Analysis Of Max Weber’S Views On Rationality
Max Weber’s studies on rationality concentrated on structural systems and processes that were driven by efficiency. He also wrote about social-psychological reasons for rationality in individuals actions. He believed that in markets, laws and the state with more rationalization that it would slowly become a disenchantment with the world. Rationalised bureaucracy would lose meaning and influence on society; “folk beliefs, superstitions… as well as… organised religions”. His interest was a “typology of social action along the line of increasing rational control, persistence and legal compulsion”. To be more precise, “ the causal analysis and explanations of individual actions, structures, and personalities possessing cultural significance”. He identified and defined by analysing which “rationality” fitted social conduct and interaction.
The four main types of social action he identified using different kinds of “rationality” were; purposive or instrumental rationality, value-based rationality, affective rationality and traditional rationality.
“We shall speak of “action” insofar as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to his behaviour – be it overt or covert, omission or acquiescence. Action is “social” insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course,’ ‘For example, a mere collision of two cyclists may be compared to a natural event. On the other hand, their attempt to avoid hitting each other, or whatever insults, blows, or friendly discussion might follow the collision, would constitute “social action”.
One way Weber reasoned social action was purposive rationality, it’s also known as instrumentally rational. Originally, it was called Zweckrationalität. He defined this form of rationality as being determined by expectations of objects and of other people and making decisions according to planned results. These expectations are like “conditions” for attainment of the person’s rationally pursued and calculated ends. It's a from of decision-making so that the person can choose the means and end of their action. For example, if this was set in an organisation it would concentrate on controlling procedures and processes that make the choices by managerial elites. However, if this was based on an individual it would be more apparent to be used in social situations which have connections to the attainment of their goals or desired outcomes. Berdays claims, “even as it becomes more uniform and pervasive throughout an organization, power is depersonalized, so much so that managerial personnel themselves become subject to impersonal bureaucratic control”. It could be described as consideration or could also be evaluation, based on facts, prior knowledge or a familiar situation. Purposive rationality is a familiar technique in business, education, medicine, the police force and the military.
The second is value-rational (Wertrationalität) is controlled by a conscious belief for the sake of the person or some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other forms of behaviour, individually of it’s prospects of success. Weber states this is where a, “self conscious formulation of the ultimate values governing the actor and the consistently planned orientation of its detailed course to these values”. This form of rationality helps explain how and why some people trust or recognise power and authority in organisations while directing routines and activities. This kind of decision making the ends are predestined so the person chooses only his actions. In the British Army’s Values and Standards are conducted by value rationality, both for individual people and collectives. A suicide bombing can be claimed to be value rationality; the person is driven by his/hers beliefs in the value-rationality of the act from a religious perspectives or the individuals beliefs. From the perspective of purposive rationality, value rationality will appear irrational because they value their actions more than a chosen value or end, without care of any consequences.
Next, is affectual rationality, this is before all else emotional rationality. It depends on the person in question definitive affects and emotions. Emotions play a major part in constructing and realising social actions. Actions based on emotions are not in the “instrumentality of means to ends, but in carrying out the act for its own sake”. When it comes to achieving social, esteem-oriented or self-actualization goals, even a irrational action based on emotions can have an internal rational motivation.
The fourth form of rationality is traditional, this is contingent by ingrained habit. Tradition is the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way. Traditions generate an “almost automatic reaction” or a “habit-bound response”. Traditional ways of life can be sacred; celebrating historical or cultural events. Some can be subdued; adopting formal wear for work or certain social occasions. Weber stated “traditional action” as a “great bulk of all everyday action to which people have become habitually accustomed”. Weber claimed that traditional rationality is a limit-case of ‘social action’ as it could be seen as unintentional! However, this could also apply to the other forms of rationality, except for instrumental/purposive rationality.
Weber claimed that purposive rationality (Zweckrationalität) and value rationality (Wertrationalität) are the most common forms of rationality in modern times. However, Weber suggested that an industrial civilisation created a totally new form of rationality. George Ritzer defined this term as a rational search, where some people search for the optimum means to a given end. The search is constructed by rules, regulations and larger social structures.
