Apabila Sosiologi difahami sebagai ilmu sosial yang paling komprehensif dan dapat menarik generasasi paling luas,
karena mempelajari dan menemukan hubungan antara pelaku sosial yang berkelompok, maka Sosiologi dapat seakan-
akan memanyungi ilmu-ilmu sosial lain.
Dalam ranah ilmu Ekonomi telah dikembangkan falsafah dasar mengenai penguasaan, pemanfaatan/eksploatasi dengan
tujuan produksi dan konsumsi sumberdaya, baik alam maupun manusia, menurut perinsip kegunaan (utilitarianisme).
Karena itu Ekonomi modern, menyimpang dari falsafah semasa ekonomi klasik A. Smith, mengabstraksikan dimensi
keadilan dan pemerataan (Gouldner, 1973). Itu pula yang mendekatkan sifat ekonomi ke ilmu alam diera neo-klasik.
Bersebrangan dengan itu Ethnologi memusatkan studi deskriptifnya pada budaya kelompok-kelompok ethnis, terutama
yang berada dalam tahap perkembangan pra-sejarah dan / atau pra-aksara. Ilmu Antroophologi yang sudah mulai
menjembatani dua ranah tersebut dengan mempelajari, baik aspek manusia sebagai organisme (Physical Antrhopology)
maupun perilaku dalam lingkungan kebudayaan (Ethology Cultural/Social Antrhopology).
Ilmu politik memusatkan perhatian pada hubungan dan interaksi yang berkaitan dengan pembagian dan pertukaran
kekuasaan (=power). Sejarah menjadi sangat relevant dalam menekuni Sosiologi karena menunjukkan kecenderungan
(trends) dan membuka peluang, baik untuk memahami proses perubahan, bertahap atau sebagai loncatan, maupun
membuka peluang untuk membanding gejala sosial/ kemasyarakatan. Beberapa cabang kelompok ilmu lain yang sering
di acu sebagai kelompok Humaniora seperti Hukum, Pendidikan dan komunikasi pun menunjang dan memberi
pengetahuan sangat berharga untuk sosiologi.
Dalam zaman penjajahan Belanda masyarkat Indonesia yang belum dipersepsikan sebagai satu kesatuan, lebih
dipelajari dari sudut pandang Ethnologi dan Antropologi budaya. Berkaitan dengan itu juga Hukum Adat sangat diminati
baik oleh sarjana Belanda maupun Indonesia, dan banyak diantara mereka bergelar Sarjana Hukum.
Mungkin minat tersebut juga merupakan kebutuhan pemerintah Hindia Belanda yang ingin menghayati sifat dan tata
kehidupan terutama suku-suku bangsa yang berperan di Nusantara. Nama-nama besar seperti Krom, Veth, dan Snouch
Hurgronje boleh dikatakan perintis ilmu-ilmu sosial ini di Indonesia sejak akhir abad ke-19 sampai awal abad ke-20.
Sejak tahun 1920-an timbullah minat sarjana-sarjana Belanda untuk memahami masyarakat lebih luas, karena gejala-
gejala sosial yang disoroti tidak terbatas pada lingkungan suku bangsa atau group ethnis. Di antaranya adalah B. Schrieke
(1890-1945) yang menulis karangan-karangan ethnografis dan sejarah, sehingga gabungan kedua konteks itu bercorak
Sosiologi. Salah satu variabel yang jelas mencerminkan ilmu Sosiologi yang menjadi garapan Schrieke adalah Akulturasi.
Misalnya Shcrieke mengulas “Pergeseran kekuasaan Politik dan Ekonomi di Nusantara antara abad ke 16 sampai abad
ke-17”. Satu sebab mengapa Schrieke kurang dikenal dan tulisannya kurang dibaca ialah karena beliau menulis dalam
bahasa Belanda. Baru setelah tahun 1955 beredarlah kumpulan karangan Schrieke yang diterjemahkan kedalam bahasa
Inggris (2 jilid. 1955).
Tokoh Belanda lain yang melalui karangan sejarah melukiskan mayarakat Indonesia adalah J.C. van Leur (1934-1942).
Jelas konteks makronya tercermin dari judul-judul karangan seperti a.l. Indonesian Trade and Society. Seorang Sarjana
Hukum lain yang dikenal dan menulis tentang Indonesia masa kini (kontemporer), bahkan juga meletakkan Indonesia
dalam konteks lebih luas lagi adalah Prof. W.F. Wertheim (1899-2001) yang pernah mengajar di Rechts Hogeschool di
Jakarta (1936) dan menjadi guru besar tamu di Fakultas Pertanian, UI (Bogor) 1957. Karena Wertheim mengalami
pendudukan Jepang di Indonesia dan sempat mengamati kebangkitan Nasional Indonesia pula, beliau, dapat merekam
perubahan sosial dalam bukunya “Indonesia Society in Transition” dari daerah jajahah menjadi Republik yang berdaulat.
II. PERKEMBANGAN TEORI SOSIOLOGI
Sarjana-sarjana Belanda yang meminati Sosiologi dahulu banyak bergelar Sarjana Hukum, dan aspek-aspek Sosiologi
juga diajarkan di Fakultas Hukum, mungkin warisan dari periode mempelajari Hukum Adat yang masih diminati. Ini
sebabnya mengapa baik di Universitas Indonesia dan di Universitas Gadjah Mada dosen-dosen Indonesia banyak
bergelar SH. Seperti misalnya Soelaeman Soemardi, Soekanto, Soetandiyo Wignyo Soebroto, Satjipto Raharjo dan lain-
Pengaruh sosiologi Eropa memang juga menggali dan dari pemikir-pemikir falsafah a.l. Bapak Sosiologi August Comte
(1798-1857). Pendekatan yang agak ethno-Antropologis tercermin juga dalam buku E. Durkheim tentang agama, tetapi
buku-buku lain seperti mengenai “Pembagian Kerja” (1966) dan “Bunuh Diri” sudah jelas dikarang dalam konteks makro
sosiologi. Memang penyebaran theori-theori klasik Sosiologi di Indonesia tidak terlalu luas, nama-nama seperti P.
Sorokin, M. Weber, Znaniecki, Marx, Von Wiese, G. Simmel, T. Shanin dan banyak lagi kurang mengisi bahan kuliah para
Sejak pertengahan 1950-an Indonesia mulai mengirimkan mahasiswa untuk berbagai ilmu sosial keluar negeri, tetapi
ada kecenderungan lebih banyak ke Amerika Serikat daripada ke Eropa. Antara lain Soedjito Djojohardjo dikirim ke
Inggris, tetapi lebih banyak lagi yang belajar di Amerika dan menghasilkan thesis Ph.D. seperti Prof. Selo Soemardjan,
Mely Tan APU, Prof. Hasyah Bachtiar (hanya sebentar di Universitas Amsterdam sebelum ke Harvad) dan lain-lain.
Perlu dipahami bahwa pengembangan dan perkembangan theori yang digubah pakar Sosiologi tidak terlepas dari
kejadian-kejadian besar dalam masyarakat dan pengaruh-pengaruhnya kepada pemikir / ilmuwan yang kemudian
menerima sejumlah assumsi yang mendasari theori. Demikian keperluan pemerintah jajahan di Hindia Belanda
mendorong ilmuwan menelusuri adat kebiasaan suku-suku bangsa di Nusantara. Pengertian yang diperoleh
mengarahkan kebijaksanaan sedemikian rupa sehingga mereka yang dijajah tidak menimbulkan penolakan atau
pembangkangan yang terlalu kuat.
Dalam masa 1800-1825, dibawah pengaruh tumbuhnya kaum borjuis di Eropa dan awal industrialisasi yang
menimbulkan / menyuburkan “budaya utilitarianisme” sosiologi seakan-akan hanya mempelajari gejala-gejala yang
tersisa (unfinished business) dalam perjalanan revolusi industri. A. Gouldner (1973:92) mendeskripsikannya dalam
kalimat “Sociology made the residual, Social, Element its sphere”. Jadi ranah sosiologi seakan-akan dipisah dari
perkembangan ekonomi dan teknologi.
Baru sekitar pertengahan abad ke-19 sosiologi, ekonomi dan politik (Marx, 1848) mulai difahami sebagai bidang-bidang
ilmu yang saling terjalin.
“Sociology thus remains concerned with society as a “whole” as some kind of totality, but it now regards itself as
responsible only for one dimension of this totality. Society has been parceled out analytically (Tj. Only) among the various
social sciences. From this analytic standpoint, sociology is indeed, concerned with social systems or society as a “whole”,
but only as it is a social whole”. (Gouldner, 1973:94)
Theori dalam ilmu sosial pun mencari keteraturan perilaku manusia serta pemahaman dan sikap yang mendasarinya.
Karena keadaan masyarakat yang berubah-ubah, pemahaman, sikap dan perilaku warga / pelaku social pun dapat
berubah. Memang perubahaan sosial bisa bersifat makro, tetapi juga bisa lebih mikro mencakup kelompok-kelompok
masyarakat yang relatif lebih kecil dari satu bangsa, atau kumpulan bangsa-bangsa. Theori juga mengandung sifat
universalitas, artinya dapat berlaku di lain masyarakat yang mana saja, walaupun sering dibedakan atara Grand Theory
dan theori yang cakupannya tidak seluas itu.
Theori August Comte, Karl Marx dan beberapa theory Max Weber dapat digolongkan ke Grand Theory, sedangkan theori
Parson relatif mikro karena melepaskan diri dari kerangka sejarah dan memfokuskan analisnya pada sistem sosial dan
struktur, lebih khusus dalam masyarakat Amerika Serikat.
Seorang ahli Sosiologi Alwin Gouldner (1971) yang bersifat kritis dan menulis buku berjudul “The Coming Crisis of
Western Sociology” mengungkapkan bahwa Talcott Parsons menghasilkan “Academic Sosiology” dimasa Amerika Serikat
mengalami krisis ekonomi yang dahsyat (1930), bahkan aliran tersebut kemudian mempengaruhi di luar A.S.
Parsons juga mencoba mencari penyelesaian lebih prgamatis dalam zamannya yang pemikirannya membuahkan theori
“Social System”. Ini sebanya theori tesebut juga mempengaruhi pengajaran dan pemahaman sosiologi, yang waktu tahun
1930-an menarik banyak penganut pakar Sosiolog di luar AS. Bahkan sedemikian rupa sehingga menggusur theori-theori
sosiologi dalam tradisi Eropa, seperti Max Weber, Karl Mannheim dan lain-lain yang tidak mengesampingkan dimensi
falsafah dan sejarah. Jadi boleh dikatakan sosiologi Meso timbul dengan theori Parsons, tetapi dengan mengorbankan
faktor “dinamika” (perubahan sosial makro yang ciri Sosiologi Eropa) dengan mengunggulkan “Struktur dan Fungsi”.
Akibat pengaruh Amerika Serikat sebagai negara adidaya setelah 1950 yang terus meluas setelah perang dunia kedua,
theori Sosiologi dinegara berkembang pun terpengaruhi, karena menekuni masalah yang tidak melampaui batas “nation
state”. Negara-negara baru dengan kesadaran nasional yang tinggi ingin mengatur struktur kelembagaan dalam
Sekarang di Indonesia mulai terasa adanya dilemma, karena “nation state” belum mantap sudah timbul Globalisasi yang
pasti merubah pengelompokan dan perilaku-perilaku sosial yang lebih universal.
III. REORIENTASI SOSIOLOGI INDONESIA
Baik lahirnya “nation state” Indonesia di pertengahan abad ke-20 dan pembangunan nasional yang digalakkan selama
periode pemerintahan Orde Baru merangsang tumbuhnya theori struktur dan fungsi Parsons. Bukan saja pragmatik (non-
dinamika) yang dipentingkan karena tujuannya adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi, tetapi juga kurang mengulas perubahan
sosial dan konflik. Perubahan struktur sosial yang sebenarnya di Indonesia akan dimulai tahun 1960 dengan mengatur
agraria, berhenti tetapi itu (1965) dan kemudian andalannya adalah menumbuhkan klas menengah. Sering dikatakan
bahwa klas menengah merupakan prasyarat untuk pertumbuhan demokrasi maupun ekonomi.
Dialektika dalam masyarakat yang mengandung potensi konflik , antara sentralisme politik dan arus kebebasan generasi
muda yang tertekan, meletus waktu krisis 1997 dan Reformasi 1998 sampai menggoncangkan sendi-sendi masyarakat.
Gejala-gejala yang sebelumnya latent, sekarang menjadi perhatian Rakyat, dan aneka elite menjadi faktor yang penting
dalam usaha mecapai konsensus nasional baru.
Mengingat hal-hal tersebut diatas, terasa bahwa buku P. Sorokin (1928) “Contemporary Sociological Theories” sudah
diperluas dengan theori-theori yang sudah lebih mengintegrasikan beberapa cabang ilmu-ilmu sosial.
Pertautan antara aspek-aspek psikologi misalnya dapat ditemukan dalam buku R. Presthus (1962) dan D. Riesman dkk.
(1961).  K. Boulding (1962) seorang guru besar ekonomi menambahkan teori konflik dan memperkaya theori klasik
terdahulu (Marx, Simel, Coser).  Erat pula kaitannya dengan gejala-gejala yang kita alami sejak Reformasi 1998 adalah
buku-buku C. Wright MILLS (2959 dan 1963).   Roberth Presthus (1962). “ The Organizational Society; An Analysis and
a Theory” New York, random House. David RIESMAN, dkk. (1961) “The Lonely Crowd.” New Haven, Yale University Press
 Kenneth BOULDING (1962). “ Conflict and Defensel; A General Theory”. New York, Harper Torchbooks.  C. Wright
Mills (1959). “The Power Elite”. New York, Oxford Univ. Press. ________ (1963). “Power Politics and People.” London,
Oxford Univ. Press.
