The main features of social action according to Weber. Social action by M

"Social Action", according to Max Weber, is distinguished by two features that make it social, i.e. different from mere action. Social action: 1) has meaning for the one who performs it, and 2) is focused on other people. Meaning is a certain idea of why or why this action is performed, it is some (sometimes very vague) awareness and direction of it. There is a well-known example by which M. Weber illustrates his definition of a social action: if two cyclists collide on a highway, then this is not a social action (although it happens between people) - that's when they jump up and start to sort things out between themselves (swear or help a friend). friend), then the action acquires the characteristics of the social.

M. Weber distinguished four main types of social actions:

1) goal-oriented, in which there is a correspondence between the goals and means of action;

“The individual acts purposefully rationally, whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and side effects of his action, who rationally considers the relationship of means to the goal and side effects ... that is, he acts, in any case, not affectively (not emotionally) and not traditionally.” In other words, a goal-oriented action is characterized by a clear understanding by the Actor of his goal and the means that are most suitable and effective for this. The doer calculates the potential reactions of others, the possibility of using them to achieve his goal.

2) value-rational, in which the action is performed for the sake of some value;

Subject to certain requirements, taking into account the values accepted in this society. The individual in this case does not have any external, rationally understood goal, he is strictly focused on the fulfillment of his convictions about duty, dignity, beauty. According to M. Weber: value-rational action is always subject to "commandments" or "requirements", obedience to which a person considers his duty. In this case, the consciousness of the Actor is not completely liberated, since, when making decisions, resolving contradictions between a personal goal and orientation towards another, he is strictly guided by the values accepted in society.

3) affective, based on the emotional reactions of people;

Such an action is due to a purely emotional state and is carried out in a state of passion, in which the role of consciousness is minimized. A person in such a state seeks to immediately satisfy the feelings he experiences (thirst for revenge, anger, hatred), this, of course, is not an instinctive, but a deliberate action. But the basis of such a motive is not rational calculation, not the "service" of value, but a feeling, an affect that sets a goal and develops the means to achieve it.

4) traditional, occurring in accordance with traditions and customs.

In the traditional action, the independent role of consciousness is also extremely minimized. Such an action is carried out on the basis of deeply assimilated social patterns of behavior, norms that have become habitual, traditional, not subject to verification for truth. And in this case, the independent moral consciousness of this person is “not included”, he acts “like everyone else”, “as is customary from time immemorial”.

"Will to power" F. Nietzsche and nihilism. Causes of occurrence in society.

“The triumphant concept of “force”, with the help of which our physicists created God and the world,” Nietzsche wrote, “requires an addition: some inner will must be introduced into it, which I call “will to power”, i.e. insatiable desire for the manifestation of power or the use of power, the use of power as a creative instinct, etc.

The will to accumulate strength and increase power is interpreted by him as a specific property of all phenomena, including social and political-legal ones. Moreover, the will to power is everywhere the most primitive form of affect, namely, the "affect of the team." In light of this, Nietzsche's teaching appears as a morphology of the will to power.

Nietzsche characterizes the entire socio-political history as a struggle between two wills to power - the will of the strong (higher species, aristocratic masters) and the will of the weak (the masses, slaves, crowds, herds). The aristocratic will to power is the instinct of uplift, the will to live; the slavish will to power is the instinct of decline, the will to die, to nothing. High culture is aristocratic, while the domination of the "Crowd" leads to the degeneration of culture, to decadence.

"European nihilism" Nietzsche reduces to some basic postulates, which he considers it his duty to proclaim with harshness, without fear and hypocrisy. Etheses: nothing is true anymore; god is dead; no morality; everything is allowed. It is necessary to understand Nietzsche exactly - he strives, in his own words, to deal not with lamentations and moralistic wishes, but "describe the future", which cannot but come. According to his deepest conviction (which, unfortunately, the history of the ending 20th century will not refute), nihilism will become a reality for at least the next two centuries. European culture, Nietzsche continues his reasoning, has long been developing under the yoke of tension, which grows from century to century, bringing humanity and the world closer to catastrophe. Nietzsche declares himself "the first nihilist of Europe", "the philosopher of nihilism and the messenger of instinct" in the sense that he depicts nihilism as inevitable, calls to understand its essence. Nihilism can become a symptom of the final decline of the will against being. This is the "nihilism of the weak". "What is bad? - Everything that follows from weakness" ("Antichrist", Aphorism 2). And the "nihilism of the strong" can and should become a sign of recovery, the awakening of a new will to be. Without false modesty, Nietzsche declares that in relation to "signs of decline and beginning" he has a special flair, more than any other person. I can, the philosopher says about himself, be a teacher for other people, for I know both poles of the contradiction of life; I am the contradiction itself.

Causes of occurrence in society.(From "The Will to Power")

Nihilism is behind the doors: whence comes the most terrible of all

guests? - Starting point: delusion - to point to "disastrous

state of society" or "physiological degeneration", or,

perhaps even to corruption as the causes of nihilism. This is -

most honest and compassionate age

need, spiritual,

bodily, intellectual need in itself is decidedly not

capable of giving rise to nihilism (i.e. a radical deviation of value,

meaning, desirability). These needs admit still the most

various interpretations. On the contrary, in one well-defined

interpretation, Christian-moral, is the root of nihilism.

