in any case on the part of the inter-actors (an orientation to).
Weber distinguishes four ideal-typical types of orientation in social relationships: 1) Purposive rational action is directed by the successful calculation of means towards a give end; 2) Value rational action is directed towards an ideal and is carried out for its own sake; 3) Affective action is also carried out for its own sake, yet it lacks a clear ideal, and rests on an emotive state; and 4) Traditional action is carried out under the influence of a custom or habit.
B. Protestantism, Capitalism, and the World Religions
1. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
a) The Problem
There is the statistical fact that in modern capitalist societies, the high-skilled workers and the entrepreneurs are overwhelmingly Protestant. The connection between economic rationality in capitalism and Protestantism Weber will trace in the character of Protestant beliefs. This connection in itself is nothing special (Marx saw Protestantism as the ideological reflection of capitalism), but Weber suggest an alternative explanation. He will focus on cultural elements which, he will show, have are a peculiar independent factor in the formation of Western capitalism, defined as, an this is crucial, the rational capitalistic organization of free labor.
b) The Spirit of Capitalism
The methodical conduct of life under capitalism is not just a practice, it is also an ethic, a conviction which emphasizes the duty of the individual to increase capital, the making of money as a goal in and by itself. This conduct is specific to Western capitalism (other forms of capitalism may lack it). This capitalist spirit goes beyond the traditionalistic conception of the manipulation of nature to sustain ones livelihood.
Note from the start that what Weber is talking about is a very precise conception of capitalism (it is not what Marx meant by it): "capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise". Capitalist rational action Weber describes as "one which rests on the expectation of profit by the utilization of opportunities for exchange, that is on (formally) peaceful chances of profit... The important fact is always that a calculation of capital in terms of money is made". Capitalism for Weber, then, is first and foremost the desire to use the most rational, i.e. most efficient, means to accumulate wealth, a desire which serves no other end than itself. For the acquisition of more and more money, and at the same time the avoidance of pleasure, there is employed a very rational procedure. The method is rational (in terms of efficiency), and the goal is irrational, namely the acquisition of money for an end (to have it) which defies the main characteristic of money (namely a means of exchange, i.e. to be used). Note that this method of conduct, as inspired by the Protestant ethos of Calvinism, applies only to a limited number of people for a short period of time, and only in the West. It is then, by all standards, not true that Weber suggests that Protestantism led to capitalism, let alone caused it.
c) Luthers Concept of the Calling
The concept of the calling is a product of the Reformation. It refers to the joining of the mundane affairs of life with an over-arching religious influence (away from the ideal of Catholic monastic isolation to the inner-worldly worship of the outer-worldly god). One had to perform ones duties in the world to serve god. But Luthers concept of the calling was still traditionalistic since it implied an absolute acceptance of the way things are. Later Protestant sects changed this. Then four (ideal-typical) kinds of ascetic Protestantism emerged: Calvinism, Methodism, Pietism, and Baptism.
d) Calvinism
Calvinism has the following idea(l)s: the universe exists for god, the motives of god are humanly incomprehensible, and, most importantly, only a small number of people are chosen to receive grace, i.e. the notion of predestination. The consequences of these beliefs for the believer were an unprecedented feeling of inner loneliness: one could not know whether one was chosen, this is decisive, the crucial break from Catholicism (for the thesis Weber seeks to defend). Therefore, one had the duty to convince oneself that one was chosen, self-confidence would be a sign of weakened faith, and this self-confidence can best be secured by an intensely inner-worldly activity. For this reason, labor in the material world became the highest positive ethical attitude: the instrumental spirit of capitalism is an unintended offshoot of Calvinism.
e) Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism
The spirit of ascetic Protestantism gave birth to capitalist economic rationalism because of its emphasis on the ascetic rational motives with a denouncement of pleasure. Puritanism restricted pleasure, and at the same time broke with traditionalism, to see the acquisition of wealth as directly willed by god. Then, once capitalism is established, this religious core does not have to be there anymore. The economic rational conduct of life becomes a power independent of religion. The idea of the calling is a support for capitalism that, in the end, it no longer needs. Then, the cloak of the care for external goods has become an "iron cage."