Analisa-analisa pakar-pakar tersebut diatas menunjukkan pentingnya dinamika sosial dalam masyarakat modern yang
lebih memperkaya imajinasi sosiologi kita. Jadi di Amerika Serikat setelah T. Parsons timbul mazhab-mazhab Sosiologi
muda yang lebih memahami pentingnya gejala perubahan dan konflik sosial, yang pada hemat penulis lebih merupakan
warisan dari tradisi Sosiologi Eropa.
Ini dibenarkan oleh a. Gouldner yang menulis dan menyimpulkan bahwa “Academic Sociology semakin terjalin dengan
analisa K. Marx, sehingga di Amerika misalnya menimbulkan gerakan “New Left” menentang Establishment atau di Eropa
(Jerman) “Tentara Merah” dengan tokoh muda Beader Meinhof. Mungkin P.R.D di Indonesia dapat diketegorikan dalam
pemberontakan generasi muda seperti itu, yang sudah jenuh dengan elite Orde Baru di Jepang pun ada gerakan-gerakan
Pemberontakan menentang tradisi dan pemikiran generasi “arrive” yang kolot oleh generasi muda selalu akan timbul
dalam masyarakat manusia sebagai terjadi tahun 1945, sebentar di tahun 1965 dan dewasa ini sejak tahun 1998. Dalam
arti yang lebih murni memang paradigma yang umum dianut sarjana Sosiologi di Indonesia perlu dirubah. Kalau di
Zaman Orde Baru sukar untuk menganalisa secara terbuka gejala stratifikasi sosial dan konflik antara Klas, sekarang
sudah lebih bisa diterima, karena memang gejalanya sudah ada sejak zaman penjajahan sekalipun.
Struktur feodal memang berlapis-lapis dan eksploatasi jelas sudah ada. Jadi perlu reorientasi sosiologi untuk banyak
ilmuwan Sosiologi dan cedekiawan yang memperhatikan perkembangan kebudayaan karena keadaan sudah berubah.
Tantangan bukan hanya ada di dalam negeri, tetapi sekaligus juga dalam hubungan kita dengan negara dan bangsa,
bukan saja yang geografis menjadi tetangga kita, tetapi juga dengan negara-negara sebenua, bahkan di benua lain.
Satuan pelaku sosial bukan saja lagi “nation state” tetapi komunitas negara atau bangsa yang sudah melintasi batas
nation-state. Mazhab-mazhab agama menjadi salah satu ilustrasi jelas, tetapi juga “pendukung pelestarian alam dan
lingkungan, serta perjuangan untuk “Hak Azasi Manusia” dan “Gender” dapat segera difahami sebagai komunitas besar
yang menjadi ciri pengelompokan Global. Sosiologi tidak dapat lagi bertahan dengan membatasi diri dengan mempelajari
“residual social elements seperti pernah digagas oleh cendekiawan Prancis Saint Simon di awal abad ke-19.
Inilah sebabnya mengapa perlu ada reorientasi Sosiologi di Indonesia; bukan ekonomi lagi yang akan bertahan sebagai
“The Queen of The Social Sciences”, tetapi sosiologi yang mengulur tangan kepada cabang-cabang ilmu Sosial lain dan
Humaniora untuk menganalisa dan memecahkan masalah kemasyarakatan secara terpadu.
Prof. Dr. Sediono MP Tjondronegoro, Ketua Ikatan Sosiologi Indonesia (ISI) Pusat, 1999 - 2003.
Makalah disampaikan pada Seminar Nasional “Menggalang Masyarakat Indonesia Baru yang Berkemanusiaan”. Diselenggarakan oleh Ikatan
Sosiologi Indonesia, tanggal 28 Agustus 2002 di Bogor.
BOUMAN, P.J. (1976). Sosiologi, Pengertian dan masalah. Yogyakarta, Penerbit Yayasan Kanisius.
COSER, L. (1964). The Function of Social Conflict. New York, The Free Press.
DURKHEIM, E. (1966). The Division of Labour (Translation). New York, The Free Press.
_____________ (1962). Socialism. London, Colliers Books
GOULDNER, Alvin W. (1973). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. London, Heineman
HINDESS, Barry (ed. 1977). Sociological theories of the Economy. London, the Mac Millan Press.
KAZACIGIL, Ali (ed. 1994). Sociology: State of the Art I. International Social Sciences Journal, February 1994:139. Paris, Blackwell Publ.
MARX, K. (1956). Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. (Translation by T.B. Bottomore). New York, Mc Graw-Hill Books.
MARTINELLI, alberto (2002). “Markets, Government and Global Governance”. Presidential address, ISA XV Congress, Brisbane 2002
MILLS, C, Wright (1961). The Sociological Imagination. New York, Grove Press, Inc.
MUDIM BE, V.Y. (ed. Dkk, 1996). Open the Social Sciences. Refort of the Guilbenkian Commission of the Gulbenkian Commission on the
Restructuring of the Social Science. Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press.
PARSONS, Talcot (1951). The Social System; The Major Exposition of the Author’s Conceptual Scheme. New York, Free Press.
SIMMEL, G. (1955). Conflict and the Web of Group Affixations. New York, The Free Press.
____________ (1950). The sociology of George Simmel. New York, The Free Press of Glencol
SIMONDS, A.P. (1978). Karl Mennheim’s Sociology of Knowledge. Oxford, Clarendom Press
SOROKIN, P.A. (1928). Contemporary Sociological Theories; through the First Quarter of the 20th Century. New York, Harper Torchbooks.
STEINER, Philippe (2001). “The Sociology of Economic Knowledge”. The Return of Economic Sociology in Europe (a. Symposium) dalam
European Journal of Social Theory 4 (4). London, Sage Publications
WEBER, M. (1964). The Theory of Sociology Imagination. New York, Grove Press, Inc.
WERTHEIM, W.F. et.al. (ed.s 1955-1957). Indonesian Sociological Studies; Selected Writings of B. Schrieke (2 parts). The Haque, W. van
Sumber: Jurnal Ekonomi Rakyat
Rabu, 14 Januari 2009
Minggu, 14 Desember 2008
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. –Karl Marx–
Tidak sedikit mahasiswa baru sosiologi, bahkan yang lama sekalipun bertanya-tanya tentang apa guna ilmu yang dipelajarinya? Apa hubungan sosiologi dengan kehidupan nyata, alias dunia profesi yang akan dihadapinya. Tulisan ini dibuat untuk meningkatkan motivasi pribadi dan sekaligus nilai-nilai sosial pendukung setiap maha-siswa sosiologi dalam mempelajari ilmunya. Bahwa ternyata cukup banyak hal yang bisa dilakukan setelah mempelajari sosiologi, tentu dengan usaha serius.
Asal Mula ‘Sosiologi’
Sudah banyak tokoh yang mencoba mengamati manusia dan masyarakat. Mulai Konfusius (551-479 SM) di Cina; Plato (427-347 SM) dan Aristoteles (384-322 SM) di Yunani; Ibn Kaldun (1332-1406) di Arab; bahkan sastrawan ternama dari Inggris William Shakespeare (1564-1616) pun telah membuat refleksi tentang kehidupan manusia pada jamannya masing-masing. Namun, tokoh-tokoh tersebut masih lebih tertarik untuk membayangkan masyarakat yang ideal atau masyarakat yang seharusnya, tanpa melihat masyarakat sebagai apa adanya. Suatu pendekatan yang positivis memang, namun itu adalah lajur yang mungkin harus ditempuh untuk mencapai pada tahap-tahap selanjutnya.
Barulah pada tahun 1838 seorang pe-mikir Perancis Auguste Comte (1798-1853) mematenkan istilah ‘sosiologi’ sebagai cara baru melihat dunia, khususnya masyarakat yang menghidupi dunia itu. Comte menawarkan sebuah cara pandang melihat masyarakat sebagai apa adanya (yang kemudian terkenal dengan aliran positivism). Positivism berusaha menjelaskan sesuatu objek dari apa yang tampak. Positivism, dalam perkembangannya, mendapat kritik tajam dari pemikir. Kemudian muncul aliran baru bernama post-positivism, yang menjelaskan obyek dari hal-hal yang tak tampak. Pertanyaannya dasarnya, “Ada apa di balik peristiwa itu?”
Dari sini kita bisa melihat sosiologi bukanlah ilmu yang statis dan kaku (sak-klek), melainkan selalu dinamis dan bergerak menyesuaikan dengan konteks tempatnya hidup. Bagi sosiolog, permasalahan teknis yang dihadapi bukanlah menentukan aliran mana yang paling tepat untuk digunakan (positivism atau post-positivism), melainkan bagaimana memadukan aliran-aliran yang ada tersebut untuk mendapatkan pemahaman lebih menyeluruh tentang masyarakat.
Sosiologi terus berkembang pesat sejalan dengan perubahan sosial yang terjadi sangat cepat sejak abad ke-17 sampai sekarang. Setidaknya, ada tiga hal yang menjadi variabel penyebab percepatan itu, yaitu:
(1) Pertumbuhan penduduk yang sangat pesat. Sampai 1990, bumi ini telah dihuni lebih dari 5,5 milyar manusia. Di Indonesia sendiri, sampai saat ini, sudah lebih dari 200 juta penduduk. Semakin banyak manusia makin kompleks pula interaksi dan masalah sosial yang bakal terjadi. Di sinilah sosiolog dituntut untuk tidak pernah ‘lelah’ untuk terus mengikuti perubahan sosial dan menjelaskannya;
(2) Inovasi teknologi yang terus berganti. Mulai dari terjadinya Revolusi Industri (yaitu penggunaan teknologi dalam industri) mengakibatkan manusia yang bertambah banyak itu kehilangan pekerjaan, masalah sosial baru bermunculan pesat. Hubungan manusia dan teknologi merupakan kajian menarik yang bisa digali lebih dalam, karena pada per-kembangan dan pembuatan teknologi (termasuk di dalamnya adalah budaya atau ‘aturan main’ yang menentukan perilaku) telah menjadi ‘tujuan’ tindakan manusia, bukan sebagai ‘sarana’ untuk mencapai tujuan hidup (Habermas, 1990). Apalagi kini perkembangan teknologi informasi telah mengubah secara drastis pola-pola interaksi sosial antar-manusia, dari face to face menuju via mass media. Model interaksi baru semacam ini telah menggeser hampir keseluruhan pandangan sosiologis ten-tang bagaimana manusia melakukan ‘kontak’ dan ‘komunikasi’, berinteraksi kata sosiolog Indonesia Soerjono Soekanto. Padahal, dalam pertemuan face to face terkadang masih dibutuhkan dalam interaksi (dan terkadang model inilah yang paling menentukan);
(3) Perubahan suhu politik ilmu pengetahuan. Ilmu pengetahuan, mengikuti Karl Marx (1818-1883), mempunyai kekuatan untuk mengubah masyarakat. Asumsi Marx ini dikembangkan Michel Foucault yang melihat lahirnya pengetahuan tidak bisa terlepas dari variabel yang bernama kekuasaan. Katanya, ketika ada kekuasaanlah pengetahuan bisa ada. Idealnya, kembali pada Marx, ilmu tidak hanya digunakan untuk menjelaskan realitas sosial yang terjadi, namun yang lebih penting adalah berusaha meniadakan ketidakadilan sosial yang terjadi dalam masyarakat. Pertanyaannya, apa guna ilmu pengetahuan terus berkembang (dan dikembangkan) jika ketidakadilan sosial tetap eksis, bahkan semakin besar? Semangat mewujudkan keadilan sosial itulah yang melatarbelakangi meletusnya berbagai macam gerakan sosial. Kata ‘kemerdekaan’ (liberty) menjadi kata yang sakral untuk diperjuangkan, bahkan hingga kini dalam wacana hak asasi manusia (HAM).
Atas dasar tiga variabel itulah, sosiologi seperti mendapatkan angin segar untuk terus menjamur dan berkembang pesat. Sayangnya, sistem persekolahan (pendidikan formal) di Indonesia, dan negara-negara lain pada umumnya, lebih berorientasi pada kepentingan dunia industri daripada masyarakat yang ditinggalinya. Kebanyakan ilmu yang dipelajari perguruan tinggi (termasuk sosiologi) telah ‘tercerabut’ dari akarnya, sehingga ilmu yang dipelajari tidak bisa digunakan dan berguna bagi mayoritas penduduk. Contoh, di Pulau Jawa lebih dari dua pertiga penduduknya adalah petani (dan nelayan) yang menggantungkan hidupnya pada alam (tanah dan laut), namun tidak banyak perguruan tinggi di Pulau Jawa (baik negeri ataupun swasta) yang menawarkan program-program studi yang berhubungan langsung dengan masalah pengembangan pertanian, misalnya. Kalau ada, peminatnya pun tidak banyak (dan biasanya gengsinya rendah). Ironisnya, jurusan-jurusan ini semakin hari semakin menyusut keberadaannya.
Ini hanyalah sebuah contoh ketidakadilan yang dibentuk secara struktural, yang kemudian berdampak pada kesadaran kolektif masyarakat. Kondisi semacam ini hanya semakin memperkokoh citra perguruan tinggi sebagai ‘menara gading’.