The death of Christianity is from its morality (it is inseparable); this morality

turns against the Christian God (sense of truthfulness, high

developed by Christianity, begins to feel disgust for falsehood and

the falseness of all Christian interpretations of the world and history. Cutting

turn back from "God is the truth" to the fanatical belief "Everything is false".

Business Buddhism.

Moral skepticism is decisive. The fall

moral interpretation of the world that no longer finds itself a sanction,

after they had made an attempt to take refuge in some

otherworldliness: in the last analysis - nihilism.

Understanding Sociology” by M. Weber.

The non-classical type of scientific sociology was developed by the German thinker Max Weber (1858-1918). This methodology is based on the idea of the fundamental opposition between the laws of nature and society and, consequently, the recognition of the need for the existence of two types of scientific knowledge: the sciences of nature (natural science) and the sciences of culture (humanitarian knowledge). Sociology, on the other hand, is a frontier science that should borrow the best from them. The natural sciences have a commitment to exact facts and a causal explanation of reality, while the humanities have a method of understanding and relating to values. Therefore, Weber's sociology is called understanding. As a subject of sociology, Weber considered not the concepts of "people", "society", etc., but only the individual, since it is he who has consciousness, motivation for his actions and rational behavior. Weber emphasized the importance of the sociologist's understanding of the subjective meaning that is put into action by the individual himself. Observing a chain of real actions of an individual, a sociologist must construct their explanation on the basis of understanding the internal motives of these actions. Weber's main tool for cognition was "ideal types", which are mental logical constructions created by the researcher. They are formed by highlighting the individual features of reality, which are the most typical. According to Weber, all social facts are explained by social types. Weber proposed a typology of social action, types of state, and rationality. Weber considered the social structure of society as a multidimensional system in which, along with classes and the property relations that give rise to them, an important place belongs to status and power. According to Weber, there are several types of state:

Legal, in which dominance is due to interests, i.e. rational considerations of those who obey. The dominance of the state Weber defined as "the chance to meet obedience to a certain order." Bureaucracy is a pure type of legal state. This type of state is represented in England, France, and the USA.

Traditional, it is determined simply by mores, habits of certain behavior. This type of domination is similar to the family, it is patriarchal, there is a master, servants personally dependent on him and a management apparatus. Traditional domination, in turn, is divided into two forms: a purely patriarchal and estate management structure. The first form manifested itself, for example, in Byzantium, the second - in the feudal states of Western Europe.

charismatic dominance. Charismatic qualities are special abilities, not so much acquired as bestowed from above, which distinguish a leader from his contemporaries. They were possessed, according to Weber, by Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Caesar, Napoleon and other great subjects. Here the role of authoritarianism is especially great, in fact, tradition, law, rationality are denied, the role of chance is great.

Ideal types of social actions by M. Weber

One of the central concepts of Weberian sociology is social action. Here is how Weber himself defines it: "Action" we call the action of a person (regardless of whether it has an external or internal character, whether it comes down to non-intervention or patient acceptance), if and insofar as the acting individual or individuals associate with him the subjective meaning. "Social" we mean such an action, which, according to the meaning assumed by the actor or actors, correlates with the action others people and focuses on it. However, the actions and deeds of people are also studied by many other sciences, in particular, history and psychology. What is the qualitative originality of purely sociological approaches? First of all, the fact that sociology studies generalized behavior of people as if it proceeded in certain ideal conditions. At the same time, she is interested not only in the orientation of actions towards other people, but also in the degree to which they are filled with a certain meaning. The concept of meaning is derived from the ratio of ends and means. The study of various variants of this correlation leads Weber to the construction of an ideal typology of social actions. The point is that any deeds and actions performed by human beings can be "measured" with the help of these peculiar standards, that is, they can be more or less roughly assigned to one of the four ideal types listed in the table. Let's try to look at each of them in more detail.

Type	Target	Facilities	General characteristic
Purposeful rational	Understand clearly and distinctly. The consequences are anticipated and assessed	Adequate (appropriate)	Completely rational. Assumes a rational calculation of the reaction of the environment
value-rational	The action itself (as an independent value)	Adequate to a given goal	Rationality can be limited - irrationality of a given value (ritual; etiquette; dueling code)
Traditional	Minimal goal setting (goal awareness)	Habitual	Automatic response to familiar stimuli
affective	Not conscious	Henchmen	The desire for immediate (or as fast as possible) satisfaction of passion, removal of neuro-emotional stress

Purposeful rational action. This most rational type of action is characterized by clarity and awareness of the goal, and this is correlated with rationally meaningful means that ensure the achievement of this, and not some other goal. The rationality of the goal can be verified in two ways: firstly, from the point of view of its own content, and secondly, from the point of view of expediency(those. conformity with purpose) of the chosen means. As a social action (and, therefore, focused on certain expectations on the part of other people), it presupposes the rational calculation of the acting subject on the appropriate reaction from the surrounding people, on the one hand, and on the use of their behavior to achieve the set goal, on the other. Here it is necessary to remember that such a model is primarily an ideal type, which means that real human actions can be understood primarily through measuring the degree of deviation from this model. In some cases, such deviations are not too significant, and we can speak of a real act as "almost purposeful." If the deviations are more significant, then they practically lead us to other types of social behavior.