So Weber concludes that the rationality of capitalism is connected with the irrationality of a value commitment (against a naive historical materialism), but Weber does not present a unified alternative theory. Weber states that there is an elective affinity between certain sorts of Calvinism and the ethics of capitalism. He adds that it is necessary "to investigate how Protestant Asceticism was in turn influenced by its character by the totality of social conditions, especially economic". A one-sided approach, materialist or idealist, is in any case useless. Also Weber did not maintain "such a foolish and doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit of capitalism... could only have arisen as the result of certain effects of the reformation, or even that capitalism as an economic system is the creation of the Reformation". Instead Weber argues that the Protestant ethic which holds that the acquisition of material goods is good in itself, even willed by god, has shaped the particular course capitalism has taken in the West, and that the ethic of Protestantism is co-responsible for the qualitative formation and quantitative expansion of the capitalist culture.
f) Addendum: The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism
In this paper, Weber tries to account for the fact that, while (in the USA) state and church are separated and the state authorities accordingly never ask for a persons denomination, the question of religious affiliation was always posed in social and business life. Admission to a religious congregation was seen as a certificate of business morals, an absolute guarantee of the moral qualities of a gentleman, especially of the qualities required in business. This is because a sect, unlike a church, is a voluntary association of those who are religiously and morally qualified to become one of its members. Today the particular kind of denomination is rather irrelevant, but it is decisive that one is admitted to membership by ballot, after an examination of moral worth and an ethical probation in the sense of virtues which will guarantee inner-worldly asceticism and credit worthiness in business life. The methodical way of life in the sects nowadays appears in a complex of voluntary associations: one must belong to a club of whatever kind. These clubs, which are a secularized version of their predecessors (sects), share the formal qualities of being voluntary, exclusive and based upon an examination of worthiness. Not only the ethic of Protestantism (see The Protestant Ethic), but also the social premiums, means of discipline, and, in general, the whole organization of Protestantism still find their derivatives today.
In history, three principles of protestant organization are revealed. 1) Voluntarism: Only qualified persons are admitted to the Lords Supper. The voluntaristic nature of this admission is demonstrated by the fact that baptism is reserved for adults. This poses the problem of who is to decide who will and has to, and who cannot be admitted. 2) Sovereignty: Only the local sacral community can judge whether a member is qualified. The community stands jointly before god. Only charisma, not training or office (of professional theologians or spiritual authority) is recognized. 3) Moral discipline: Externally, expelled persons are boycotted, while, internally in the sects, brotherliness and mutual aid secure the cohesiveness of the group.
The modern functions of sect-like organizations in the USA follow the same pattern. The discipline of the sects was vested in the hands of laymen, it worked through the necessity to hold ones own, and it bred and selected qualities. This last element is most important: one has to have certain qualities and constantly has to prove this. Therefore, this inner-worldly asceticism is a methodical, rational way of conduct. It is the foundation of modern individualism since it legitimates the economic individualism of modern capitalism.
2. The World Religions
a) The Economic Ethics of the World Religions
Webers sociology of law is opposed to the organicist model of society, there is more than a one-to-one relationship, much more interdependence between different parts. Also, he is opposed to evolutionary theories that readily assume inevitable historical patterns. Weber is interested in finding the economic ethic of the religions of the world, i.e. the practical impulses for action found in the pragmatic contexts of religion. The economic ethic of a religion does not enjoy a one-to-one status with economic organization, but it is important to note that the economic ethic is not just a function of economic organization (contrary to Marx), nor of religion. Note for instance how religious ethics has evaluated suffering. Suffering can be seen as a reflection of possession by a demon. Therefore, the advantaged feel blessed, they are the chosen ones that deserve grace (as a legitimation of inequality). The disadvantaged, on the other hand, must be purified, e.g. by magicians. Thus sacred values always include worldly matters (health, wealth, etc.). And, irrational values have led to very rational ways of life, and how this differently affects different social strata.