Teori-teori sosiologi semakin hari tambah banyak dan semakin variatif. Puluhan, ratusan, bahkan mungkin ribuan teori sudah dibangun oleh para sosiolog di seluruh belahan dunia ini. Dari teori-teori sosiologi yang muncul itu, pada dasarnya, dibangun berdasarkan tiga paradigma teoritik, yaitu:
(1) Paradigma struktural-fungsional, merupakan paradigma yang paling berpengaruh dalam perkembangan sosiologi. Paradigma ini berasumsi masyarakat sebagai sebuah sistem yang kompleks di mana setiap bagian dalam masyarakat saling bekerjasama untuk menjaga stabilitas. Ada dua kata kunci, yaitu ‘struktur’ dan ‘fungsi’. Struktur sosial adalah pola-pola sosial yang relatif stabil dalam jangka waktu yang lama. Fungsi sosial adalah konsekuensi yang dilakukan untuk menjaga kestabilan. Ada dua macam fungsi, yaitu fungsi manifes (atau fungsi yang disadari) dan fungsi laten (atau fungsi yang tidak disadari). Sedangkan jika struktur tidak berhasil mewujudkan kestabilan, maka disebut disfungsi sosial.
Contoh kasus, pendidikan mempunyai fungsi manifes mengajarkan keterampilan pada generasi yang lebih muda, agar siap menggantikan generasi yang lebih tua (fungsi produksi tenaga kerja). Fungsi laten pendidikan adalah melakukan internalisasi nilai-nilai dari generasi tua. Lewat pendidikan, diajarkan tata krama (manner) dalam masyarakat (fungsi sosialisasi). Seiring dengan usaha institusionalisasi pendidikan men-jadi sekolah formal, ditambah dengan meningkatnya kesibukan orangtua dengan pekerjaannya, akibatnya orang-tua pun pasrah bongkokan pada sekolah untuk urusan pendidikan anak-anaknya. Pendidikan dianggap semata tugas sekolah, dengan mengesampingkan peran institusi yang lain dalam melakukan fungsi pendidikan.
(2) Paradigma konflik-sosial. Masih dalam analisis makro, paradigma ini mencoba ‘membuka mata’ para penganut paradigma struktural-fungsional tentang kestabilan yang terjadi dalam masyarakat. Paradigma ini mengasumsikan masyarakat adalah sistem yang kompleks, ditandai oleh terjadinya ketidakadilan sosial dan konflik yang menggerakkan masyarakat itu. Paradigma ini kuat dipengaruhi pemikiran Marx yang melihat masyarakat terdiri dari kelas-kelas sosial yang lebih bersifat stratifikasi (bertingkat) ketimbang diferensial (sejajar).
Contoh kasus, sistem pendidikan formal (persekolahan), seperti dikatakan Randall Collins (dalam Wilonoyudho, 2005) adalah awal dari proses stratifikasi sosial. Akibat masuknya pengaruh kekuatan ekonomi, menyebabkan pendidikan yang baik dan bagus hanya bisa didapatkan oleh siapa yang bisa ‘membelinya’. Beragam fasilitas pendukung sekolah, seperti: buku dan majalah, televisi dan radio, internet, dan kursus-kursus di luar sekolah juga hanya bisa diikuti oleh kelas ekonomi mapan. Bagi yang tidak memiliki kekuatan ekonomi akan semakin tertinggal. Jadi, mobilitas sosial vertikal melalui pendidikan tinggal menjadi kenangan dan impian semata.
(3) Paradigma interaksi-simbolik. Tidak seperti dua paradigma sebelumnya, paradigma ini melihat masyarakat dari level mikro. Masyarakat diasumsikan sebagai produk interaksi sehari-hari antar-manusia. Ada dua konsep kunci dalam interaksi sosial, yaitu status sosial (posisi sosial seseorang dalam masyarakat) dan peran sosial (tugas-tugas yang harus dilakoni seseorang akibat posisi sosial yang melekat dalam dirinya).
Dalam praktiknya, status sosial tidak sakklek, melainkan selalu berubah sesuai dengan ruang dan waktu tempat se-seorang itu hidup. Perubahan status itu berdampak pada perubahan peran sosial seseorang secara mendadak pula. Kondisi ini potensial menyebabkan konflik peran (ketidaksesuaian peran sosial dalam dua atau lebih status sosial yang sedang terjadi secara bersamaan), yang menjadi akar permasalahan sosial secara makro.
Contoh kasus, keberhasilan pendidikan formal tidak melulu ditentukan oleh struktur, (baca: sistem pendidikan), melainkan lebih ditentukan oleh interaksi sehari-hari yang terjadi di sekolah itu. Bukan jaminan, sekolah favorit serta-merta akan menghasilkan murid yang berkualitas pula. Yang juga penting adalah, misalnya, bagaimana cara mengajar seorang guru di dalam kelas; apakah seorang guru mau membimbing murid-muridnya di luar kelas; apakah si murid aktif dalam diskusi (di dalam ataupun di luar kelas); apakah murid juga aktif mencari informasi lain tentang suatu matapelajaran selain dari buku dan guru yang ada; apakah murid juga melatih keterampilan-keterampilan lain.
Singkat kata, keberhasilan pendidikan terkadang lebih ditentukan kreativitas dari masing-masing aktor dalam masyarakat. Kebiasaan yang dilakukan. Komunitas yang digelutinya. Aktivitas yang ditekuni seseorang. Karenanya, ‘sukses’ melalui pendidikan menjadi sangat relatif, ukurannya tidak hanya sebatas dilihat dari nilai yang bagus.
Meskipun kelihatannya saling bertentangan, namun tidak ada yang paling benar diantara ketiga paradigma itu. Yang ada hanya saling melengkapi. Sosiolog profesional adalah yang berhasil memadukan ketiga paradigma tersebut untuk menjelas-kan fenomena untuk mendapatkan penjelasan yang lebih menyeluruh.
Hal tersulit dalam mempelajari sosiologi bukanlah menghafalkan, memahami ataupun menerapkan teori-teori atau paradigma sosiologi yang ada, melainkan bagaimana berpikir sosiologis ketika bertemu pada suatu masalah, apapun itu. Macionis (1997) menawarkan tiga kerangka berpikir sosiologis, yaitu:
(1) Melihat keseluruhan melalui sebagian. Berpikir sosiologis ibarat seorang ilmuwan mikrobiologi yang mengguna-kan mikroskop dalam melihat DNA untuk mengetahui asal-usul seorang manusia. Jadi, sosiolog tidak perlu melihat keseluruhan. Karena tidak mungkin kita akan meneliti semua anggota masyarakat. Dalam metodologi cara berpikir macam ini diturunkan menjadi teknik sampling. Cara melihat semacam ini jarang dilakukan oleh disiplin lain. Antropologi, misalnya, hanya melihat pada ‘sebagian’ itu secara mendalam. Psikologi pun cenderung melakukan hal serupa. Sosiologi berusaha melakukan generalisasi, inilah ciri khas sosiologi, sekaligus kelemahannya;
(2) Melihat keanehan-keanehan dalam kejadian sehari-hari. Seorang sosiolog akan melihat kejadian yang dianggap biasa oleh orang kebanyakan sebagai hal yang aneh. Bagi awam, cara berpikir ini bisa dikatakan sebagai tindakan iseng atau kurang kerjaan, namun bagi sosiolog pemula cara inilah yang sering digunakan. Tugas sosiolog, kemudian, adalah menggali lebih dalam tentang apa penyebab masalah sosial tersebut. Sosiolog berusaha mencari rasionalitas manusia yang melakukan tindakan;
(3) Melihat individu dalam konteks sosialnya. Sosiolog percaya bahwa setiap tindakan manusia dibentuk oleh lingkungan yang melingkupi manusia itu. Contoh, Emile Durkheim yang meneliti tentang fenomena bunuh diri. Lalu, apa yang dilakukannya? Jelas tidak mungkin mengorek informasi dengan cara melakukan wawancara terhadap orang yang sudah meninggal. Beruntunglah data statistik pada kantor kepolisian waktu itu cukup baik. Dari data itulah, ditambah dengan wawancara terhadap beberapa keluarga korban, Durkheim pun membangun salah satu teori sosiologi yang tetap relevan sampai sekarang tentang Solidaritas Sosial.
Yang paling membedakan sosiologi dengan disiplin ilmu sosial lain adalah kriteria berpikir sosiologis yang ketiga, melihat individu dalam konteks sosialnya. Pada dasarnya, segala tindakan manusia tidaklah murni muncul dari dirinya sendiri tetapi dikonstruksikan secara sosial (socially constructed). Contoh, motivasi setiap sepasang lelaki dan perempuan memutuskan untuk menikah tidak hanya ditentukan oleh alasan cinta semata, melainkan lebih ditentu-kan oleh faktor sosial, yaitu desakan dari orangtua atau tuntutan dari masyarakat sekitarnya (untuk kasus ‘kumpul kebo’ atau ‘perawan tua’). Bahkan, kesadaran pasangan suami-istri untuk punya anak pun tidak murni motif pribadi dari pasangan itu, akan tetapi telah terkonstruksi secara sosial. ‘Hubungan seks’ yang menurut anggapan banyak orang sebagai urusan privat masing-masing manusia dan dilandasi oleh insting individu ternyata tidak lepas dari konstruksi masyarakat. Lalu, bagaimana dengan tindakan sosial yang lain?
Modal-modal ‘Pertempuran Sosial’
Untuk bisa tetap survive dalam medan (field) pertempuran sosial) seseorang perlu memiliki modal yang kuat. Pembicaraan tentang modal (capital) dalam sosiologi terus berkembang sejak Marx hanya mengartikan-nya sebatas sebagai kepemilikan atas alat-alat produksi. Konsep modal paling mutakhir ditawarkan Pierre Bordieu (1930-2002). Bourdieu menyebutkan empat modal yang membuat manusia bisa bertahan hidup dalam medan sosial, yaitu (lihat Coriggan, 1997 dan Haryatmoko, 2002):
(1) Modal ekonomi, kepemilikan atas alat-alat produksi;
(2) Modal sosial, kepemilikan atas jaringan atau relasi pertemanan;
(3) Modal budaya, kepemilikan atas pengetahuan dan manner tertentu;
(4) Modal simbolik, hal-hal yang meng-utamakan kekuasaan simbolis untuk melegitimasi sesuatu hal.
Jelas, sosiologi tidak bisa menyediakan modal ekonomi, modal sosial, dan bahkan mungkin modal simbolik. Modal simbolik diberikan oleh pihak perguruan tinggi dalam bentuk gelar, Sarjana Sosial. Sosiologi hanya menawarkan sebagian modal budaya, yaitu melatih untuk berpikir sosiologis terhadap sebuah masalah. Itu pun kalau mahasiswa sosiolog mau berlatih untuk menggunakan-nya. Idealnya, profesi sosiolog adalah peneliti. Akan tetapi, struktur di Indonesia tidak terlalu mendukung kesejahteraan bagi pelaku di dunia penelitian. Akibatnya, sangat sedikit yang bertahan di bidang ini. Kemudian, banyak sarjana sosiologi yang misorientasi, mengalami krisis, bahkan frustasi.
Oleh karena itu, seorang mahasiswa sosiologi perlulah memperbanyak modal yang dimilikinya itu, khususnya modal sosial dan modal budaya. Modal sosial, seperti: perbanyak pertemanan (jangan hanya teman dari jurusan sosiologi saja, tapi juga dari disiplin lain), baik-baiklah dengan orang lain (kenalkan diri Anda), terlibat dalam organisasi (sebanyak mungkin), atau aktif mengikuti forum-forum diskusi yang ada. Modal budaya, seperti: kemampuan bahasa asing (Inggris, Jerman, Latin, Mandarin, Jepang dan lainnya), kebiasaan membaca dan menulis ilmiah maupun populer, penguasaan teknologi (komputer, internet, dan ponsel), kemauan untuk terus belajar, dan biasakan untuk selalu berpikir sosiologis ketika melihat masalah. Suatu saat, menurut Bourdieu, kedua modal tersebut akan lebih membantu seseorang bertahan hidup (survive) dibandingkan modal ekonomi dalam medan pertarungan sosial (field).
Jadi, apa pun profesi yang akan digeluti, jadikan kebiasaan berpikir sosiologis sebagai landasan mengembangkan profesi karena hanya itulah yang bisa diperoleh seseorang yang belajar sosiologi.
Ada banyak ilmu yang mengambil manusia sebagai objek studinya. Ada kedokteran, biologi, filsafat, sastra, antropologi, sampai psikologi. Setiap disiplin itu menawarkan wawasan yang terbatas tentang kehidupan manusia. Namun, bukannya ingin sombong, tapi sosiologi menawarkan perspektif yang paling luas untuk melihat manusia (dan masyarakat), sehingga solusi penyelesaian masalah yang ditawarkan juga lebih banyak dan variatif.
Yang harus diingat, sosiologi ibarat ‘pisau yang membantu kita mengupas apel’. Sosiologi hanya alat untuk mempermudah kita menjelaskan sebuah peristiwa. Sosiolog harus secara konsisten dan kontekstual menggunakan ‘pisau’ itu, karena terkadang kita langsung menggigit apel, tanpa mengupasnya terlebih dahulu. Sebagai sosiolog, mana yang akan Anda pilih?
Corrigan, Peter (1995), The Sociology of Consumption, London: Sage Publication.
Habermas, Jurgen (1990), Ilmu dan Teknologi sebagai Ideologi, LP3ES: Jakarta.
Haryatmoko (2003), “Landasan Teoritis Gerakan Sosial menurut Pierre Bourdieu. Menyingkap Kepalsuan Budaya Penguasa,” artikel dalam Basis, edisi khusus Pierre Bourdieu, November-Desember 2003.
Macionis, John J. (1995), Society. The Basics (3rd ed.), Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Soekanto, Soerjono (1999 ), Sosiologi. Suatu Pengantar. PT RajaGrafindo Persada: Jakarta.