Value-rational action. This ideal type of social action involves the performance of such actions, which are based on the belief in the self-sufficient value of the act as such, in other words, here the action itself acts as the goal. Value-rational action, according to Weber, is always subject to certain requirements, in following which the individual sees his duty. If he acts in accordance with these requirements - even if rational calculation predicts a greater likelihood of adverse consequences for him personally - then we are dealing with value-rational action. A classic example of a value-rational action: the captain of a sinking ship is the last to leave him, although his life is threatened. Awareness of such an orientation of actions, their correlation with certain ideas about values - about duty, dignity, beauty, morality, etc. - already speaks of a certain rationality, meaningfulness. If, moreover, we are dealing with consistency in the implementation of such behavior, and therefore with premeditation, then we can talk about an even greater degree of its rationality, which distinguishes a value-rational action, say, from an affective one. At the same time, in comparison with the goal-oriented type, the “value-based rationality” of an action carries something irrational, since it absolutizes the value that the individual is guided by. “Purely value-rational,” Weber argues, “one acts who, regardless of the foreseeable consequences, acts in accordance with his convictions and does what he thinks duty, dignity, beauty, religious prescription require of him, reverence or importance of some ... "cause". A value-rational action ... is always an action in accordance with the "commandments" or "requirements" that the actor considers presented to himself. It seems that the difference between goal-oriented and value-rational types of social action is approximately the same as between truth and true. The first of these concepts means "that which there is in fact", regardless of the system of ideas, convictions, beliefs that have developed in a particular society (as V.I. Dal notes on this occasion: "Everything that there is, then true; not one and the same there is and truth, truth?"). To obtain this kind of knowledge is really not easy, you can simply consistently, step by step, approach - as suggested by the positivist Comte. The second means comparing what you observe or intend to do with the norms generally accepted in this society. and ideas about what is proper and right.In other words, the truth is always normative. As the same Dal defines "truth": "truth in deed, truth in the image, in the good; justice, fairness."

traditional action. This type of action is formed on the basis of following tradition, that is, imitation of certain patterns of behavior that have developed in culture and are approved by it, and therefore are practically not subject to rational comprehension and criticism. Such an action is carried out largely purely automatically, according to established stereotypes, it is characterized by the desire to focus on habitual patterns of behavior that have developed on the basis of one's own experience and the experience of previous generations. Despite the fact that traditional actions do not at all imply the development of an orientation towards new opportunities (and perhaps just for this reason), perhaps it is precisely this that makes up the lion's share of all actions performed by individuals. To some extent, people's commitment to committing traditional actions (manifested in a huge number of options) serves as the basis for the stability of the existence of society and the predictability of the behavior of its members. As Weber himself points out, "...purely traditional action...is on the very frontier, and often even beyond, what can be called 'meaningfully' oriented action."