b) Religions of the World and Capitalism
The distinct characteristic of religion is the worship of divine entities, with priests, a cult, and a system of beliefs (magical forces, on the other hand, are subordinated to human needs by the use of formulae, with magicians, cults, and a low degree of systematic beliefs). The prophet of religion is an individual bearer of charisma who proclaims a religious doctrine, and is instrumental for change; prophets can (not necessarily) de-mystify the world or remove magic (cf. disenchantment). The doctrine of the prophet may be inconsistent, but, more importantly, his practical orientation to the world give unity. It is important to note that Weber did not simply conduct ex-post-facto experiments: there exist in history different combinations of material and ideal factors which are decisive for the (non-)formation of capitalism.
c) Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions
Asceticism and mysticism as religious rejections of the world are ideal types; this means they are not historical formations, but technical, methodological aids that enable us to see to what extent historical phenomena approximate these constructions.
Asceticism: Mysticism:Asceticism moves in two directions: it negates the world, and simultaneously wants to master it through the powers of abnegation, in different spheres of action:
abnegation as god-willed action contemplative possession of the holy
individual as a tool of the divine individual as a vessel of the divine
inner-worldly contemplative flight from the world
(asceticist flight from the world) (inner-worldly mysticism)
to prove oneself through action to prove oneself against the world1) The traditional community: the religiosity of the congregation no longer appeals to the community of villagers, members of the sib, guilds and so on, but, as religion of brotherliness, to the relations among the believers. This leads to tensions between the order and universalist ethic demands of the brethren of the faith and the orders and values of this world.
2) The economic sphere: the religions of salvation warn against the impersonal mechanisms of the money-market. Therefore, asceticism routinized work in the world into serving gods will, and mysticism resorts to an objectless devotion for anybody, not for the persons sake, but for devotion.
3) The political sphere: to the powers of the state, claiming the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, puritanism reacts by acting against the world with the means of that world (violence). Mysticism, on the other hand, takes on a radical anti-political attitude: it completely withdraws from the pragma of violence. Tensions with the political world are unavoidable, but compromises are always made. The rationalization of politics and economy, leading action to be more and more considered in terms of means-ends relations (purposive rationality), increase these tensions. In the end, the religion of brotherliness could entirely reject purposive rational action.
4) The esthetic sphere: just like economy and politics, the esthetic sphere is rationalized into a separate social domain, claiming independence with regard to beauty and form. In the religions of brotherliness art is supposed to have a meaning (in relation to god) and not be just a thing of form. Again, this leads to tensions, but alliances or compromises are made.
5) The erotic sphere: eroticism has been raised into the sphere of conscious enjoyment, acquiring a sensational character as a salvation from rationalization, an escape from means-ends directed relations. Of course, a principled ethic of religious brotherhood is sharply opposed to this "brutality" an denial of bondage to god.
6) The intellectual sphere: the tension between religion and scientific knowledge is the greatest. Science has disenchanted the world into a causal mechanism (loss of freedom) and pushed religion away into the irrational realm. Every religion, on the other hand, in the end asks for a sacrifice of the intellect; in religion the world is understood by virtue of a charisma of illumination, not by intellect. The scientification of the world has also led to a loss of meaning (senselessness), and religion, in turn, has become ever more other-worldly, more alienated from all structured forms of life, confining itself to the specific religious essence.
C. State, Bureaucracy, and Law in the Age of Modernity
1. State and Bureaucracy
One of Webers most famous contributions to sociology is his approach to politics, bureaucracy and the state. First, note that political societies exercise their might over a territory by the threat or use of force, and by reference to some kind of legitimacy. Political legitimacy can be of three kinds: 1) Traditional authority is based on the belief in the age-old sanctity of power; 2) Legal domination is typical for the bureaucracy of the state (see below); and 3) charismatic domination is based on the belief in the extraordinary qualities of a person.
When a political society uses force in such a way that it results in a successful monopoly over force, there is a state. Weber defines the state as "a compulsory association which organizes domination. It has been successful in seeking to monopolize the legitimate use of physical force as a means of domination within a territory. The domination of the state implies that its subordinates belief in the legitimacy of their subordination.