Wilonoyudho, Saratri (2005), “Sekolah yang Membunuh Siswanya,” artikel dalam Kompas, Senin, 16 Mei 2005, hal. 41.
Basic Terms (The Fundamental Concepts of Sociology)
Definitions of Sociology and Social action:
Sociology is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action to arrive at a casual explanation of its course and effects. Sociology seeks to formulate type concepts and generalized uniformities of empirical processes. (History, on the other hand, is interested in the causal analysis of particular events, actions or personalities.)
Action is human behavior to which the acting individual attaches subjective meaning. It can be overt or inward and subjective. Action is social when, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual(s), it takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby guided. Social action may be oriented to past, present, or predicted future behavior of others. Others may be concrete people or indefinite pluralities.
Not all action is social: if it ain't oriented to the behavior of others, it ain't social. Also, it is not merely action participated in by a bunch of people (crowd action) or action influenced by or imitative of others. Action can be causally determined by the behavior of others, while still not necessarily being meaningfully determined by the action of others. If I do what you do because it's fashionable, or traditional, or leads to social distinction, its meaningful. Obviously the lines are blurred (pp 113-114), but it's important to make a conceptional distinction.
Modes of Orientation of social action:
Uniformity of social action = action which is wide-spread, frequently repeated by the same individual or simultaneously performed by many individuals and which corresponds to a subjective meaning attributable to the same actors.
Usage: probability of a uniformity in the orientation of social action, when the probability is determined by its actual practice ('it is done to conform with the pattern).
Custom: usage when the actual performance of the action rests on long familiarity. Non- conformance is sanctioned externally.
Action can also be uniform if the actor acts in his self-interests. The uniformity rests insofar as behavior is determined by purely rational actions of actors to similar ulterior expectations.
Types of Social Action, identified by mode of orientation:
1) rational orientation to a system of discrete individual ends. individuals can choose and adjudicate between both means and ends, though these considerations may be with reference to other absolute values.
2) rational orientation to an absolute value, involving conscious belief in the absolute value entirely for its own sake and independent of prospects for external success. Can choose b/t means, but only with relation to absolute, fixed end. Absolute values are always irrational.
3) affectional orientation. If this is uncontrolled reaction to some exceptional stimulus, it is not meaningful -- grey areas.
4) traditional orientation. If this is strict imitation, it is not meaningful -- grey areas.
THE METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIOLOGY
There are 2 kinds of meaning: 1) actually existing meaning in a given concrete case of a particular actor, or average or approximate meaning attributed to a given number of actors; and 2) theoretically conceived pure types of subjective meaning attributed to hypothetical actor(s) in a given type of action (like an ideal type).
The line between meaningful action and reactive behavior w/o subjective meaning is blurry.
The basis for understanding meaning may be either rational (logical or mathematical -- clear intellectual grasp of things) or emotionally empathetic or artistically appreciative (though sympathetic participation we grasp the emotional context in which the action took place).
For purposes of ideal type analysis, it's convenient to treat irrational (from the point of view of rational pursuit of a given end) action as deviation from a conceptually pure type of rational action. We compare this analytically clear type to empirical reality, and that increases our understanding of how actually action is influences by irrational factors. The more sharp and precise the ideal type (and thus the more abstract and unrealistic) the more useful it is in clarifying terminology and formulating classifications and hypotheses.
Some phenomena are devoid of subjective meaning. What is intelligible about an object is its relation to human action in its role either of means or of end, a relation which actors can be said to be aware of and to which their action has been oriented. If you can't make this relation (for example a hindering or favorable circumstance) it's not meaningful in the sense we care about.
There are 2 kinds of understanding: 1) direct observational understanding of subjective mean of a given act (eg, if i start to shout at you, you could directly observe my irrational emotional reaction by virtue of my shouting). 2) explanatory understanding: we understand motive, or, what makes an individual do a particular thing in a particular circumstance. Since we are interested in the subjective meaning of action, we must place an action in the complex of meaning in which it took place.
A motive is a complex of subjective meaning which seems to the actor and/OR the observer an adequate ground for the conduct in question.
In most cases, actual action goes on in a state of inarticulate half-consciousness or actually unconsciousness of its subjective meaning. The ideal type case of meaning is where meaning is fully conscious and explicit: this rarely happens in reality.
Adequacy on the level of meaning: a subjective interpretation of a coherent course of conduct when its component parts in their mutual relation are recognized as a 'typical' complex of meaning. Eg, according to our current norms of calculation and thinking, the correct solution to an arithmatical problem.
Casual adequacy: there's a probability it will always actually occur in the same way. Eg, statistical probability, according to verified generalization from experience, that there would be a correct or incorrect solution to the arithmatical problem. Depends on being able to determine that there's a probability a will follow b.
Subjectively understandable action exists ONLY as the behavior of one or more individual human beings. States, for instance, are results of particular acts of individual persons. There is no such things as a collective personality that acts. These concepts of collective entities DO HAVE meanings in the minds of individual persons, and so actors orient their actions to them as if they existed or should exist.
Functional analysis is a good starting point for sociology. We need to know what kinds of action is functionally necessary for survival, and also for the maintenance of a cultural type and the corresponding modes of social action. We are interested, though, in the subjective meaning of actions to component individuals. The interesting question, then, is what motives determine and lead the individual members and participants in this situation to behave in such a way that the situation came into being in the first place.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP
Social relationship: the behavior of actors in so far as, in its meaningful content, the action of each takes account of the others and is oriented to the behavior of others. Mere group membership is not sufficient. The relation of the actors may be solidary, or the opposite. Eg, a 'state' ceases to exist when there is no longer a probability that certain kinds of meaningfully oriented social action will take place.
The subjective meaning need not be the same for all parties to the relationship. The relationship may be temporary or long term. Its subjective meaning may change over time.
The Concept of Legitimate Order
The validity of an order is the probability that people will orient their action to it.
Types of Legitimate Order
Legitimacy of an order can be upheld in 2 ways:
1) purely disinterested motives a) purely affectual, b) rational belief in absolute validity of an order as an expression of ultimate values, c) religious attitudes, through belief in need to follow order for salvation
2) entirely through self-interest based on ulterior motives
Convention: system of order where infraction meets with sanctions of disapproval and orders are considered binding.
Law: system of order where the above is enforced by a functionally specialized agency (e.g., the police).
A system of order with external sanctions may also be guaranteed by disinterested subjective attitudes. Eg, it can be both morally wrong and illegal to murder.
Bases of Legitimacy
Legitimacy may be ascribed to an order by those subject to it in the following ways:
1) tradition, belief in legitimacy of what has always existed.
2) affectual attitudes, legitimizing the validity of what is newly revealed or is a model to imitate
3) rational belief in its absolute value
4) legality. Readiness to conform with rules which are formally correct and have been imposed by accepted procedure.
Submission to an order is almost always determined by a variety of motives.
MAX WEBER Class, Status, Party
All communities are arranged in a manner that goods, tangible and intangible, symbolic and material are distributed. Such a distribution is always unequal and necessarily involves power. ''Classes, status groups and parties are phenomena of the distribution of power within a community'' (927). Status groups makes up the social order, classes the economic order, and parties the legal/political order. Each order affects and is affected by the other.
Power is the ''chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action'' (926).
Power may rest of a variety of bases, and can be of differing types. ''Economically conditioned power is not identical with power... The emergence of economic power may be the consequence of power existing on other grounds. Man does not strive for power only to enrich himself economically. Power, including economic power, may be valued for its own sake. Very frequently the striving for power is conditioned by the social honor it entails. Not all power entails honor.'' Power is not the only basis of social honor, and social honor, or prestige, may be the basis of economic power.
''Power, as well as honor, may be guaranteed by the legal order, but... [the legal order] is not their primary source. The legal order is rather an additional factor that enhances the chance to hold power or honor; but it cannot always secure them'' (926-7).
Class is defined in terms of market situation. A class exists when a number of people have in common a specific casual component of their life chances in the following sense: this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income under conditions of the commodity or labor markets.
When market conditions prevail (eg, capitalism), property and lack of property are the basic categories of all class situations. However, the concept of class-interest is ambiguous. Collective action based on class situations is determined by the transparency of the connections between the causes and the consequences of the class situation. If the contrast between the life chances of different class situations is merely seen as an acceptable absolute fact, no action will be taken to change the class situation.
A class in and of itself does not constitute a group (Gemeinschaft). ''The degree in which social action and possibly associations emerge from the mass behavior of the members of a class is linked to general cultural conditions, especially those of an intellectual sort'' (929). ''If classes as such are not groups, class situations emerge only on the basis of social action.''
Status Groups and Honor
Unlike classes, status groups do have a quality of groups. They are determined by the distribution of social honor. A specific style of life is shared by a status group, and the group itself is defined by those with whom one has social intercourse. Economic elements can be a sort of honor; however, similar class position does not necessitate similar status groups (see old money's contempt for the nouveau riche). People from different economic classes may be members of the same status group, if they share the same specific style of life.
The way in which social honor is distributed in the community is called the status order. Criteria for entry into a status group may take forms such as the sharing of kinship groups or certain levels of education. The most extreme of a status system with a high level of closure (that is, strong restriction of mobility between statuses) is a caste system. There, status distinctions are guaranteed no only by law and convention, but also by religious sanctions.
Relationships between Class and Status group; between Class situation, Status Situation, and Stratification.
Status groups can sometimes be equal to class, sometimes be broader, sometimes more restrictive, and sometimes bear no relation to class (duh). In most cases, status situation is the apparent dimension of stratification: ''stratification by status goes hand in hand with a monopolization of ideal and material goods or opportunities'' (935). Class situation can take precedence over status situation, however. ''When the bases of the acquisition and distribution of goods are relatively stable, stratification by status is favored'' (935). Technological and economic changes threaten stratification by status, and ''push class situation to the foreground.... Every slowing down of the change in economic stratification leads, in due course, to the growth or status structures and makes for a resuscitation of the important role of social honor'' (930).
''Parties reside in the sphere of power'' (938). ''Parties are... only possible within groups that have an asssociational character, that is, some rational order and a staff of persons'' (938). Parties aim for social power, the ability to influence the actions of others, and thus may exist in a social club, the state, or a cohort of graduate students at the University of Chicago.
Parties may represent class or status interests, or neither. They usually represent a mix.
''The structure of parties differs in a basic way according to the kind of social action which they struggle to influence.... [T]hey differ according to whether or not the community is stratified by class or status. Above all else, they vary according to the structure of domination'' (938-9).
MAX WEBER The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
abbreviations: MWC = modern, western capitalism
Though knowledge and observation of great refinement have existed elsewhere, only in the West has rationalization in science, law and culture developed to such a great degree. The modern West absolutely and completely depends for its whole existence, for the political technical, and economic conditions of its life, on a specially trained organization of individuals, so that the most important functions of everyday life have come to be in the hands of technically, commercially and above all legally trained government officials. Nowhere else does this exist to such a degree as it does in the West.
The most fateful force in modern life is capitalism. The impulse to acquisition has existed always and everywhere and has in itself nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise. This enterprise must be continuous, because in a capitalistic society, anyone who did not take advantage of opportunities for profit-making would be doomed to extinction.
A capitalistic economic action rests on the expectation of profit by the utilization of opportunities for exchange, on (formally) peaceful chances for profit. Where this is rationally pursued, calculations in terms of money are made, whether by modern bookkeeping or more primitive means. Everything is done in terms of balances of money income and money expenses. Whether the calculations are accurate, or whether the calculation method is traditional or by guess-work affects only the degree of the rationality of capitalistic acquisition.
Characteristics of modern Western capitalism: rational industrial organization (that is, attuned to a regular profit and not to political nor irrational speculative opportunities for profit); separation of business from the household; rational bookkeeping. Capitalistic adventurers (in search of booty, whether by war or exploitation) have existed everywhere, but only in the modern West has developed... the rational capitalistic organization of (formally) free labor.
The rationality of MWC is dependent on the calculation of technical factors, and so is dependent on the development in science of the exact and rational experiment. C'ism did not cause this development: but, the continuing development of this type science is supported by capitalistic interests in practical economic applications.
The peculiar rationalism of Western culture extends to many fields -- science, mystical contemplation, military training, law and administration. Each of theses fields may be rationalized in terms of very different ultimate values and ends, and what is rational from one point of view may well be irrational from another. The development of economic rationalism is partly dependent on rational technique and law, but it also requires people to have a favorable disposition toward adopting certain types of practical rational conduct.
In this book, we will treat ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE CAUSAL CHAIN, the connection of the spirit of modern economic life with the rational ethics of ascetic Protestantism.
Religious Affiliation and Social Stratification
Catholics show a stronger propensity to remain in their crafts, and become master craftsmen, while Protestants are attracted to a larger extent to the upper ranks of skilled labor and administrative positions in factories. Protestants own a disproportionate share of capital. All other things equal, Protestants have been more likely to develop economic rationalism than Catholics. Weber seeks the explanation in 'the permanent intrinsic character of their religion,' and not only in their temporary external historico-political situations.
The Reformation meant not the elimination of the church's control over everyday life, but a substitution of a new form of control for the previous one. While the Catholic church was fairly lax, Calvinism 'would be for us the most absolutely unbearable form of ecclesiastical control of the individual which could possibly exist.'
Protestantism must not be understood as joy of living or in any other sense connected with the Enlightenment. Early Protestantism (e.g., Luther, Calvin) had nothing to do with progress in an Enlightenment sense. Not all Protestant denominations had an equally strong influence on the development of members' business acumen and spirit of hard work.
