Moving onto Max Weber (1864 – 1920) his rational society is said to affect economic life, law, administration and the legal state. The essence of the rationalization process is the increasing tendency by social actors to use the knowledge, in the context of interpersonal relationships, with the aim of achieving greater control over the world around them. However rather than increasing freedom and autonomy, rationalization makes ends of means and imprisons the individual within the “iron cage” of rationalized institutes, organizations and activities (Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology 1998:550).
Sociology according to Weber is the study of social action and he suggested four basic categories of action that could provide such a standard of social action. (1) Traditional Action, (2) Affective Action, (3) Value-rational Action and (4) Technical-rational Action.
Traditional Action The individual driven by custom and habit. E.g. eating, washing etc.
Affective Action The individual is guided by emotions. E.g. seeking revenge or sensual gratification
Value-rational Action The individual follows strongly held values and morals, overall objectives or ends are seen as important and behaviour is guided by ideals – doing the right thing
Technical-rational Action The individual chooses the objectives and means rationally, with a full account taken of the consequences
Weber argued that technical-rational action was becoming more and more dominant in western society and was driving out the other forms of action. This notion of rationality and the spread of it is a key principle of Weber’s work (Making Sense of Society 1996:62).
Moving on from the sociological foundations of Marx and Weber the second part of this paper will examine the comparisons and variations between the two viewpoints focussing firstly on the market situation (class position) and then capitalism.
Like Marx, Weber saw class in economic terms (Weber 1947 as cited in Sociology: Themes and Perspectives 2000: 36). He agreed that classes develop market economies in which individuals compete for economic gain. Also like Marx he said that the major class division is between those who own the forces of production and those who do not.
However he disagreed with Marx that there would be an inevitable proletarian revolution. Weber also rejected the view of Marx in that political power necessarily derives from economic power. Weber also saw no evidence to support Marx’s idea of the polarisation of the classes. He maintained that capitalist enterprises and the modern nation state require a rational bureaucratic administration, thus Weber saw a diversification of classes rather than a polarisation.
In terms of capitalism. Weber’s definition is that capitalism is an enterprise working towards unlimited acquisition of goods and functioning in a rational and disciplined way which resembles Marx’s definition which is: the essence of capitalism is the pursuit of profit through the market; capitalism has utilised increasingly powerful technical means to achieve its ends – of extra profit. However the differences from Marx are the major characteristic of capitalism is rationalization, which would continue no matter who owned the means of production. The need for rational organisation would persisit beyond any revolution that might result in the state ownership of production; it would still exsist in socialist or communist societies.
Fundamentally Marx looks at society as social groups and how they motivate and influence the individual. Whereas Weber sees individual social action motivating groups and ultimately shaping society (Making Sense of Society 1996:61). Marx foresaw an emancipating revolution from the proletariat. But Weber appeared more pessimistic in the prognosis of freedom than that of his contemporary.
The next part of this essay will describe a modern day situation and subsequently the concepts of both Marx and Weber will be applied. The situation used for this purpose will be the rise and success of McDonalds.
McDonalds fast food chain started in U.S.A. in the 1950’s. The hierarchy within each store usually employs a manager and a large team of staff. The business thrives on the word fast in terms of turnover this is in relation to burgers, fries, milkshakes etc. and also customers. Its success is due to its ability to offer consumers, workers, and managers four basic components these are; efficiency, calculability, predictability and control.
These four basic components can be thought of as a rational system. These components introduced originally in Weber’s theory of rationality are amplified by McDonalds and are a clear extension of Weber’s theory. Many aspects of McDonalds mirror the concept of rationalisation using these basic components this is illustrated in the following examples.
Efficiency is used to; streamline operations, have faster service, make burgers quicker. Calculability (calculating, counting, quantifying) is seen at McDonalds as to how many burgers can be sold in an hour – speed of productivity (usually high) and what are the end results (usually large). Predictability is the third dimension and as in Weber’s rational society people prefer to know what to expect in most setting and at most times. In McDonalds this manifests in their outlets (seating arrangements, facilities etc.), their products (taste, size, price etc) everything is the same in every outlet across the world. Finally Control is seen as the replacement of human with non-human technology. Technology includes, machines and tools but also materials, skills, knowledge, rules regulations, procedures and techniques. (The McDonaldization of Society 2000).
Also as in Weber’s ideology (Classical Social Theory 1997) McDonalds can be a dehumanising place in which to work, the efficiency element making staff into robotic machines that provide the fast food, the consumers dehumanised in the fact of having to queue for their food and to listen to the same greeting said in a monotonous manner by the ever-smiling member of staff. This is the irrationality of rationality the “iron cage”. This is the process of rationalisation that eventually leads to the loss of quality and enchantment (The McDonaldization of Society 2000:22-25).
Moving onto a Marxist view of McDonalds. We see a comparison with Marx’s view with his capitalist beliefs and also class position in terms of polarisation.
The business exploits the staff. The staff are usually young and will work long hours for a minimum wage and few breaks. Their working environment in many cases is poor but legally adequate. Inevitably conflict between the workers and the managers (who are paid marginally more than their subordinates) arise and result in a very high turnover of staff (The McDonaldization of Society 2000:185-190).
This is akin to Marx’s capitalist concept that labour power itself was a commodity and according to Marx, labour power is used exploitive: its exchange value as reflected in the wage is less than the value it produces for the capitalist (Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology: 53).
Marx’s would see the business and the workers as “two great hostile camps” of bourgeoisie and proletariat (Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology: 500) and thus personify his theory of the polarisation of the classes. The worldwide expansion of the fast food chain is also consistent with Marxist theory. Material interests intimately associated with capitalism motivate McDonalds.
To conclude this paper we have analysed both Marx and Weber in terms of their individual theories, the similarities and differences between the two have been considered and the keys points from each individual concept applied to a contemporary model (McDonalds). Weber was clearly influenced by Marx, but was critical of some of his views. He criticised Marx’s overemphasis on materialist explanations of historical development and argued that social divisions reflected more than solely economic or class conflict (Making Sense of Society 1996:60).
It is apparent that there are many similarities between this model of McDonalds that we have used and that of the ideologies of both Marx and Weber. It would further be acceptable to imagine that these theories could be applied throughout many and varied current situations / issues. It would be reasonable to assume that after such analysis that the historical ideals put forward by these two great men still have relevance in today’s modern society.
References
Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology 1998: 77
Perspectives in Sociology 1980:58
Marx 1848 as cited in Classical Social Theory 1997: 96
Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology 1998:550
Making Sense of Society 1996:62
Weber 1947 as cited in Sociology: Themes and Perspectives 2000: 36
Making Sense of Society 1996:61
The McDonaldization of Society 2000
Classical Social Theory 1997
The McDonaldization of Society 2000:22-25
The McDonaldization of Society 2000:185-190
Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology: 53
Oxford: Making Sense of Society 1996:60
Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology: 500
Bibliography
Craib I., (1997) “ Classical Social Theory” (Oxford)
Cuff and Payne (eds), (1980) “Perspectives in Sociology” (George Allen & Unwin)
Haralambos and Holborn (5th Ed), (2000) “Sociology: Themes and Perspectives” (Collins)
Henshal and Henshal (1973) “Perspectives on Social Problems” (Longman)
Marsh et al (1996) “Making Sense of Society” (Longman)
Marshall G., (1998) “Oxford: Dictionary of Sociology” (Oxford)
Ritzer G., (2000) “The McDonaldization of Society” (Pine Forge)
Wrong D., (1977) “Skeptical Sociology” (Columbia University Press)