affective action. The least meaningful of the ideal types listed in the table. Its main characteristic is a certain emotional state - a flash of passion, hatred, anger, horror, etc. Affective action has its own "meaning", mainly in the speedy removal of the emotional tension that has arisen, in relaxation. In this it is directly opposed to purposeful rational action; however, there is a certain similarity with the value-rational action, which, as we have seen, also does not seek to achieve any "external" goal and sees certainty in the very performance of the action. “An individual acts under the influence of an affect if he seeks to immediately satisfy his need for revenge, pleasure, devotion, blissful contemplation, or relieve the tension of any other affects, no matter how base or subtle they may be.” The above typology can serve as a good illustration for understanding the essence of what what was defined above as the "ideal type". It is unlikely that any of the real actions performed in this world by real people could be fully characterized as belonging to one or another ideal type of social action. They can only be more or less to a lesser degree approach one of them, to carry the features of both, and the other, and the third.And each of the ideal types will perform the functions of a "reference meter" - an iridium bar stored in the Paris Chamber of Weights and Measures. types of social actions, strictly speaking, are not completely social - at least in the Weberian sense of the word. In fact, both traditional and especially affective types of action are in many respects close to those types of action that are also characteristic of animals. The first of them - traditional - can be largely likened to a conditioned reflex, and the second - affective - to an unconditioned reflex. It is clear that they are a product of the intellect to a much lesser extent than the second and, in particular, the first types of social action. With the above typology of ideal types of social actions, one of the core ideas of Weberian sociology, the idea of consistent rationalization social life. In general, the idea of strengthening the significance of rationality with the historical development of a particular society runs like a red thread through Weber's scientific work. He firmly believes that rationalization This is one of the main tendencies of the historical process itself. Rationalization finds its expression in an increase in the share of purposeful rational actions in the total volume of all possible types of social actions and in strengthening their significance from the point of view of the structure of society as a whole. This means that the way of managing the economy is being rationalized, management is being rationalized, the way of thinking is being rationalized. And all this, according to Weber, is accompanied by a colossal strengthening of the social role of scientific knowledge - this most "pure" embodiment of the principle of rationality. Formal rationality in the Weberian sense is, first of all, calculability everything that can be quantified and calculated. The type of society in which this kind of dominant appears is called by modern sociologists industrial(although Saint-Simon was the first to call it that, and then Comte used this term quite actively). All previously existing types of societies Weber (and after him - the majority of modern sociologists) calls traditional. The most important feature of traditional societies is the absence of a formal-rational principle in the social actions of the majority of their members and the predominance of actions that are closest in nature to the traditional type of action. Formal-rational- this is a definition applicable to any phenomenon, process, action, which is not only amenable to quantitative accounting and calculation, but, moreover, is largely limited to its quantitative characteristics. The movement of the very process of historical development is characterized by a tendency for the growth of formal-rational principles in the life of society and the increasing predominance of the purposeful-rational type of social actions over all others. It is clear that at the same time this should also mean an increase in the role of intelligence in the general system of motivations and decision-making by social subjects. A society dominated by formal rationality is a society where the norm is not so much the pursuit of gain as rational (i.e. prudent) behavior. All members of such a society behave in such a way as to use everything rationally and for the benefit of all - material resources, technology, and money. Luxury, for example, cannot be considered rational, since it is by no means a reasonable expenditure of resources. Rationalization as a process, as a historical trend, according to Weber, includes: 1) in the economic sphere- organization of factory production by bureaucratic means and calculation of benefits through systematic evaluation procedures; 2) in religion- the development of theological concepts by intellectuals, the gradual disappearance of the magical and the displacement of the sacraments by personal responsibility; 3) in law- erosion of specially arranged /ad hoc/ lawmaking and arbitrary judicial precedent by deductive legal reasoning on the basis of universal laws; 4) in politics- the decline of traditional norms of legalization and replacement of charismatic leadership by a regular party machine; 5) in moral conduct- greater emphasis on discipline and education; 6) in science- the gradual reduction of the role of the individual innovator and the development of research teams, coordinated experiments and government-directed science policy; 7) in society as a whole- distribution of bureaucratic methods of management, state control and administration. The concept of rationalization was thus part of Weber's view of capitalist society as a kind of "iron cage" in which the individual, devoid of religious meaning and moral values, would be increasingly subject to state supervision and bureaucratic regulation. Like Marx's concept of alienation, rationalization implies the separation of the individual from the community, the family, the church, and his subordination to legal political and economic regulation in the factory, school, and state. Thus, Weber unequivocally presented rationalization as the leading trend in Western capitalist society. Rationalization is the process by which the sphere of human relations becomes the subject of calculation and control. While Marxists recognized the leading position of calculation only in the labor process and factory discipline, Weber found rationalization in all social spheres - politics, religion, economic organization, university management, in the laboratory, and even in musical notation.

As you can see, Max Weber was a scientist with a very broad social outlook. He left a noticeable mark on the development of many aspects of social science, in particular sociology. Not being a supporter of the Marxist approach to solving the problems of society, he nevertheless never distorted or simplified this doctrine, emphasizing that “the analysis of social phenomena and cultural processes from the point of view of their economic conditionality and their influence was and - with careful, free from dogmatism, application - will remain for the foreseeable future a creative and fruitful scientific principle. In all studies, Weber held the idea of rationality as a defining feature of modern European culture. Rationality is opposed to the traditional and charismatic ways of organizing social relations. Weber's central problem is the connection between the economic life of society, the material and ideological interests of various social groups and religious consciousness. Weber viewed personality as the basis of sociological analysis. He believed that such complex concepts as capitalism, religion and the state can only be understood on the basis of an analysis of the behavior of individuals. By obtaining reliable knowledge about the behavior of an individual in a social context, the researcher can better understand the social behavior of various human communities. While studying religion, Weber identified the relationship between social organization and religious values. According to Weber, religious values can be a powerful force influencing social change. In political sociology, Weber paid attention to the conflict of interests of various factions of the ruling class; the main conflict of the political life of the modern state, according to Weber, is in the struggle between political parties and the bureaucracy. The ideas of Max Weber are very fashionable today for the modern sociological thought of the West. They are experiencing a kind of renaissance, rebirth. This indicates that Max Weber was an outstanding scientist. His social ideas, obviously, had a leading character, if they are so in demand today by Western sociology as a science of society and the laws of its development.

Similar information.

The concept of sociology and the "meaning" of social action. Methodological bases.

Max Weber defines sociology as a science that seeks to interpret and understand social action. Based on cause and effect, it is possible to explain the process and interaction of social action. The object of such science is

Weber distinguishes such concepts as "Action" and "Social action". So, let's consider these concepts separately and find their difference.

« Action is the action of a person, which, in relation to acting individuals or an acting individual, has a subjective meaning” (see p. 602).

« social action- this is the action of a person, which has a relationship with the action of other people and who are oriented towards him, in relation to the actor or actors "

These two concepts that Weber defines have significant differences. In fact, these "disagreements" are as follows: For example, if we take "action", then it regardless that of an external or internal nature, which "reduces to non-intervention and to a patient friend"(see page 602) and "social action", on the contrary, includes non-intervention and patient acceptance.

Max Weber defines two meanings of the word "meaning". First: "really subjectively assumed by the actor in a given historical situation, or an approximate, average sense, subjectively assumed by the actors in a certain number of situations"(See page 603). Second: "a theoretically constructed pure type of meaning, subjectively assumed by a hypothetical actor or actors in a given situation"(See page 603).