The Spirit of Capitalism
The spirit of capitalism is ''an historical individual: a complex of elements associated in historical reality which we united into a conceptual whole from the standpoint of their cultural significance'' (47).
Ben Franklin is an example of someone who espouses a philosophy of avarice which is: the ideal of an honest man of recognized credit. It includes a duty on the part of an individual toward the increase of his capital, which is assumed as an end in itself. It is not mere business astuteness, it is an ethos; infraction of its rules is not foolishness or bad business, but forgetfulness of duty.
In this ethic, economic acquisition is no longer considered a means of subsistence: it is the ultimate purpose of a man's life. This is combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life. (NOTE: From the standpoint ''of the happiness of, or utility to, a single individual, this ethic appears entirely transcendental and absolutely irrational'' (53)).
People now are born into a capitalistic economy which presents itself to them as the unalterable order of things in which they must live. In so far as a person born now is involved in the system of market relationships, he must conform to capitalistic rules of action. Today's capitalism selects the subjects it needs through economic survival of the fittest. The interesting question, according to Max, is WHERE DID THIS SITUATION COME FROM?
It did NOT arise as the superstructure or reflection of economic situations. For example, the spirit of capitalism such as espoused by our buddy Ben Franklin was present before capitalistic order.
In order to arise, the spirit of capitalism had to struggle with its 'most important opponent,' traditionalism. For instance, workers will respond to an increase in piece rates by doing less work, collecting the usual amount of money, and going home early. Men do not ''by nature'' wish to earn more and more money, they simply wish to live as they are accustomed to and to earn as much as is necessary for that purpose.
Another way of attempting to increase productivity is to lower wages or piece rates, so that workers must work harder and longer to earn the same amount as before. This method has its limits. It (and capitalism) requires a surplus population which can be hired cheaply in the market. Also, too large a surplus population can encourage the development of labor intensive methods, rather than more efficient methods: low wages do not equal cheap labor. And, if you pay people too little, their efficiency and attentiveness decreases.
Thus, it would be better if labor were performed as if it were an absolute end in itself. This can only be the process of a long and arduous education (for example, being raised Pietist). Capitalism ''now in the saddle'' can fairly easily recruit the required workers, but this was not always the case.
Capitalism can exist with a traditionalistic character. The animating spirit of the entrepreneur may be the traditional rate of profit, the traditional amount of work, the traditional manner of labor-management relations, and the essentially traditional circle of customers and manner of attracting new ones. Take the example of the putting out system.
In such a system, this leisureliness can be destroyed, without any essential change in the form of work organization (such as vertically integrated factories). The spirit of capitalism is the cause of this change. Where the spirit of capitalism appears and is able to work itself out, it produces its own capital and monetary supplies as the means to its ends, but the reverse is not true (69).
Protestantism was not merely a stage prior to the development of a purely rationalistic philosophy, however. Rationalism shows a development which by no means follows parallel lines in the various departments of life. Since life may be rationalized from fundamentally different basic points of view and in very different directions, we must ask the origin of the irrational element which lies at the basis of this particular concrete form of rational thought: the conception of a calling.
Luther's Conception of The Calling
The idea of a calling -- a life-task, a definite field in which to work -- is peculiar to Protestants. Protestantism had a further new development, which was the valuation of the fulfillment of duty in worldly affairs as the highest form which the moral activity of an individual could assume. The only way of living acceptably to God was solely through the fulfillment of the obligations imposed upon the individual by his position in the world (his calling), NOT by trying to surpass worldly morality by monastic asceticism (80).
Remember important part of Reformation: By faith, not works, shall ye be saved. You are justified by faith, etc. So all those indulgences earned by crawling on your knees up stairways, etc. don't get you anything.
For the time being (before Calvin et al. got hold of it), the idea of the calling remained traditionalistic and its only ethical result negative: worldly duties were no longer subordinated to ascetic ones; obedience to authority and acceptance of things as they were, were preached.
The Religious Foundations of Worldly Asceticism
However, this idea of the calling was not sufficient for the development of the spirit of capitalism. We needed the effects of forms of ascetic Protestantism: Calvinism, Pietism, Methodism and the Baptist sects.
An important thing to keep in mind is that these folks were not motivated by acquisitive lusts, but rather by salvation of the soul.
Calvinists believed in predestination. God designated before the creation of the world who would be saved and who would get to rot in hell. All creation exists for the sake of God, and has meaning only as means to the glory and majesty of God. Human merit or guilt plays no part in the possession of grace, since that would make God's decrees subject to human influence. This doctrine 'must above all have one consequence... a feeling of unprecedented inner loneliness of the single individual' (104). The individual was forced to follow the path of his own destiny decreed for him from eternity without help from others or from the Church -- complete elimination of salvation through the Church and the sacraments (which Lutheranism retained). This meant the elimination of magic from the world. [It also meant the doing away with a periodical discharge of the emotional sense of sin (confession).]
Now, the elected Christian should glorify God in life by fulfilling God's commandments to the best of his ability. This requires social achievements of the Christian because God decrees that social life shall be organized according to his commandments.
Fear and lack of knowledge of whether or not one is going to rot in hell led to a need for ordinary men to find certitudo salutis (certainty of salvation). Pastoral advice to these poor, tortured dudes contained two themes: 1) an absolute duty to consider oneself chosen and to combat all doubts as temptations of the devil, since lack of self-confidence is the result of insufficient faith, hence of imperfect grace. 2) Intense worldly activity as the most suitable means to attain that self-confidence [thus we eliminate the free rider problem]. The Calvinist sought to identify true faith by its fruits: a type of Christian conduct which served to increase the glory of God. Good works do not affect salvation, but they are indispensable as a sign of election. In practice, this means God helps those who help themselves. The Calvinist creates a conviction of his own salvation.
For Catholics, good works were not a part of a rationalized system of life -- they could be performed sporadically, to atone -- whereas for Calvinists they are. The God of Calvinism demanded not single good works, but a life of good works combined into a unified system. The moral conduct of the average man was subjected to a consistent method for conduct as a whole. The end of this asceticism was to be able to lead an alert, intelligent life: the most urgent task the destruction of spontaneous, impulsive enjoyment. The most important means was to bring order into the conduct of its adherents. Hence we have methodically rationalized ethical conduct.
The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination was only one of several possible motives which could have supported the methodical rationalization of life. However, it had not only a unique consistency (by virtue of being based on logical deduction, rather than religious experience) and was psychologically extraordinarily powerful.
This sect sought to make the invisible Church of the elect visible on this earth. By means of intensified asceticism these folks hoped to enjoy the blissfulness of community with God in this life. Sometimes this latter tendency led to displays of emotion, which were antithetical to Calvinist restraint. Other than that, however, the practical effect of Pietistic principles was an even stricter ascetic control of conduct in the calling:
1) Methodical development of one's own state of grace to a higher and higher degree of certainty and perfection in terms of the law was a sign of grace.
2) a belief that God's Providence works through those in such a state of perfection.
Since some of these folks believed grace subject to repentance, by the creation of methods to induce repentance even the attainment of divine grace became in effect an object of rational human activity.
Though rebirth, an emotional certainty of salvation as the immediate result of faith was an important factor, the emotional act of conversion was methodically induced. Emotion, once awakened, was directed into a rational struggle for perfection. This provided a religious basis for ascetic conduct after the doctrine of predestination had been given up by these folks.
Nothing new was added to the idea of the calling.
The Baptist Sects
The church was viewed as a community of personal believers of the reborn. Salvation was achieved by personal, individual revelation; it was offered to everyone, though not everyone took it.
The injunction was to be in the world but not of it, so worldly enjoyments and unnecessary social intercourse with non-reborn folks was avoided. The Holy Spirit worked in daily life, and spoke directly to any individual who was willing to hear. This leads to an eventual elimination of all that remained of the doctrine of salvation through the Church and sacraments. This accomplished the religious rationalization of the world in its most extreme form.
Conscience is the revelation of God to the individual.
The rationalization of conduct within the world, but for the sake of the world beyond, was the consequence of the concept of calling of ascetic Protestantism.
Asceticism and The Spirit of Capitalism
In Puritan thinking, the real moral objection to possession of wealth is to relaxation in the security of possession, the enjoyment of wealth with the consequence of idleness and the temptations of the flesh, above all distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life. It is only because possession involves this danger that it is suspect at all. Not leisure and enjoyment, but only activity serves to increase the glory of God. Waste of time is thus the first and in principle the deadliest of sins. Thus, inactive contemplation at the expense of work is right out.
Labor is an approved ascetic technique, but is also considered in itself an end of life as ordained by God. Unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace. Wealth does not exempt anyone from this.
The division of labor, which has a providential purpose in the thought of the Puritans, leads to qualitative and quantitative improvements in production, and thus serves the common good. But, in addition, specialization is encouraged by the calling, to which it provides an ethical justification; for, ''outside of a calling the accomplishments of a man are only casual and irregular and he spends more time in idleness than in work.'' If God presents to His elect a change for profit, he must pursue it: the Christian must follow the call by taking advantage of the opportunity. The acquisition of wealth in the performance of a calling is morally permissible and enjoined.
-- Asceticism turned against the spontaneous enjoyment of life. So, sport, for instance, is acceptable only if it serves a rational purpose, say, increasing physical efficiency.
-- The powerful tendency toward uniformity of life, which today so immensely aids the capitalistic interest in the standardization of production, had its ideal foundation in the repudiation of all idolatry of the flesh (eg, non-ascetic, flashy or attractive clothing).
The Puritan outlook on life 'stood at the cradle of modern economic man' (174). This religious epoch bequeathed to its utilitarian successors ''an amazingly good... conscience in the acquisition of money, so long as it took place legally'' (176). In addition, the power of religious asceticism provided owners with sober, conscientious and industrious workmen. And, it provided comforting assurance that the unequal distribution of goods in the world was ordained by God.
The religious basis had died away by Ben Franklin's time. Limitation to specialized work is now a condition of any valuable work in the modern world. ''The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production and today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force.''
The Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions
Motives for the Rejections of the World: The Meaning of Their Rational Construction
Individual spheres of value presented here as ideal types have a rational consistency rarely found in reality. This essay proceeds from the most rational forms reality can assume; it attempts to find out how far certain rational conclusions, which can be established theoretically, have been drawn in reality. Perhaps, also, we can find out why those rational conclusions have not been drawn.
Typology of Asceticism and Mysticism
Two contrasting abnegations of the world:
1) active asceticism that is a God-willed ACTION of the devout who are God's tools. Rationally active asceticism, in mastering the world, seeks to tame what is creatural and wicked through work in a worldly vocation (inner-worldly asceticism);
2) contemplative POSSESSION of the holy as found in mysticism. The individual is not a tool, but a vessel of the divine. Desired: other-worldly religious state; contemplative flight from the world.
Active asceticism may confine itself to controlling wickedness in the actor's own nature; in this case, it avoids any action in the orders of the world (asceticist flight from the world). In external bearing, it thereby comes close to contemplative flight. Conversely, the mystic may determine s/he need not flee from the world, and so be an inner-worldly mysticist, remaining in the orders of the world.
Directions of the Abnegation of the World:
Formulated abstractly, the rational aim of redemption religion has been to secure for the saved a holy state, and thereby a habitude that assures salvation. This takes the place of an acute and extraordinary, and thus a holy state which is transitorily achieved by means of orgies, asceticism, or contemplation. Most prophetic and redemptory religions have lived not only in an acute, but a permanent state of tension in relation to the world and its orders. The more the religions have been true religions of salvation, the greater has this tension been. The tension has been greater the more religion has been sublimated from ritualism and towards 'religious absolutism.' Indeed, the further the rationalization and sublimation of external and internal possession of -- in the widest sense -- things worldly has progressed, the stronger has the tension on the part of religion become. For the rationalization and conscious sublimation of man's relations to the various spheres of values, internal and external, as well as religious and secular, have then pressed towards making conscious the internal and lawful autonomy of the individual spheres; thereby letting them drift into those tensions which remain hidden to the original naive relation with the external world.
The more comprehensive and the more inward the aim of salvation has been, the more it has been taken for granted that the faithful should ultimately stand closer to the savior, the prophet, the priest, the brother in the faith than to natural relations and to the matrimonial community. Prophecy has created a new social community; thereby the relationships of the sib and of matrimony have been devalued.
Communities of villages, members of the sib, the guild or of partners in seafaring, hunting and warring expeditions have known two elemental principles: first, the dualism or in-group and out-group morality. For in-group morality the principled obligation to give brotherly support in distress has existed. All this followed the principle of ''your want of today, may be my want of tomorrow'' (this principle was not rationally weighed, but it played its part in sentiment). Accordingly, haggling in exchange and loan situations, as well as permanent debt-enslavement and similar kinds of enslavement, were confined to outgroup morality and applied only to outsiders.
The religiosity of the congregation transferred the ancient economic ethic of neighborliness (I'll help you out today, since I may need you to help me out tomorrow) to the relations among brothers of the faith. What had previously been the obligations of the noble and the wealthy became the fundamental imperatives of all ethically rationalized religion (to care for orphans and widows, to give alms). The principle that constituted the communal relations among the salvation prophesies was the suffering common to all believers (whether or not the suffering actually existed or was a constant threat, whether it was internal or external). The more imperatives that issued from the ethic of reciprocity among neighbors were raised, the more rational the conception of salvation became, and the more it was sublimated into an ethic of absolute ends.
The Economic Sphere
The tension between brotherly religion and the world has been most obvious in the economic sphere. All the primeval magical or mystagogic ways of influencing spirits and deities have pursued special interests. The sublimated religions of salvation, however, had been increasingly tense in their relationships with rationalized economies.
