As I just mentioned Weber’s theory believed that the spirit of capitalism was influenced by religion and in particular Protestantism. There were a number of types of Protestant groups but one in particular had a closer link in its views to capitalism. The Calvinists believed that they were a direct source of the spirit of capitalism. Their idea was to work for the greater glory of God and that only certain predestined followers were to be chosen to enter the kingdom of God. If they were successful in their job which was indicated by possessing material goods and having lots of money than they were one of the chosen few that God was happy with and their entry to heaven was certain. However this person also had to live a modest and sober lifestyle and to abstain from life’s materialistic temptations (Giddens 2005, p.665).
Weber’s theory differs from Durkheim in that he concentrates on the connection between religion and social change and contrasts with Marx because he believes that religion has had a major impact on social transformations within our society like the above mentioned Calvinists. He believes that unlike the West, China and India have not developed in a capitalist sense because they have stood strong to their religion belief and can be saved if they adopt the teachings of their religious values and follow its moral instructions (Giddens 2005, pp. 538-539).
Max Weber believed that Europe’s economic and social development was influenced greatly by the heritage of Roman law. This however was not as straightforward as it sounds because modern capitalism first took place in England and Roman law was less influential in England compared to its European neighbours (Giddens 2000, p.178). Weber knew that as a society we can all view the world differently; in simple terms there are those that view tradition or pre-industrial societies as vital to their existence. Modern societies according to Weber believe in a capitalist-industrial society and they endorse rationalization. Those people believe in a calculated and efficient manner in which to achieve an objective. By contrast traditionalists were guided by the past, and beliefs were passed down from one generation to the next (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.88).
Weber was opposed to materialist values and believed that all individuals should have freedom of movement. Although he came from a middle class background he had great sympathy for the working class. He believed that capitalism encouraged the pursuit of material goods and that it hindered the growth of an individual. This Weber described dramatically was the ‘iron cage’ of modern life (Beetham 1991, p.56).
Weber however agreed with Karl Marx that the efficiency of industrial capitalism could not be matched but they both agreed that the result was a modern society with widespread alienation. Marx was more concerned with the economic inequality whereas Weber was more concerned with the dehumanisation in relation to regulation and laws that come hand in hand with bureaucracy and rationalization. His concern was that people would be treated as objects and not as individual human beings, that people would end up working in large factories or companies where their spirits would eventually be crushed (Macionis and Plummer 2005, p.91).
I will now discuss with you formal rationality and why I believe it is ultimately oppressive for humanity. Weber described formal rationality as an action that was precisely calculated. It is calculated on a process that involves rules, regulations and a strict code of practice. According to Weber formal rationality is practised only in the West, the reason for this was the industrialisation and capitalism that existed. These rules and regulations can be found not only in business and economics but also in areas like, law, the Arts, Politics and Religion (Ritzer 2008, p.249).
I shall now examine each of these areas and how they are affected by formal rationalization. Law in today’s society is practised by educated people that have attended colleges or universities. When this person qualifies and becomes a solicitor or barrister it no longer matters to them how laws were made or how they came into being. What matters now is the result for the individual and how it affects them. A rapist appears and is represented in court under the same conditions as a person who appears for non-payment of a fine.
Offenders are likely to be punished in much the same way, but can depend on the quality of representation they are able to afford. The formal rationalization of law firms becomes similar to large companies or enterprises. These law firms are sub-divided into smaller departments with a person specialising in a particular area. The company became an efficient business which of course is good for the owners and shareholders but the human touch or customer relationship is non-existent.
Weber argued that music in the West had developed in one particular direction and that the Arts in general had now taken up a form of rationalization themselves (Ritzer 2008, p.257). I tend to agree with Weber in this respect. Today music follows a pattern that tends to be followed and copied by most musicians. There are rules and regulations that are adhered to and followed in the making of musicals.
Originally music was a way of expressing one’s individual charm, talent or gift however today the music industry has become massive, business with programmes like the ‘X Factor’ taking up vast coverage on our televisions at weekends. When artists fail to comply with the ‘norm’ of what is expected of them, the large television and radio stations will refuse to give them any ‘air’ time.
Painting has also been affected by formal rationality. Weber explains that artists are now expected to follow rules in relation to utilization of lines and spatial perspective and that man is limited in the construction of buildings because of restrictions in relation to architecture (Ritzer 2008, p.258). I ask myself what will future generations think of us when they view such restrictions that is oppressing the flair and imagination that most artists have within them as in individual.
Conclusion
Weber has a pessimistic view of rationalization of society. He believed there were too many rules and regulations to follow and that this system would crush human spirit and eventually would turn humans into robots. He believed that capitalism was hugely influenced by Protestantism and in particular the Calvinist approach.
I believe that formal rationality is ultimately oppressive for humanity. It relies on calculations and replaces humans with technology. Computers and modern machinery are most definitely progressive and have their advantages but ultimately they replace humans in the workplace and replace human contact with one another to a lesser value. Yes formal rationality is efficient and predictable but, as humans do we really need predictability and total control over uncertainties. I believe not, because perhaps I am a dreamer and envisage a society that offers magic and uncertainties for our children.
References
Beetham, D. (1991) Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics 2nd edition, Leeds: Polity Press.
Bradbury, L., Jones, P. and Le Boutiller, S. (2011) Introducing Society Theory 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1993) Sociology 2nd edition, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Giddens, A. (2005) Sociology 4th edition, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Giddens, A. and Held, D. (1987) Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates, Contemporary Social Theory, London: MacMillan.
Lee, D. and Newby, H. (1994) The Problem of Sociology, London: Routledge.
Macionis, J.J. and Plummer, K. (2005) Sociology: A Global Introduction 3rd Edition, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Ritzer, G. (2008) Classical Sociological Theory 5th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
by
angelcakes1 (student)