To secure its legitimate monopoly over force, the state has combined the material means of organization in the hands of its leaders, and it has "expropriated all autonomous functionaries of estates who formerly controlled these means in their own rights. The state has taken their positions and now stands in top place". The crucial elements in Webers definition of the state, then, refer to 1) the legitimate use of force, 2) the territorial boundaries which delineate the states domination, and 3) the appropriation of the means of control.
a) The Legitimacy of the State
First, Weber contends that the modern state cannot be defined in terms of its ends, but only in terms of its means: the state has acquired a monopoly over the use of force. Unlike the commonly held view at Webers time of viewing the state as one of the noblest of mans creations, the means of the state should in Webers view be conceived in terms of violence and coercion. The threat or use of physical force is not the only means of the state but it is specific to the state. The appropriation of the means of violence is necessary for the formation of the state, but it is not sufficient for its further development. States also fulfill the following functions: the enactment of law (legislation), the protection of personal safety and public order (police), the protection of vested rights (administration of justice), the cultivation of cultural interests (in the administration), and the organized armed protection against outside attack (the military).
b) The Territory of the State
Second, Weber holds the view that the state has a monopoly of force within a given territory. The authority of the state is binding within a particular territorial area only. After having given his definition (see above), Weber stresses: "Note that territory is one of the characteristics of the state (as it is of any political formation). Any kind of political association is therefore defined, next to legitimate force, as having a territorial basis: "Whenever corporate groups which make use of force are also characterized by a claim to territorial jurisdiction..., they must be regarded by definition to that extent as political groups". This does not mean, according to Weber, that every form of organization with territorial claims is a state; the monopoly of force and its legitimacy through legality are just as necessary conditions for there to be a state. He draws a comparison with churches: "The prevailing hierocratic territorial and parochial organization is in accordance with the normal striving of a church after complete domination;... But unlike the political corporate group, the church historically has not felt nearly as much the need for exclusive territorial domination and this is especially true today.
c) The Bureaucracy of the State
As a third element in Webers definition of the state, he contends that the right to use force is given to other institutions only to the extent to which the state permits it. These institutions are the bureaucracies in the sphere of public government ("bureaucratic authority") and in the market-economy ("bureaucratic management"). Bureaucratic authority is bound by obedience to the power-holder: the means of power are separated from the formally autonomous power-holders to the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.
Bureaucracies are for Weber one of the most important characteristics of modern, rationalized societies. they indicate the extent to which the world has become calculable in terms of efficiency, the extent to which the previous mysteries of the world, as embodied in traditionalistic ethical life, have become disenchanted (demystified).
Legal legitimacy rests on the validity of impersonal norms which have been consciously established in the context of purposive or value rationality. This accounts for the following characteristics of bureaucracies: 1) they are subject to the principle of fixed jurisdictional areas; 2) because of their hierarchy they are firmly ordered; 3) the modern office is based upon written documents (files); 4) the public equipment of the official are divorced from his private property, and the executive office is separated from the household; 5) specialized training is required; 6) official activity is a full-time job; 7) the management of offices is guided by general rules which can be learnt. Only within modern capitalist societies, do bureaucracies take on this form, directly affected by the division of labor: bureaucracies are specialization and therefore efficient.
Bureaucracies perform administrative tasks (management) to secure an efficient functioning of state and market-economy. Like capitalist enterprises, bureaucracies also concentrate the material means of management. In the military, for instance, war has become war of machines, and in the field of science, the bureaucratization of institutes and universities involves an increasing demand for material means of research and education. Bureaucracies are also based on a leveling of social differences: they create mass democracies which level the governed in opposition to the ruling. The bureaucratic apparatus is stable, permanent, indispensable, and the machine is "easily made to work for anybody who knows how to gain control over it". The administrative functions of bureaucracies are specialized and based on calculable rules: bureaucracy is dehumanized, and objective experts take control. The political master may find himself in the role of dilettante who stand opposite the expert.