A rational economy is a functional organization oriented to money-prices which originate in the interest-struggles of men in the market. Calculation is not possible without estimation in money prices and hence without market struggles. Money is the most abstract and impersonal element that exists in human life. The more the world of the capitalist economy follows its own immanent laws, the less accessible it is to any imaginable relationship with a religious ethic of brotherliness. Ultimately no genuine religion of salvation has overcome the tension between their religiosity and a rational economy.
The paradox of all rational asceticism is that rational asceticism has created the very wealth it rejected.
There have only been two consistent avenues for escaping the tension between religion and in the economic world in a principled and inward manner:
1) the Puritan ethic of the vocation. Puritanism, as a religion of virtuosos, renounced the universalism of love and rationally routinized all work in this world into serving God's will and testing ones state of grace. Puritanism accepted the routinization of the economic cosmos, which , along with the whole world, it devalued as creatural and depraved. It involved a renunciation of salvation in favor of the groundless and always only particularized grace. Actually, this standpoint of unbrotherliness was no longer a genuine religion of salvation. A genuine religion of salvation can exaggerate brotherliness to the height of the mystic's acosmism of love.
2) Mysticism. The mystic's benevolence does not inquire into the man to whom and for whom it sacrifices. Mysticism is not interested in his person. Mysticism is a unique escape form this world in the form of an objectless devotion to anybody, not for man's sake, but purely for devotion's sake.
The Political Sphere
The consistent brotherly ethic of salvation religions has come into an equally sharp tension with the political orders of the world. Local (community, tribe, household, etc.) gods and magic were not a problem The problem arose when these barriers of locality, tribe and polity were shattered by universalistic religions. And the problem arose in full strength only when this god was a god of 'love.' The problem of tension with the political order emerged for redemption religions out of the basic demand for brotherliness. In politics as in economics, the more rational the political order became, the sharper the problems of these tensions became.
The brotherliness of a group of men bound together in war appears valueless in brotherly religions; it is seen as a mere reflection of the technically sophisticated brutality of the struggle. It's consecration appears as the glorification of fratricide.
The only two consistent solutions (first three guesses don't count...): puritanism and mysticism. Puritanism believes God's commands should be imposed on the world by the means of the world -- violence, so ''just war'' is not a problem for Puritanism (God is on their side). The mystics take a ''radical political attitude'' of ''turning the other cheek'' which makes them appear ''necessarily vulgar and lacking in dignity in the eyes of every self-assured worldly ethic of heroism.''
Organic social ethics (where religiously substructured) stands on the soil of brotherliness, but, in contrast to mystic and acosmic love, is dominated by a cosmic, rational demand for brotherliness. It point of departure is the experience of the inequality of religious charisma. The fact that the holy should be accessible to some and not all is unbearable to organic social ethics. It therefore attempts to synthesize this inequality of charismatic qualifications with secular stratification by status, into a cosmos of God-ordained services which are specialized in function. Certain tasks are given to every individual and every group according to their social and economic position as determined by fate. Without something like the Indian doctrine of Karma (which says there's a reason why you're bottom dog), every organic social ethic unavoidably represents an accommodation to the interests of the privileged strata of the world.
From the standpoint of inner-worldly asceticism, the organic ethic lacks the drive for an ethical and thorough rationalization of individual life. In such matters, it has no premium for the rational and methodical patterning of personal life in the interest of the individual's own salvation. The organic pragmatism of salvation must consider the redemptory aristocracy of inner-worldly asceticism, with its rational depersonalization of life orders, as the hardest form of lovelessness and lack of brotherliness. It must also consider the redemptory pragmatism of mysticism as a sublimated and unbrotherly indulgence of the mystic' s own charisma. Both inner-worldly asceticism and mysticism ultimately condemn the social world to absolute meaninglessness (or, at least they hold that God's aims concerning the world are utterly incomprehensible).
The rationalism of religious and organic doctrines of society cannot stand up under this idea; for it seeks to comprehend the world as an at least relatively rational cosmos in spite of all its wickedness: the world must hear at least traces of the divine plan of salvation.
The organic ethic of society is an eminently conservative power hostile to revolution. Virtuoso religion is a potentially revolutionary force. Its revolutionary turn may assume two forms:
1) (from inner-worldly asceticism, with an absolute divine law) it becomes a religious duty to realize this divine natural law. This corresponds to an obligation to crusade.
2) (from mysticism) The commands of the world do not hold for the man who is assured in his obsession with god.
The Aesthetic Sphere
The development of intellectualism and the rationalism of life make art become a cosmos of more and more consciously grasped independent values which exist in their own right. Art comes to provide a salvation from the routines of everyday life, and begins to compete directly with salvation religion. [The refusal of modern man to assume responsibility for moral judgements tends to transform judgements of moral intent into judgements of taste.]
The Erotic Sphere
The brotherly ethic of salvation religion is in profound tension with the greatest irrational force of life: sexual love. The more sublimated sexuality is, and the more principled and relentlessly consistent the salvation ethic of brotherhood is, the sharper is the tension between sex and religion. A principled ethic of religious brotherhood perceives that inner, earthly salvation by mature love competes in the sharpest possible way with devotion to a supra-mundane God. Inner-worldly and rational asceticism (vocational asceticism) can accept only the rationally regulated marriag
The Intellectual Sphere
The tension between religion and intellectual knowledge comes to the fore wherever rational, empirical knowledge has consistently worked through to the disenchantment of the world. Every increase of rationalism in empirical science increasing pushes religion from the rational into the irrational realm; but only today does religion become the irrational or anti-rational supra-human power.
The less magic or merely contemplative mysticism and the more pure doctrine a religion contains, the greater is its need of rational apologetics. The more religion became book-religion and doctrine, the more literary it became and the more efficacious it became in provoking rational lay-thinking, freed of priestly control. However, there is no ''unbroken'' religion working as a vital force which is not compelled at some point to demand the credo non quod, sed quia absurdum (some saint said this, but i can't remember which one, it means ''i believe it because it is absurd''. i think it was said in reference to the trinity), the sacrifice of the intellect.
Redemptory religion defends itself against the attack of the self-sufficient intellect, by raising the claim that religious knowledge moves in a different sphere.
The need for salvation, consciously cultivated as the substance of religiosity, has resulted from the endeavor of a systematic and practical rationalization of life's realities. All religions have demanded as a specific presupposition that the course of the world be somehow meaningful, at least in so far as it touches upon the interests of men (this claim arises first as the problem of unjust suffering and just compensation for the unequal distribution of individual happiness in the world). From here, the claim has tended to progress toward an ever increasing devaluation of the world. For, the more intensely rational thought has seized upon the problem of a just and retributive compensation, the less an entirely inner-worldly solution could seem possible, and the less an other-worldly solution could appear probable or even meaningful.
The intellect, like all culture values, has created an aristocracy based on the possession of rational culture and independent of all personal ethical qualities of man. The aristocracy of intellect is hence an unbrotherly aristocracy. Worldly man has regarded the possession of culture as the highest good. In addition to the burden of ethical guilt, however, something has adhered to this cultural value which was bound to depreciate it with still greater finality, namely, senselessness (if the cultural value is to be judged in terms of its own standards).
The pure inner-worldly perfection of self by a man of ''culture'', the ultimate value to which ''culture'' has seemed to be reducible is meaningless for religious thought. This meaninglessness follows for religious thought from the obvious meaninglessness of death when viewed from the inner-worldly standpoint. The cultivated man can die weary of life, but never satiated with it; for, the perfectibility of the man of culture, in principle, progresses indefinitely, as do the cultural values.
Culture appears as man's emancipation from the organically prescribed cycle of natural life. For this reason, culture's every step forward seems condemned to lead to an every more devastating senselessness. The advancement of cultural values seems to become a senseless hustle in the service of worthless, moreover self-contradictory, and mutually antagonistic ends. The advancement of cultural values appears the more meaningless the more it is made a holy task, a ''calling.''
The need for salvation responds to this devaluation by becoming more other-worldly, more alienated from all structured forms of life, and by confining itself to the strict religious essence. The reaction is the stronger the more systematic the thinking about the ''meaning'' of the universe becomes, the more the external organization of the world is rationalized, the more the conscious experience of the world's irrational content is sublimated. AND NOT ONLY THEORETICAL THOUGHT LED TO THIS DISENCHANTING OF THE WORLD, BUT ALSO THE VERY ATTEMPT OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS TO PRACTICALLY AND ETHICALLY RATIONALIZE THE WORLD.
These specific intellectual and mystical attempts at salvation in the face of these tensions succumb in the end to the world dominion of unbrotherliness. One the one hand, their charisma is not accessible to everyone. Hence, in intent, mystical salvation means aristocracy; it is an aristocratic religiosity of redemption. And, in the midst of a culture that is rationally organized for a vocational workaday life, there is hardly any room for the cultivation of acosmic brotherliness, unless it is among the strata of the economically carefree. Under the technical and social conditions of rational culture, an imitation of the life of Buddha, Jesus or Francis seems condemned to failure for purely external reasons.
MAX WEBER: General Economic History
Chap 22, The Meaning and Presuppositions of Modern Capitalism
C'ism is present wherever the industrial provision for the needs of a human group is carried out by the method of enterprise. A rational capitalistic enterprise is one with capital accounting, according to the methods of modern bookkeeping and the striking of a balance. In a given economy, parts may be capitalistically organized, and other parts not so. An epoch is capitalistic if the provision of its wants is organized capitalistically to such a degree that the whole economic system would collapse if we take away the capitalistic form of organization.
General presuppositions for the existence of modern day capitalism (thinking along the ideal type line):
1) Rational capital accounting. This involves the appropriation of all physical means of production as the property of autonomous private enterprises.
2) Freedom of the market, in the sense of the absence of irrational limits on trading in the market.
3) Rational technology, to permit the required calculability. This implies mechanization.
4) Calculable law, the dependability of calculable adjudication and administration.
5) Free (not slave or serf) labor, people legally in the position to, and economically compelled to, sell their labor on the market without restriction.
6) Commercialization of economic life: general use of commercial instruments to represent share rights in enterprise and also in property ownership.
Chap27, The Development of Industrial Technique
Real distinguishing characteristic of the modern factory: the concentration of ownership of workplace, means of work, source of power and raw material in the hands of the entrepreneur.
Key: Shift from nature's power (water) to more manageable, reliable, calculable forces (like steam). This, along with mechanization, permits rationalization of work.
Development of use of coal, and subsequent production of iron had 3 important consequences:
1) released technology and productive capabilities from the limits inherent in the qualities of organic industry (eg, horses get tired, the wind doesn't always blow, etc.)
2) mechanization of the production process thorough the steam engine liberated production from the organic limitations of human labor (it ain't just horses that get tired; and people can't lift as much, work as fast, as reliably, etc.)
3) through union with science, the production of goods was emancipated from the bonds of tradition and came under the dominance of freely roving intelligence.
Recruitment of the labor force for this new form of production was carried by means of indirect compulsion. The enclosure movement and changes in agricultural production left a bunch of people wandering around without jobs, who were forced into jobs by being threatened with the ''workhouse'' if they didn't take jobs in the new factories. From the beginning of the 18th c., there began to be laws to regulate employers conduct toward their employees, to ensure laborers were paid in money and not in kind.
War needs and luxury consumption fed capitalism's growth. However, all those silly folks who've argued that war was the driving force are wrong. While the desire of nobility and the upperclasses for luxury goods was important, the increasing production of tapestries and carpets was a key marker of the democratization of luxury, which is the crucial direction of capitalistic production. The decisive impetus for c'ism could only come from mass market demand.
1. C'ism alone produced a rational organization of labor.
2. Lifted barrier between internal and external economics, internal and external ethics, and the entrance of the commercial principle into the internal economy with the organization of labor on this basis.
3. disintegration of primitive economic fixity with the entrepreneur organization of labor.
The reason this development took place only in the West is due to special features of the West's general cultural evolution: rational law, rational empirical science, a state with a professional administration, specialized officialdom, men with a rational ethic in the conduct of life.
Ch 28, Citizenship
Outside the occident there have not been cities in the sense of a unitary community. Occidental cities originally arose through the establishment of a fraternity; it was in its beginnings first above all a defense group, an organization of those economically competent to bear arms, to equip and train themselves. These folks owned their own arms: this is key.
In places like Egypt, Asia, India and China, irrigation was a big issue, and so kings' bureaucracies developed. The king and his staff required the compulsory service of the dependent classes; they in turn were dependent on that bureaucracy. The king also held a military monopoly. In the west, self-equipment and religious brotherhoods (eg, crusaders) meant kings did not have a military monopoly, and so cities could be formed in a western sense, based on mutual defense.
Also, ideas and institutions in the orient connected with magic, which supported such systems as caste systems, did not exist in such strength in the occident.
Chap 29, The Rational State
Modern capism can survive only in the modern rational state.
Characteristics of the Modern Rational State:
1) Expert officialdom and rational law. Key: rationalization of procedure... formal juristic thinking inherited from Roman law.
2) Economic policy that is continuous and consistent and not dependent on ritualistic/traditional considerations. The first appearance of a rational economic policy was mercantilism: external economic policy consists in taking every advantage of the opponent, to strengthen the hand of the government in its external relations. Mercantilism signifies the development of the state as a political power, this development is to be done directly by increasing the tax paying power of the population. However, mercantilism wasn't free market: the govt supported monopolies, gave colonial privileges, etc. It disappeared when free trade was established.
Ch 30, The Evolution of The Capitalistic Spirit
While several factors fed into the development of capitalism, ''in the last resort the factor which produced capitalism is the rational permanent enterprise, rational accounting, rational technology and rational law, but not these alone. Necessary complementary factors were the rational spirit, the rationalization of the conduct of life in general, and a rationalistic economic ethic'' (260).