Such an interpretation of the word "meaning" makes the author think about the fact that it separates sociology as an empirical science from dogmatic sciences such as: ethics, logic and jurisprudence.. This is due to the fact that such an interpretation that Weber gave to the word "meaning" does not carry "correct and true" meaning, in contrast to these sciences, which seek to define "correct and true" meaning.

It is impossible to draw a clear line between meaningful and reactive behavior.. Because between themno connection with subjectively assumed meaning. In the first case, there is no action as such, or it can be detected with the help of specialists. In the second case, those experiences that “those to whom they are inaccessible cannot understand” (see p. 603).

According to Weber, every interpretation strives for "obviousness". He defines kinds"obvious" understanding. First-rational (logical or mathematical).Second- as a result of "empathy and empathy - emotionally and artistically receptive"(See page 604).

Max W. is convinced that those actions that have a logical or mathematical "kind", that is, they represent semantic connections, we can understand more clearly. And those actions that focused on "high goals and values" we can understand with less obviousness.

The author says that there is a typological type of research and that all irrational semantic connections (with this type of research) should be considered as a “deviation” in contrast to the goal-oriented one. In other words, “irrational factors (affects, delusions) of behavior can be understood as a “deviation” from a purely rationally constructed one”(see pages 605-606 ). It is only in this sense that the method of "understanding" sociology is "rationalistic." It must be said that such a method should be understood only as a methodical device.

Weber proposes to interpret material artifacts on the basis of that a person associates them with the manufacture and use . In a word, a person must see in the artifact either an end or a "means".

The author also says that there are such phenomena that cause alien meaning. For example, alien meanings include “all processes or phenomena (of a living or dead nature, associated with a person or occurring outside of him), devoid of the intended semantic content, acting not as a “means” or “goal” of behavior, but being only its reason stimulus or hindrance"(See pp. 605-606). Weber even gives an example that proves the above "theory". As an example, he cites a storm tide . This example clearly demonstrates that the phenomenon is not a "means and purpose" of behavior, but it represents, in this case, a reason and a hindrance.

Weber further identifies the types of understanding: « 1 ) n direct understanding the intended meaning of the action. This is when we understand the meaning of the rules, for example, 2x2=4 . 2) explanatory understanding. This kind can be described as "understanding" motivationally. If you take an example that was in the first case, then you can ask such questions to it: Why is it such a number, and not another? Who wrote down this example?(See page 607).

Weber also says that “in science, the subject of which is the meaning of behavior, “to explain” means to comprehend the semantic connection, which, according to its subjective meaning, includes an action that is accessible to direct understanding”(See pp. 608-609). In other words, we will understand a rational action or an irrational action, since they form semantic connections, which means they are understandable.

Further in his work, Max Weber gives such concepts as "motive" and action "adequate to meaning" . So, what does the author think is the motive? « motive- this is a semantic unity that appears to the actor or observer as a sufficient reason for a certain action. " Action adequate to the meaning- this is a single action in its manifestations to the extent that the relationship between its components appears to us from the standpoint of our habitual thinking and emotional perception as a typical (we usually say correct) semantic unity. " causally adequate- the sequence of events, if, in accordance with the rules of experience, it can be assumed that it will always be so» (see pages 610-611).

« Sociological regularities are called statistical types of regularity that correspond to the subjectively intelligible meaning of social action, are (in the meaning adopted here) types of intelligible action "(See page 612).

Weber draws parallels between sociological statics and statics, and this is what he found. It turns out that sociological statics deals only with the calculation of meaningful processes, and statics both meaningful and non-meaningful.

Max W. says that it is unacceptable for sociology to consider individuals as a collection of cells or a set of biochemical reactions, since such the rule of conduct will not be clear to us. Very important is the fact that For sociology, the semantic connection of actions is important.

In understanding sociology there is suchmethod-functional. Now consider it basic goals: « 1. Practical visibility and preliminary orientation 2. Determination of the type of social behavior, the interpretive understanding of which is important for explaining certain connections "(See page 615).

Weber defines sociological laws- represent a confirmation of the observed probabilities that “under certain conditions, social behavior will take on a character that will allow it to be understood based on the typical motives and typical subjective meaning that guides the acting individual”(See page 619).

Sociology is not in closer relation to psychology than to all other sciences. Because psychology does not try to explain any human actions by methods that will be close to such a science as sociology.

The author also compares sociology and history. Unlike history, sociology "means" typical concepts and the establishment of general rules for phenomena and processes . There are such types of concepts as "average" and "ideal".

"Medium types" , as a rule, are formed where “we are talking about a difference in the degree of qualitatively homogeneous behaviors defined in their meaning”(See page 623).

"ideal types" pure) are necessary in sociology for one simple reason - this is the expression of the "greatest" semantic adequacy. It is this type that represents the presence of sociological casuistry.

There are some ideal species heuristic criteria such as: “the more clearly and unambiguously they are constructed, the further the ideal types, therefore, from reality, the more fruitful their role in the development of terminology and classification”(See page 623).