Characteristic for modern bureaucracies is the discipline with which they operate. The discipline in the army and in monasteries is, according to Weber, a central force in the process of bureaucratization. Indeed, discipline emerged out of the techniques of the organization of warfare (not just the technological means), and it was military discipline that affected social and economic life. Under these conditions, mainly to satisfy the needs of professional soldiery, charismatic political power structures become routinized and rational, transforming into legal-rational power under bureaucratic control. Note, however, that as a formal means of organization, discipline can accompany any political power structure, whether traditional, charismatic or legal-rational.
The notion of discipline refers to, first, an institutional form of organization, which gradually extends throughout society. It refers to the "consistently rationalized, methodically trained and exact execution of the received order, in which all personal criticism is unconditionally suspended". Discipline reduces the significance of individual action, it is a matter purely of formal routine and efficiency. The officials position in a bureaucracy is therefore characterized by a) the social esteem he enjoys from the governed, b) the fact that he is appointed (not elected), c) that it is a life-long appointment, d) that he reserves regular salaries, and e) that he can have a career with fixed conditions for advancement. Second, the spread of discipline throughout society also transforms the individual psychology: people have developed a passion for bureaucratization. At the same time, Weber sees it important to "oppose this machinery in order to preserve a vestige of humanity from this fragmentation of the soul". The idea of democracy is inherently ambivalent towards bureaucracies since it opposes the status of bureaucratic specialist and seeks to replace them by the (just as arbitrary) influence of the governed and their representatives in political parties.
2. Class, Status, and Party
a) Class
Discipline is also an important mechanism in the power potentials of classes, status groups and parties. A class in Weber terminologys are determined by economic interest in the possession of goods (property) and opportunities for income (sale of labor service), a definition for which Weber is largely indebted to Marx. However, Weber contends that class interests are not uni-directly determined by ownership: class struggles do not necessarily have to result from the inequalities in ownership. Class consciousness must be mobilized under certain circumstances, which can be non-economic, such as the visibility of the class enemy, the menas of communication to organize a group, and so on. The relevance of classes as classes, however, is by definition solely restricted to market conditions.
b) Status
Status groups are determined by a social estimation of honor and prestige: unlike classes, status groups do not necessarily consist of economically privileged people, but of symbolic qualities and a particular life-style, and, unlike classes, they are mostly conscious of their common position (example: professional organizations). The potential of status groups for political and communal action is clear from their characteristic of social closure: groups tend to improve their lot by restricting access to rewards and privileges to a small circle of chosen ones. Certain social or physical attributes are selected and function as criteria of eligibility. It does not matter what these criteria are as long as they lead to distinguish insiders from outsiders. Exclusionary social closure thus enables status groups to secure advantages and resources for itself.
c) Party
Parties, finally, are exclusively related to power and domination. Parties strive to realize planned change in communal action (sometimes based on class, on status, on both, or neither). Parties can reach "beyond the frontiers of politics... But their aim is not necessarily the establishment of new international political, i.e. territorial, dominion".
While discipline, class, status and party are related to aspects of power, it is noteworthy that Weber does not discuss them in relation to state and bureaucracy. Classes, status groups and parties can strive for power and mobilize political action, but they nevertheless operate in the realm of civil society or the nation. The nation refers to a group held together by sentiments of solidarity in the face of other groups. It is not identical with the people of a state but may cross through different states, or any one state can harbor different nations. A nation does not necessarily share the same language, religion, race or common descent but each of these or any other cultural values may be focussed on to define the nation. Nations do tend to produce their own state, but are nevertheless in the first instance cultural entities.