In the middle ages, the position of the church on economic ethics was that it excluded ''higgling'' (cute word; he means haggling), overpricing and free competition and included the principle of a just price and the assurance to everyone of a chance to live.
Since Judaism made Christianity possible and gave it the character of a religion essentially free from magic, it rendered a service by removing one of the most serious obstructions to the rationalization of economic life (magic). Prophesies (rather than oracles by lot, etc.) have released the world from magic and in so doing have created the basis for our modern science and technology, and for capitalism.
Basically, then, Weber chats re: the spirit of capitalism, which you know all about from somewhere else.
As noted earlier, the breakdown of the dual economic ethics was key.
A note on class conflict: ''It was possible for the working class to accept its lot as long as the promise of eternal happiness could be held out to it. When this consolation fell away it was inevitable that those strains and stresses would appear in economic society which since then have been growing rapidly. This point had been reached at the end of the early period of capitalism, at the beginning of the age of iron, in the 19th century'' (270).
The Types of Authority and Imperative Control/The Types of Legitimate Domination (depends on your translation)
Basis of Legitimacy
Domination is defined as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of people. A certain minimum of voluntary submission is necessary; thus on the part of the submitter there is an interest (whether based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience.
- Not every claim protected by custom or law involves a relation of authority. For instance, if I ask Charles to pay me for the work i do as fulfillment of our contract, I am not exercising authority over him.
- The legitimacy of a system of authority may be treated sociologically only as the probability that to a relevant degree the appropriate attitudes will exist and the corresponding conduct ensue.
- Obedience means the action of the person 'obeying' follows a course such that the content of the command can be taken as the reason for his/her action.
3 Pure Types of Legitimate Authority
1. Rational/legal grounds. belief in the legality of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands. Authority held by legally established impersonal order, extends to people only by virtue of offices they hold.
2. Traditional grounds. established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them. Authority held by person of the chief who occupies the traditionally sanctioned position of authority; matter of personal obligation and loyalty within the scope of tradition.
3. Charismatic grounds. devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative pattern or order revealed by him. Leader obeyed by personal trust in him, his revelation, heroism, coolness, as far as those qualities fall within the scope of the obeyers belief in his charisma.
Rational Legal Authority with a Bureaucratic Administrative Staff
Typical person in authority occupies an office. Person who obeys authority does so only in his capacity as a member of the corporate group, and what he obeys is only the law. Fundamental Qualities: 1) continuous organization of official functions bound by rules
2) specified spheres of competence involving a) sphere of obligations as marked out by a specialized division of labor, b) provision to incumbent of necessary authority to do his sphere of thangs, c) necessary means of compulsion clearly defined and their use subject to definite conditions.
3) organization of offices follows principle of hierarchy.
4) rules which regulate conduct of an office can be either technical rules or norms. when their application is fully rational, specialized training is necessary.
5) office holder separated from ownership of means of production and administration (first of all, separation of house from workplace)
6) complete absence of appropriate of position by incumbent
7) acts, rules and decisions are formulated and recorded in writing
BUREAUCRACY, almost the same...
1) office holders personally free and subject to authority only within the scope of their impersonal official obligations
2) hierarchy of offices
3) sphere of competence
4) free selection into office; filled by free contractual relationship; always free to resign
5) candidates appointed, not elected, on basis of technical qualifications
6) remuneration is by fixed salaries of $$
7) office is sole or primary occupation of incumbent
8) constitutes a career; system of promotion
9) official can't own means or appropriate position
10) official subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in conduct of office.
Monocratic bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degrees of efficiency and is the most rational means known of carrying out imperative control over people. Makes possible a high degree of calculability.
Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge.
General Social Consequences of bureaucratic control
1) tendency of levelling in the interest of broadest possible recruitment in terms of technical competence
2) tendency to plutocracy due to interest in greatest possible length of technical training
3) dominance of spirit of formalistic impersonality. Sine ira et studio, w/o anger or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm. All subject to formal equality of treatment.
Traditional authority is bound to the precedents handed down from the past and to this extent is oriented to rules.
Leaders' commands legitimated in one of two ways:
1) in terms of traditions which themselves directly determine the content of the command and the objects and intent of authority.
2) a matter of the chief's free personal decision, in that tradition leaves him some leeway.
When resistance occurs, the accusation is that the chief is not following the tradition. The system itself is not questioned.
A chief can have an administrative staff: patrimonial recruitment of staff comes from people who have a traditional tie of personal loyalty to the chief (children, slaves, clients, etc.). Extrapatrimonial recruitment comes from people in a purely personal relation of loyalty (vassals, etc.)
The staff lacks: clearly defined spheres of competence subject to impersonal rules; rational ordering of relations of superiority and inferiority; regular system of promotion and free contract; technical training as a requirement; fixed salaries in $$.
Gerontocracy and Patrimonialism are forms of traditional authority w/o a personal administrative staff of the chief. G is rule by elders, and P is where there's rule by someone designated by inheritance. There is still a general idea of everyone being a member of the group, though there is by no means equal distribution of power.
With the development of a purely personal administrative staff, we get patrimonialism. Members of the group are now treated as subjects.
A patrimonial retainer can be supported by: maintenance at his lords table, by allowances from the chief (primarily in kind), by rights of land use in return for services, by appropriation of property income, fees, or taxes, by fiefs.
The basis for obedience lies in the conception that it is the duty of those who have been called to a charismatic mission to recognize its quality and to act accordingly... it's a matter of personal devotion to the possessor of the quality.
There is no legal wisdom oriented to judicial precedent. Charismatic authority is specifically irrational in the sense of being foreign to all rules. It repudiates the past, and is in this sense a revolutionary force.
It is hostile to everyday economic considerations. It can only tolerate irregular, unsystematic, acquisitive acts.
In traditional periods, it is the greatest revolutionary force. Reason is equally revolutionary, and works from without by altering the situations of action, or it intellectualizes the individual. Charisma may involve a subjective or internal reorientation which may result in a radical alteration of the central system of attitudes, a completely new orientation towards different problems and structures of the world.
The Routinization of Charisma
In pure form, charismatic authority exists only in the process of originating. It becomes either rationalize or traditionalized, or a combo of both for the following reasons:
1) ideal and material interests of the followers in the continual reactivation of the community
2) interests of the administrative staff, disciples or followers of the char'ic leader in continuing their positions, so that their own status is stable on a day to day basis.
As soon as the position of authority is well established, and above all as soon as control over large masses of people exists, it gives way to the forces of everyday routine. There is an objective necessity of patterns of order and organization of the administrative staff in order to meet the normal, everyday needs and conditions of carrying on administration. In addition, there is a striving for security, requiring legitimation of positions of authority and social prestige and economic advantages held by the followers.
The process of routinization is thus not confined to the problem of succession, and does not stop when it is solved. The most fundamental problem is the transition from the charismatic administrative staff and its mode of administration to one that can handle everyday conditions.
Possible Types of Solution:
1) search for new charismatic leader on basis of criteria that will fit him for position of authority
2) revelation thorough oracles, lots, etc... legitimacy is then dependent on technique of selection, which means a form of legalization
3) by designation by leader of his successor
4) designation of successor by charismatically qualified staff, and successors recognition by the community... legitimacy can come to depend on technique of selection, again legalization
5) hereditary charisma... this may lead to either traditionalization or legalization (divine right, etc.)
6) charisma transmitted by ritual means from one bearer to another, or created in a new person... this may become charisma of office (eg, the Big Potato, the Pope himself).
Routinization also takes the form of the appropriation of powers of control and economic advantages by the disciples. Again, it can be either traditional or legal, depending on whether or not legislation of some sort is involved. This is how we get differences between, say, the clergy and the laity.
MAX WEBER: Methodology of the Social Sciences
Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy
The purpose of this new journal (where this essay appeared) is ''the education of judgement about practical social problems'' and ''the criticism of practical social policy.''
Questions to be addressed:
What is the validity of the value-judgements which are uttered by the critic? In what sense, if the criterion of scientific knowledge is to be found in the 'objective' validity of its results, has he (the critic) remained within the sphere of scientific discussion? In what sense are there in general 'objectively valid truths' in those disciplines concerned with social and cultural phenomena?
The science of social institutions and culture arose for practical considerations, with the purpose of producing value-judgement as measures of state policy. Knowledge of what ''is'' was conflated with knowledge of what ''should be''; this was because natural laws and evolutionary principles dominated the field. This journal will try to reject this conflation, since ''it can never be the task of an empirical science to provide binding norms and ideals from which the directives for immediate personal activity can be derived.'' Value-judgements should not be eliminated, but subjected to scientific criticism. Science can help an actor choose between alternative ends by analyzing the appropriateness of a means for an end, and by providing information on what a desired end will cost in terms of the loss of other values. The acting person can then choose from among the values involved according to his own conscience or personal view. Science can show him that all choosing involves the espousal of certain values.
Every science of cultural life must arrive at a rational understanding of the ideas which underlie every concrete end. Science can judge these ideas and ends ONLY according to a logical and historically defined standard of value which can be elevated to a certain ''level of explicitness'' beyond individual sentiment. Science can tell a person what s/he can do, not what s/he should do. Put another way, treating the ideas as a coherent system of thought, science can point out to an actor what is possible within his or her value system, and what would be contradictory to that value system.
Problems of social policy are not based on purely technical considerations of specific ends, but involve disputes about the normative standards of value which lie in the domain of general cultural values. This conflict over general cultural values does not occur solely between 'class interests' but between general views on life and the universe as well (take that, Karl).
It is NOT POSSIBLE to establish and to demonstrate as scientifically valid 'a principle' for practical social science from which the norms for the solution of practical problems can be unambiguously derived. While social science needs the discussion of practical problems in terms of fundamental principles, that is, the reduction of unreflective value-judgements to the premises from which they are logically derived, the search for a ''lowest common denominator'' of in the form of generally valid value judgements is not empirical, impractical and entirely meaningless. We cannot establish on the basis of ethical imperatives or norms for concretely condition individual conduct, normatively desirable cultural values. (57)
Objective science must distinguish between value judgements and empirical knowledge, and try to see factual truths. However, value-judgements of the practical interest of the scientist will always be significant in determining the focus of attention of analytical activity (my values direct me in what I think are interesting or important questions or matters to investigate -- this gets called, value-relevance elsewhere: there is no harm, according to Max, in allowing your values, personal interests or social commitments to guide you in the selection of research topics; however, once you start researching, you need value-neutrality).
This journal will pursue logical analysis of the content of ideals, while not ignoring how ideals motivate value-judgements. It will present social policy, i.e., the statement of ideals, in addition to social science, i.e., the analysis of facts. In non-scientific discussions of policy, it must be made clear where the investigator stops analyzing and where the evaluating and acting person begins to present his sentiments (make value judgements). Again, individual sentiments don't have to be eliminated, nor can they be, but they should be kept strictly separate from scientific analysis. ''An attitude of moral indifference has not connection with scientific 'objectivity'.''
As said before, every recognition of a scientific problem reflects specific motives and values on the part of the investigator. This journal, a good journal, will try to avoid developing on a character on the basis of the values of its common contributors.
A social science problem is one which throws light on the ''the fundamental socio-economic problem: the scarcity of means'' (64) For us, phenomena have the following cultural significance (since we are interested in socio-economic data), ''economic,'' ''economically-relevant,'' ''economically-conditioned.'' This journal (thus, by extension, our buddy Max), considers all of these as important since material interests influence all aspects of culture w/o exception (67).
Our science, the science of economic cultural phenomena seeks particular causes for these phenomena, so it is also interested in historical knowledge. We want to investigate the general cultural significance of the socio-economic structure of the human community and its historical forms of organization (66-7). Treatment of these social problems will (hopefully) result in solutions for social policy.
This limited scope (focus on the socio-economic aspect of cultural life) is deliberately one-sided, because general social science is ambiguous without some specification of the way in which this social is to be investigated. This journal is interested, however, in the economic interp of history, not the materialist conception of history as a causal formula (take that, Karl). Karl's materialist conception is popular among laymen and dilettantes (not to mention, so I hear, hat-wearing, feminist vegetarians) who are not satisfied until they find economic causes for every freakin' thing under the sun.
The explanation of everything by economic causes alone is never exhaustive in any sense whatsoever in any sphere of cultural phenomena, not even in the economic sphere itself. We choose this one-sided approach, however, as a way to investigate cultural reality by specific technical means and using qualitatively similar categories (remember, though, material interests are found in every aspect of culture).
There is no absolutely objective scientific analysis of culture independent of special and one-sided viewpoints according to which social phenomena are selected, analyzed, and organized for expository purposes. These view points are necessary in order to engage in an empirical science of concrete reality which seeks to understand the cultural significance of individual events in their contemporary manifestations and the causes of their being historical so and not otherwise. The infinite multiplicity of life means that we can select only a segment of it for scientific investigation.
Formulated by exaggerating one side of reality, or selecting multiple aspects of reality and synthesizing them into a unified analytical construct. The analysis of reality is concerned, for Max, ''with the configuration into which (hypothetical!) 'factors' are arranged to form a cultural phenomena which is historically significant to us'' (75). The ideal type is derived inductively from the real world. You compare the type with empirical reality to see how it differs. Then, you look for the causes of the deviations.
MAX WEBER: Methodology of the Social Sciences
The Meaning of Ethical Neutrality in Sociology and Economics
--Value-judgements are practical evaluations of the unsatisfactory or satisfactory character of phenomena subject to our influence.