“In sociological research, the object of which is concrete reality, it is necessary to constantly keep in mind its deviation from the theoretical construction; establish the degree and nature of such a deviation - direct task of sociology» (see page 624).

According to Weber, social action can be oriented : on the past, present or expected future behavior of other people. As "others" may unfamiliar people speak, a lot of certain individuals, acquaintances.

It is worth noting that the uniform behavior of the many and the effect of the mass on the individual are not a social action , because this behavior not focused on the behavior of other people, but simply accompanied by "mass conditioning"(according to Weber).

Max Weber highlights four types of social action: 1) goal-oriented, 2) value-rational based on faith 3) affective primarily emotional, 4) traditional; that is, based on a long habit.

First view goal-oriented, whose behavior is focused on the goal, means and by-results of his actions. Second type value-rational, has a property like "a conscious determination of one's orientation and a consistently planned orientation towards it"(See page 629). Third type affective“located on the border and often beyond what is “meaningful”, consciously oriented; it can be an unhindered response to a completely unusual stimulus.”(See page 628). And the last, fourth type traditional "located on the very frontier, and often even beyond what can be called "meaningfully" oriented action"(See page 628).

Weber then defines "social relationship". So, in his opinion, « social attitude- this is the behavior of several people, correlated in their meaning with each other and guided by this.(See page 630). A sign of such action is the degree of relation of one individual to another. And the content can be different, for example, love, friendship; estate, national or class community.

Exist "two-way" social relationship. It, as a rule, should meet the expectations of partners . Here is what Weber writes about this in his book: “the acting individual assumes (perhaps, mistakenly or to some extent incorrectly) that a certain attitude towards him (the acting person) is inherent in his partner, and he orients his behavior on such an expectation, which can turn to have (and usually has) serious consequences both for his behavior and for further relations between these individuals "(See pp. 631-632).

Weber in his labor argues that "friendship" or "state" exists . But what could this mean? And that means that the people who watch it “suggest the presence in the present or past of the possibility that, based on a certain kind of attitude of certain people, their behavior usually takes place within the framework of averaging the intended meaning”(See page 631).

The meaning of social relations can be established for a long time in "maxims", which are averaged or approximate in their meaning. The parties to such relationships, as a rule, direct their behavior towards their partners.

The content of a social relationship can only be formulated by mutual agreement.. But how does it happen? It happens like this: the participants in these social relations give each other assurances that they will abide by in the future. He focuses his behavior on the fact that "in turn, 'observe' the agreement according to how he understands its meaning"(See page 632).

Sociology deals with those types of behavior that are similar to each other, that is, there is some uniformity . In other words, there is such a sequence of actions with a typical identical intended meaning, which is repeated by separate individuals.

If there is uniformity in the setting of social behavior, then these are mores, according to Weber. But only if if such an existence is within a certain circle of people, which in turn is explained by habit.

And we will call mores customs, but only when the habits have taken root for a long time. So, we will define custom as "interest-driven". This means that the orientation of the behavior of individual individuals should be directed towards the same expectations.

The stability of custom is built on the fact that there is some individual who does not orient his behavior towards it. It “turns out to be outside the framework of“ accepted ”in his circle, that is, he must be ready to endure all kinds of minor and major inconveniences and troubles, while the majority of the people around him reckon with the existence of custom and are guided by it in their behavior”(See page 635).

It should also be noted that there is stability of the constellation of interests. It is based on the fact that individual, which “does not focus in his behavior on the interests of others - does not “reckon” with them, causes their opposition or comes to a result that he does not want and does not expect, as a result of which his own interests may be damaged”(See page 635).

Weber in his work mentions such a concept as the importance of the legitimate order. But what could this mean? And this means that social behavior, social relations are focused on the individual. This individual, in turn, focuses on the notion of the existence of a legitimate order. This is what will be the significance of the legitimate order.

Weber defines the content of the social order as the order. It happens like this when individual behavior is guided by clearly defined maxims. The author says that “an order whose stability is based only on purposeful rational motives, on the whole, is significantly stable than that order, the orientation to which is based only on custom, the habit of a certain behavior "(See page 637).

Weber defined two classes of guarantees of legitimacy, namely : conventionality and law.

The legitimacy of the order within these classes, which the author highlights, is: 1) purely affectively: emotional devotion, 2) value-rational: belief in the absolute significance of order as an expression of values (for example, moral), 3) religiously: faith in the dependence of good and salvation on the preservation of a given order.

And now let's analyze in detail what Weber means conditional and what's under law and find their difference, if any.

So, convention is a custom that is considered very important in a particular environment. And if someone from this environment will have a deviation, then condemnation awaits him.

Right- the presence of a special coercion group.

Literature:

M. Weber. Basic sociological concepts. // Fav. prod. M., 1990. S. 602-633. (Fragment).

The theory of social action by M. Weber………………………….....………………3

Political sociology of M.Weber……………………….....…………………...4

Religion in the sociology of M. Weber………………….………….……………………….10

Conclusion…………………………………………….………….……………………..14

Literature……………………………………………………..…………….…….16

The theory of social action by M. Weber

Sociology according to Weber is the science that deals with social actions, interpreting and understanding these actions through explanations. Thus, social action is the subject of study. Interpretation, understanding - a method by which phenomena are causally explained. Thus understanding is a means of explanation.