3. The Rational State of Law
a) Legitimacy and Law
Webers sociology of law is intimately related to his notion of state and bureaucracy (note: Giddens says that legitimacy is not necessarily related to the state or to state-law; but legal-rational legitimacy is, as Parsons rightly claims). The state not only has a monopoly of force, it is also a political community that successfully claims a legitimate monopoly of force. State domination is legitimated by legality, the belief in the rational validity of legal rules. This rational-legal legitimation derives from the systemic rationalization of law and constitutionalism, from bureaucracies and from doctrines of sovereignty. Weber is clearly directed against materialist and idealist interpretations of law. He defines law in the following way: "An order will be called law if it is externally guaranteed by the probability that coercion (physical or psychological), to bring about conformity or avenge violation, will be applied by a staff of people holding themselves specially ready for that purpose". The element of staff, the organized coercive apparatus including "judges, prosecutors, policemen, or sheriffs" is decisive (not coercion itself). This does not mean that legal legitimacy is always tied up to the state, and it does not always imply adherence to law. The criminal, for instance, also recognizes the legitimacy of law, namely because he has to carefully plan the execution of a crime, he is aware that it is a violation of law. The coercive apparatus does not have to be a political agency; there must simply be a body that applies sanctions, whether bound to the state or not.
b) The Rationality of Modern Law
In spite of the attention Weber pays to the legitimacy of law, which resides in the legal subjects, he interprets the law positivistically as a set of reliable techniques for producing legally consistent answers. Rationalized law is formal, abstract, exemplifying the disenchanted modernized world. A sense of justice may play a role in the development of law, but such an emotional factor "cannot be expressed except in a few very general and purely formal maxims". Legal formalism can be challenged by social law, based on emotionally colored ethical postulates like justice or human dignity, but this value-irrationalism has equally been opposed by attempts to re-establish objective standards of value and law as a technical tool. The legal-rational authority of the states bureaucracies is governed by procedures, by a system of laws, not of men, which formally regulates social affairs.
4. The Rationality of the Capitalist Economy
Weber considered the Western type of capitalist organization as "the most fateful force in our modern life". Indeed, throughout his writings, Weber discusses the influences of the capitalist economy on nearly every other sphere of modern society. The rise of bureaucracies, for instance, Weber explains partly by economic conditions. The money market is necessary to provide the income to maintain bureaucracies (based on a system of taxation) since bureaucracies cannot be derived from private profits. Other conditions of the expansion of bureaucracies are political. Bureaucratic structures grow larger and change qualitatively with the expansion of the state: "The increasing demand of a society, accustomed to absolute pacification, for order and protection (police), in all fields exerts an especially persevering influence in the direction of bureaucratization. A steady road leads from modifications of the blood feud, sacerdotally, or by means of arbitration, to the present position of the policeman as the representative of God on earth.".
Weber also mentions several technical developments that favor the rise of bureaucracies. The characteristically modern means of communication enter the picture as pacemakers of bureaucratization; public roads, telegraph and so on must be publicly administered. These technical developments are crucial for the possibilities of bureaucracies: "The modern Occidental state can be administered the way it actually is only because the state controls the telegraph network and has the mails and railroads at its disposal". Technological developments in the modern means of communication do not completely determine the operation of bureaucracies, they also respond to the demand of the capitalist market economy. Unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity and unity are all raised to the optimum point: "the extraordinary increase in the speed by which public announcements, as well as economic and political facts are transmitted, exerts a steady and sharp pressure in the direction of speeding up the tempo of administrative reaction towards various situations".
Note that Weber does not conceive the interplay of numerous, political, economic and cultural factors as an inevitable evolutionary trend. The extension of market capitalism he very likely sees as dominant. Also note that the antinomy between formal rationality (conduct organized according to calculable principles) and substantive rationality (calculable conduct applied to the furtherance of certain goals or value) cannot be resolved in modern capitalism.
The rise of modern rationalized law Weber also attributes to economic and political factors. Rational law is guided by general rules to create stable, predictable and patterned regularities in social actions and social institutions. Rationalized law is executed in the bureaucratic apparatus of the state, but it also serves the free-market economy. Specifically, law prevents a war of all against all on the economic battlefield. A rational free-market economy is not possible without the legal order of the state, but contractual freedom leads to the free use of resources without legal restraints: "The market is a relationship which transcends the boundaries of neighborhood, kinship group, or tribe". Laws leaving everything free to the market imply "a relative reduction of that kind of coercion which results from the threat of mandatory and prohibitory norms".
Back Continue to Part Two