--In teaching, a lecture should be different from a speech, and teachers should not impose their ideas on their students simply because students are prevented from leaving and from protesting. There is no specialized qualification for personal prophesy, and for that reason it is not entitled to freedom from external control. Students should gain from teachers today: 1) the ability to fulfill a given task in a workmanlike fashion; 2) the ability to recognize facts, even those which may be personally uncomfortable, and to distinguish them from his/her own evaluations; 3) learn to subordinate himself to his task and repress the impulse to exhibit his personal tastes or other sentiments unnecessarily.
--The unresolvable question—unresolvable because it is ultimately a question of evaluation—as to whether one may, must, or should champion certain practical values in teaching, should not be confused with the purely logical discussion of the relationship of value-judgements to empirical disciplines such as sociology.
--The distinction between empirical statements of fact and value-judgments is difficult. However, all recognizable value judgements should be made rigorously explicit to both the researcher him/herself and his/her audience.
-- Weber does not believe in value free sociology, he believes in striving for value-neutral sociology
--The specific function of science is to ask questions about the things which convention makes self-evident.
--''Understanding'' explanations do justice to a person who really or evidently thinks differently. They are scientifically valuable 1) for the purposes of a causal analysis which seeks to establish the motives of human actions and 2) for the communication of really divergent evaluations when one is in discussion with a person who really or apparently has different evaluations from one's self.
--The shallowness of our routinized daily existence in the most significant sense of the word consist in the fact that the persons who are caught up in it do not become aware, and above all do not wish to become aware, of the motley of irreconcilably antagonistic values that they hold... value-spheres cross and interpenetrate (18).
--The discussion of value-judgements can have only the following functions:
1) the elaboration and explication of ultimate, internally consistent value-axioms, from which the divergent attitudes are derived. People are often in error, not only about their opponents' evaluations, but also their own. The procedure for this analysis begins with concrete particular evaluations and analyzes their meanings and then moves to the more general level of irreducible evaluations. It is not empirical and it produces no new knowledge of facts. It's validity flows from its logic.
2) deduction of implications for those accepting certain value-judgements which follow from certain irreducible value axioms when these axioms alone are used to evaluate certain situations of fact. This deduction depends partly on logic, and partly on empirical observation for the most complete casuistic analyses of all such empirical situations subject to practical evaluation.
3) determination of the factual consequences which the realization of a given practical evaluation must have: 1) in the event of being bound to certain indispensable means, 2) in the event of the inevitability of certain, not directly desired repercussions (these empirical observations may lead us to determine the end cannot be achieved, or that in its achievement there may be other, undesired consequences which make our end too dangerous to pursue. We may be made to reconsider our ends, means and repercussions, so that they become a new problem for us, or we may discover new axioms which we had not previously taken into consideration).
--Problems in social science are selected by value-relevance -- relevance for values of the researcher/problem-selector. The task of a value-neutral science, once the problem of interest is chosen, is the reduction of, say, a communist standpoint to its most rational and internally consistent form, and the empirical investigation the pre-conditions for its existence and its practical consequences. This analyses, though, can never tell us whether or not we should be communists; no science can. Strictly empirical analysis can provide a solution to a problem only where it is a question of a means adequate to the realization of an absolutely unambiguous end.
--When the normatively valid is the object of empirical investigation, its normative validity is disregarded. Its existence and not its validity is what concerns the investigator.
--An example of what NOT to do: Because the state is tremendously important and has a great deal of power in modern life, people conclude that it represents the ultimate value and that all social actions should be evaluated in terms of their relations to its interests. This is an inadmissible deduction of a value-judgement from a statement of fact. Bad, bad, bad.
MAX WEBER: Politics as a Vocation
Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.
First, a general chat on states.
Politics is any kind of leadership in action (Class, Status, Party: remember, social clubs and grad school cohorts can have parties, just as states can). For this lecture, we will understand politics as the leadership or influencing the leadership of a political association, today (1918) a state.
The decisive means of politics is violence.
A state is defined by the specific means peculiar to it, the use of physical force. The state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Politics, then, means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state. The state is a relation of men dominating men by means of legitimate violence (you already know the three ways it can get legitimated, so I'm not telling you). Leaders may arise on those three foundations as well.
How do the politically dominant powers maintain that dominance? Organized domination calls for continuous administration, requires that human conduct be conditioned to obedience to the power-bearers. It requires control over the material goods necessary for the use of physical violence. Thus, it requires control of the personal executive staff and the material implements of administration. All states may be classified by whether the staff of men themselves owns the administrative means, or whether they are separated from it (necesse. for bureaucracy).
Now to chatting about politics as a vocation.
There are two ways to make politics your vocation: you can live for it or off it. It you live for it, you make it your life in an internal sense, either because you enjoy power or because you serve some cause. If you live off it, you strive to make it your permanent source of income (cf Dan Rostenkowski). All party struggles are struggles for the patronage of office, as well as struggles for objective goals (see D.R. again). Setbacks in participating in offices are felt more severely by parties than is action against their objective goals.
The development of politics into an organization which demanded training in the struggle for power, and int eh methods of this struggle as developed by modern party policies, determined the separation of public functionaries into two categories: administrative officials and political officials. Political officials can be transferred any time at will, and can be dismissed or at least temporarily withdrawn. Cabinet ministers often are much less in control of their areas than divisional heads, who are long-term, administrative appointees; a minister is simply the representative of a given political power constellation.
The genuine official, even a political official, conducts his business sine ira et studio (at least formally, as long as the vital interests of the ruling order are not in question). To be passionate, on the other hand, is the element of the politician and above all of the political leader. ''Since the time of the constitutional state, and definitely since democracy has been established, the demagogue has been the typical political leader'' (96). The current state of affairs is a ''dictatorship resting on the exploitation of mass emotionality'' (107). Next to the qualities of will, the force of demagogic speech has been above all decisive in the choice of strong leaders.
''What kind of man must one be if he is to be allowed to put his hand on the wheel of history?'' (115). He must have passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion. Passion in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a cause, to the god or demon who is its overlord. Responsibility to the cause must be the guiding star of action. For this, a sense of proportion is needed Warm passion and a cool sense of proportion must be forged together in one and the same soul.
The politician must combat vanity, in order to be matter-of-factly devoted to his cause and preserve some distance, not least from himself. Lack of objectivity and irresponsibility are the two deadly sins of politics; vanity, the need to personally stand in the foreground, temps the politician to commit these sins. The final result of political action regularly stands in completely inadequate and often paradoxical relation to its original meaning (oh, cheery old Weber). Because of this fact, the serving of a cause must not be absent if action is to have inner strength. Exactly which cause looks like a matter of belief (117). Some kind of faith must exist in a politician, ''otherwise it is absolutely true that the curse of the creature's worthlessness overshadows even the externally strongest political successes'' (117).
Then is a discussion of two ethics, the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility. They are fundamentally different and irreconcilably opposed. The ethic of ultimate ends, formulated in religious terms, is: ''The Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord.'' If an action of good intention leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he, but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God's will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil. The ethic of responsibility, on the other hand, requires one to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action. The man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes into account precisely the average deficiencies of people. He does not feel in a position to burden others with the results of his own actions so far as he was able to foresee them; he will say, these results are ascribed to my action. On the other hand, the ultimate ends dude feels a ''responsibility'' only to keep his intentions good.
In many cases, the attainment of good ends is bound up with the price of using morally dubious or dangerous means, and must face the possibility of evil ramifications. From no ethics in the world can it be concluded when and to what extent a good ends justifies ethically dangerous means and ramifications. (121) The ethics of absolutism goes to pieces on the problem of justification of means by ends. Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the salvation of the soul. If, however, on chases after the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the goals may be damaged and discredited for generations because responsibility for consequences is lacking. A man following an ethic of responsibility will arise at a place where he must say, Here I stand; I can do no other. Here, the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility are supplements, which only in unison constitute a genuine man, a man who can have the calling for politics (127).
MAX WEBER: The Social Psychology of the World Religions
The world religions, to Max, are Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, and they are chosen because they have a large number of followers, and for no other reason. He will also consider Judaism, since it is an important precursor to Christianity and Islam and because of its significance for the development of the economic ethic of the West.
The term 'economic ethic' points to the practical impulses for action which are founded in the psychological and pragmatic contexts of religion. The religious determination of life conduct is only one of the determinants of the economic ethic. The religiously determined way of life is itself profoundly influenced by economic and political factors.
Those strata which are decisive in stamping the characteristic features of an economic ethic may change in the course of history; nevertheless, as a rule one may determine the strata whose styles of life have been at least predominately decisive for certain religions. For example, Confucianism was the status ethic of prebendaries, men with literary educations who were characterized by a secular rationalism. Christianity began its course as a doctrine of itinerant artisan journeymen. It is not the case for Weber that ''the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling classes,'' however. And, however incisive the social influences, economically and politically determined, may have been upon a religious ethic in a particular case, it receives its stamp primarily from religious sources, and most predominantly from the content of its annunciation and promise.
One of the foci of religious ethics has been the evaluation of suffering. By treating suffering as a symptom of secret guilt and of a crime in the sight of G/god/s, religion has psychologically met a very important need. The fortunate is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune. Good fortune wants to be legitimate fortune. Religion provides the theodicy of good fortune for those who are fortunate.
Salvation religions are religions of suffering. Under the pressure of typical and ever-recurrent distress, the religiosity of a 'redeemer' evolved. This religiosity presupposed the myth of a savior, hence (at least relatively) a rational view of the world. In Judaism, the term messiah was originally attached to the saviours from political distress, as transmitted by the hero sagas. In Judaism, and in this clear-cut fashion only in it and under very particular other conditions, the suffering of a people's community, rather than the suffering of an individual, became the object of hope for religious salvation. The usual rule was that the savior bore an individual and universal character at the same time that he was ready to guarantee salvation to the individual and to any individual who would turn to him.
The tribal and local gods, gods of the city and the empire, have taken care only of the interests that concern the collectivity as a whole. In the community cult, the community as such turned to its god. The individual, however, turned to the sorcerer and magician for help with his personal evils. Hereditary dynasties of mystagogues or trained personnel under a head determined in accordance with certain rules developed. Collective religious arrangements for individual suffering per se, and for salvation from it, originated in this fashion. The typical service of magicians and priests becomes the determination of the factors to be blamed for suffering; that is, the confession of sins. Where religious development was decisively influenced by prophecy, sin was no longer merely a magical offense: it was a sign of disbelief in the prophet and his commandments.
While prophets have not generally been descendants of depressed classes, it has generally been the depressed classes who need a redeemer. Thus, most prophetically announced religious of redemption have been located in the less-favored social strata. For these, such religiosity has been either a substitute for, or a rational supplement to, magic.
The need for an ethical interpretation of suffering and of the meaning of the distribution of fortunes among men increased with the growing rationality of conceptions of the world. There have been three rationally satisfactory answers to questions about the basis of the incongruity between destiny and merit: Karma, dualism (from Zoroastrianism) and the predestination decree of the deus abscondidus (the absconded god; kind of a cool phrase). These solutions are rationally closed, and are found in pure form only as exceptions.
Ecstatic states (orgies, quietistic edification, contemplative mortification, etc) have been sought first of all, for the sake of the emotional value they offered the devout. Rationalized religions have sublimated the orgy into the sacrament. Every hierocratic and official authority of a church fights against virtuoso religion and its autonomous development. The church is the holder of institutionalized grace, and seeks to organize the religiosity of the masses.
The kind of empirical state of bliss or experience of rebirth that is sought after as the supreme value by a religion has varied according to the character of the stratum that was foremost in adopting it. The conception of the idea of redemption is very old, if one understands by it a liberation from sickness, hunger, etc., ultimately from suffering and death. However, redemption attained a specific significance only where it expressed a systematic and rationalized image of the world and represented a stand in the face of the world. Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men's conduct. Yet very frequently the world images that have been created by ideas have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest. From what and for what one wished to be redeemed, and let us not forget, could be redeemed, depended upon one's image of the world.
Behind every religion lies a stand toward something in the actual world which is experienced as specifically senseless. Thus, the demand has been implied: the world order, in its totality, could, and should somehow be a meaningful cosmos. The various great ways of leading a rational and methodical life have been characterized by irrational presuppositions, which have been accepted simply as given and incorporated into life. What these presuppositions have been is historically and socially determined, to a very large extent, through the peculiarity of those strata that have been the carriers of the ways of life during its formative and decisive period. The interest situation of these strata, as determined socially and psychologically, has made for their peculiarity.
Where prophecy has provided a religious basis, this basis could be one of two fundamental types of prophesy: exemplary and emissary. Exemplary prophesy points the way to salvation by exemplary living (usually contemplative and apathetic-ecstatic ways of life). Emissary prophesy addresses its demands to the world in the name of a god. These demands are ethical, and often of an active acetic character.
The civic strata, conditioned by the nature of their life, which is greatly detached from economic bonds to nature, tend toward a practical rationalism in conduct. Their whole existence has been based on technological or economic calculations and upon the mastery of nature and man. These strata tend toward religions of active asceticism. Wherever the direction of the whole way of life has been methodically rationalized, it has been profoundly determined by the ultimate values toward which this rationalism has been directed.
All kinds of practical ethics that are systematically and unambiguously oriented toward fixed goals of salvation are rational, partly in the same sense as formal method is rational, and partly in the sense that they distinguish between valid norms and what is empirically given.
All ruling powers need legitimacy, which comes in three kinds...
In the main, it has been the work of jurists to give birth to modern Western states, as well as modern Western churches. Jurists work in the realm of formal rationalization, they follow procedures, etc. With the triumph of formalistic (rather than substantive) juristic rationalism, the legal type of domination appeared in the West.