Weber introduces the sociological concept of action through the concept of meaning. Sociology considers the behavior of a person only insofar as a person associates a certain meaning with his action, that is, sociology is called upon to study rational behavior, in which the individual is aware of the meaning and goals of his actions, not obeying emotions and passions. Weber identified four types of behavior:

Purposeful rational behavior involves a free and conscious choice of goals: promotion, purchase of goods, business meeting. Such behavior is necessarily free. Freedom means the absence of any coercion on the part of the collective or the crowd.

Value-rational behavior is based on a conscious orientation or belief in moral or religious ideals. Ideals stand above momentary goals, calculations, considerations of profit. Business success fades into the background. A person may not even be interested in the opinions of others: whether they condemn him or not. He thinks only of higher values, such as the salvation of the soul or a sense of duty. With them, he measures his actions.

traditional behaviour. It cannot even be called conscious, because it is based on a blunted reaction to habitual stimuli. It proceeds according to the once adopted scheme. Various taboos and prohibitions, norms and rules, customs and traditions act as irritants. They are passed down from generation to generation. Such, for example, is the custom of hospitality that exists among all peoples. It is followed automatically, by virtue of the habit of behaving one way and not another.

Affective or reactive behavior. Affect is emotional excitement that develops into passion, a strong spiritual impulse. The affect comes from within, under its influence a person acts unconsciously. Being a short-term emotional state, affective behavior is not oriented towards the behavior of others or the conscious choice of a goal. The state of confusion before an unexpected event, elation and enthusiasm, irritation with others, depression and melancholy - all these are affective forms of behavior.

The last two types of action are not, according to Weber, social actions in the strict sense of the word, since here we are dealing with a sense conscious and underlying the action. Weber notes that the described four types do not exhaust the whole variety of types of orientation of human behavior, but they can be considered the most characteristic.

The types of social action described by Weber are not just a methodological device convenient for explanation. Weber is convinced that the rationalization of rational action is a tendency of the historical process itself. Rationalization is the result of the impact of several phenomena that carried a rational beginning, namely: ancient science, rational Roman law.

Political sociology of M.Weber

Weber's theory of rationalization is directly related to his interpretation of "social action", which in turn leads to the concept of domination, which is the basis of Weber's political sociology.

All this is clearly observed in Weber's doctrine of the types of legitimate domination, that is, such domination, which is recognized by controlled individuals. Dominance implies a mutual expectation: the one who orders that his order will be obeyed, and those who obey, that the order will have the character expected by them, that is, recognized. In accordance with his methodology, Weber provides an analysis of legitimate types of domination. He distinguishes three pure types of domination.

Weber calls the first type of domination legal. This type, in his opinion, includes contemporary European states: England, France and the United States. In such states, it is not individuals who are subject, but clearly established laws, to which both the ruled and the rulers are subject. The administrative apparatus (“headquarters”) consists of specially educated officials who are charged with the duty to act regardless of persons, i.e. according to strictly formalized regulations and rational rules. The legal principle is the principle underlying legal domination. It was this principle that, according to Weber, turned out to be one of the necessary prerequisites for the development of modern capitalism as a system of formal rationality.

Weber considered bureaucracy to be the purest type of legal domination. True, he immediately stipulates that no state can be completely bureaucratic, since at the top of the ladder are either hereditary monarchs, or presidents elected by the people, or leaders elected by the parliamentary aristocracy. But everyday continuous work is carried out by specialists-officials, i.e. control machine.

This type of domination is most consistent with the formal-rational structure of the economy. The rule of the bureaucracy is domination by means of knowledge, and this is its specifically rational character.

Weber considered bureaucracy in two senses - positive and negative. The embodiment of bureaucracy in a positive sense is the state administration apparatus. If it consists of honest and incorruptible people, if its staff is recruited from specially trained officials, then they will treat their subordinates objectively. The basic law of bureaucracy is clear and error-free functioning aimed at maximizing profits. To achieve this, you need to know that:

The organization is free to choose any means to ensure its sustainability;
People work in such a way that they can be interchanged, so each is required to perform only one task;
Labor is the most appropriate measure of man's success, and is for him the basis of existence;
The behavior of the performers is completely determined by the rational scheme, which ensures the accuracy and rationality of actions, avoids prejudice and personal sympathy in relationships.

Official positions in a bureaucratic organization are strictly subordinate to each other and arranged in a hierarchical order. Each official is responsible to the higher authorities both for his personal decisions and for the actions of his subordinates. Employees of the organization are primarily employees. Remuneration is given to them in the form of a salary, and after the resignation a pension is assigned.

Weber was convinced that the bureaucracy is the most complex and rational device ever invented by man, but he was well aware that in its purest form, bureaucracy - a hierarchical organization of highly qualified experts, does not exist anywhere in reality.

It is important to note that the “ideal type of formal-rational management” described by Weber, of course, did not and does not have full empirical implementation in any of the industrial states. Actually, Weber had in mind the "management machine", a machine in the most literal sense of the word, but a human machine, which has no other interest than the interest of the case. However, like any machine, the control machine needs a reliable program. It itself does not have such a program, being a formal-rational structure. Therefore, only a political leader who sets certain goals for himself, i.e., can set a program for it. in other words, putting the formal mechanism of governance at the service of certain political goals.

