Max Weber: Intellectual Foundation of Political Sociology

Max Weber was a German sociologist who is an important figure in terms of development of political sociology. Like Marx, Weber moved from one subject to another. He attempted to understand society as a whole, so an interdisciplinary approach made by Weber. He wrote about many things, but in this note our focus will be summarized on the followings: capitalism, social stratification, authority types, and bureaucracy.

Weber on capitalism, capitalism involves certain technology for the mass production. It requires the existence of capital. Capitalism requires market to sell products and it requires availability of skill labor force. Weber concludes that certain aspects of Christian beliefs strongly influenced the rise of capitalism. The industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism were proof of a larger trend towards rationalization.

Capitalism is not dominated by class conflict, as Marx believed, but by the rise of science and bureaucracy --- large scale organization. He says that without competition and free market capitalism cannot exist. In fact, Marx looked at early capitalism, while Weber looks at advance capitalism. There are certain unavoidable effects of capitalism described in the following way.

First, in capitalism routinaization takes place: every activity become routine and regular so as to there would be no surplus. Capitalism requires efficiency and efficiency requires discipline and discipline requires routine.  Weber says that this routine will not happen only in industry, rather will have its effect on other walks of life as well. Weber was a supporter of capitalism and as a socialist he believed that there are certain unavoidable effects of capitalism.

Second, bureaucratization: the only way of organizing large numbers of people effectively expands with economic and political growth. This reduces social and economic differences between administrators and the governed and presents opportunities for members of all strata to hold administrative offices. Under bureaucratic principles authority is exercised according to abstract rules, so every thing becomes bureaucratic.

Third, rise of formal rationality: the emergence of modern society was accompanied by important shifts in patterns of social action. He believed that people were moving away from traditional believes and instead were increasingly engaging in rationality. The development of science, modern technology and bureaucracy was described by Weber collectively as rationalization --- the organization of social life and economic life according to the principles of efficiency and on the basis of technical knowledge i.e. rationality in technical sense. But, this results into many irrational behaviors.  

Fourth, carrier oriented politics: politics becomes a source of income. It becomes a profession. Weber does not contend that one social political system necessarily gives rise to another in some sort of progressive series. He does analyze the historical development of a set of political relationships. To Weber, the state is superior to other temporarily prior political systems only in technical sense.  Weber says capitalism is like a golden cage and a possibility of democracy may happen only under capitalism.

Weber on social stratification, all societies structured hierarchically. In every society there is stratification. Society would look like a society with different strata: those who are in upper positions and those who are in lower positions. Weber says that there are three bases which lead to stratification: economic, social, political.

Economic is based on wealth. Social is based on honor and prestige. Political is based on formal political power. In every society some people hold lower status and some hold upper status. Status can be recognized by age, education, etc. However, every society has its own way of carrying status. Example: A is rich, but holds lower social status, and even much lower political power. Or, B holds good economic status, with a better degree of social status, but holds less degree of political power, etc. Different forms may occur, but the issue is that there is a direct relation between political, social and economic. Wealthy people may not have formal power, yet they do have informal political power… Indeed, Weber’s explanation regarding stratification gives us enough theoretical bases to understand society. This is his second major contribution.

Weber on authority types, in one of the most important contributions to political sociology, Weber distinguishes three systems of authority as follows: traditional, rational, charismatic.

Traditional authority: authority is based on tradition and so tradition is a source of power. People obey religious leaders, tribal chiefs, etc, because they follow certain traditions. We can take example of monarchies. The freedom of traditional ruler is also enhanced by the fact that they occupy office by virtue of inherited status and not by virtue of election or possession of special and technical qualifications. Here, individuals are economically dependent on rulers. Their rights and duties are personally determined by the rulers and commands are legitimated in terms of tradition.

Rational legal authority: power is based on law. Law is the source of authority and behind any law is rationality. Modern administration is based on this. All modern democratic governments are example of this. The system of rules specifies the rights and obligations of both those who rule and those who are ruled. There is an obligation to obedience only under specified conditions and administrative processes are aimed at the protection of individual’s interest. This system frees people from the bonds of tradition and from the arbitrarily imposed demands of traditional or charismatic rules.

Charismatic authority: this literally means super human skills and capacity --- a conviction that some one possessed of super human ability. Here, reason and law does not apply and this type of authority is irrational. Jesus and Gandhi can be taken as good examples. Charismatic rule is established by the performance of unconventional acts; it involves a break with tradition and routine. Charismatic leaders are free from tradition and from a system of formal, abstract rules. They have no administrative staff.  

Weber on bureaucracy, Weber was the first scholar who made a systematic analysis of bureaucracy. He regarded that bureaucracy is based on rational – legal authority as an effective basis for organization. The important elements of Weber’s rational – legal bureaucracy are: division of labor, hierarchy, rules, records, impersonality, rationality, neutrality. According to him, bureaucracy is the most advance form of organization. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, and in its reliability. Followings are the social affects of bureaucracy:  there is concentration of means of administration; equal treatment i.e. law apply to all equally; a decline of individual initiative i.e. following the rules; whoever can control bureaucracy, can control whole society.

In a sense, bureaucracy becomes an instrument of power. Weber tries to look at political affect of bureaucracy.

Democracy and bureaucracy are opposed to each other. Democracy produces bureaucracy, and the moment bureaucracy is created, it starts functioning against democracy. Thus, bureaucracy is the product of democracy which very frequently acts against democracy. This is the relationship that Weber pointed out.

We should know that bureaucratic type of organization is still the dominated way of carrying out the stable and routine tasks of governments and we are unlikely to eliminate bureaucrats unless we are prepared to return to a simple age.

More than sixty years after Max Weber’s death, the influence of his works on political sociology is still obvious and will become greater.

Finally, let’s remind it that Karl Marx and Max Weber wrote on many things. Weber like Marx conceptualizes social class in economic terms and both of them were interested in active politics in Germany almost hundred years ago i.e. 1905.

However, Weber’s definition of class is different from that of Marx. Weber was not so much interested about philosophy and not at all in revolution. Weber believed that political is the primary factor. But, Marx believed that following the destruction of capitalism, the state would perish, alienation would end, and all people would live together as equals and Marx believed that social is the primary factor, whereas Weber says that social is determined by political.

Weber sees bureaucracy positive, rational, efficient, and extension of bureaucracy is inevitable. But, Marx believes that bureaucracy is negative, private interest, and capitalists use bureaucracy to exploit the weaker class.