Weber refers to the second type of legitimate domination as traditional. This type is due to mores, the habit of a certain behavior. In this respect, traditional domination is based on a belief not only in the legitimacy, but even in the sacredness of ancient orders and authorities.

The purest type of such domination is, according to Weber, the patriarchal state. It is a society that preceded modern bourgeois society. The type of traditional domination is similar in structure to the structure of the family. It is this circumstance that makes this type of legitimacy particularly strong and stable.

The headquarters of the government here consists of household officials personally dependent on the master, relatives, personal friends or vassals. Unlike other types of domination, it is personal loyalty that serves here as the basis for appointment, as well as for moving up the hierarchical ladder. Traditional domination is characterized by the absence of a formal right and, accordingly, the absence of a requirement to act "regardless of persons"; the nature of relationships in any area is purely personal.

The difference between a rational way of government (and a rational type of state) and a way of government in a traditional society is shown by Weber by comparing a modern Western official with a Chinese mandarin.

Mandarin, unlike the manager of the bureaucratic "machine", is a person completely unprepared for management affairs. Such a person does not manage independently - all affairs are in the hands of clerical employees. A mandarin is, first of all, an educated person, a good calligrapher who writes poetry, who knows all the literature of China for a thousand years and knows how to interpret it. At the same time, he does not attach any importance to political duties. A state with such officials, as Weber notes, is something quite different from the Western state. In this state, everything is based on the religious-magical belief that the perfection of their literary education is quite enough to keep everything in order,

The third type of domination is, according to Weber, charismatic domination. The concept of charisma plays an important role in Weber's political sociology. Charisma, in accordance with the etymological meaning of this word, is some extraordinary ability, some quality of an individual that distinguishes him from the rest. This quality is not so much acquired as given to man by nature by God, by fate. To charismatic qualities, Weber refers to magical abilities, a prophetic gift, an outstanding strength of mind and word. Charisma, according to Weber, is possessed by heroes, generals, magicians, prophets and seers, prominent politicians, founders of world religions and other types (for example, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Caesar).

The charismatic type of legitimate domination is the exact opposite of the traditional one. If the traditional type of domination is based on adherence to the usual, established once and for all, then the charismatic, on the contrary, relies on something unusual, never previously recognized. The main basis of charismatic domination is the affective type of social action. Weber sees charisma as a great revolutionary force in the traditional type of society, capable of bringing about changes in the structure of these societies devoid of dynamism. However, it should be noted that with all the difference and even opposition between the traditional and charismatic types of domination, there is something in common between them, namely: both are based on personal relations between the master and the subordinate. In this respect, both of these types are opposed to formal-rational domination as impersonal.

The source of personal devotion to a charismatic sovereign is not tradition and not the recognition of his formal right, but, above all, emotionally colored faith in his charisma and devotion to this charisma. Therefore, as Weber emphasized, a charismatic leader must take care to maintain his charisma and constantly prove its presence. The headquarters of management in this type of domination is formed on the basis of personal loyalty to the leader. It is clear that the rational concept of competence, as well as the class-traditional concept of privilege, is absent here. Another moment. Charismatic domination differs from both the formally rational and the traditional type of domination in that there are no established (rationally or traditionally) rules and decisions on all issues are made irrationally, on the basis of “revelation”, intuition or personal example.

It is clear that the charismatic principle of legitimacy, in contrast to the formally rational one, is authoritarian. In essence, the authority of a charismatic leader is based on his strength - not only on the brute, physical, but on the strength of his inner gift. Weber, true to his cognitive principles, considers charisma completely irrespective of the content of what a charismatic leader proclaims, stands for, what brings with him, that is, he is emphatically indifferent to the values introduced into the world by a charismatic personality.

Legal domination, according to Weber, has a weaker legitimizing power than traditional and charismatic domination. A legitimate question arises: on what basis is such a conclusion made? In order to answer it, we should once again pay attention to what constitutes a legal type of domination. As already noted, Weber takes purposeful rational action as the basis of legal domination. In its pure form, legal domination does not have a value foundation, it is no coincidence that this type of domination is carried out formally rationally, where the “bureaucratic machine” should serve exclusively the interests of the cause.

It is also important to note that the relations of domination in the "rational" state are considered by Weber by analogy with relations in the sphere of private enterprise. Purposeful rational action has economic action as its model. The economy is the "cell" in which there is a legal type of domination. It is the economy that lends itself most to rationalization. It frees the market from class restrictions, from merging with mores and customs, turning all qualitative characteristics into quantitative ones, that is, clearing the way for the development of a purely rational capitalist economy.

Rationality, in Weber's understanding, is a formal, functional reality, that is, free from any value moments. This is legal domination. But precisely because formal rationality does not carry its own goal and is always determined through something else, legal domination does not have a strong enough legitimacy and must be supported by something else - tradition or charisma. In political language, it will sound like this: parliamentary democracy, recognized by classical liberalism as the only legitimate legislative (legitimizing) body, does not have sufficient legitimizing power in the eyes of the masses. Therefore, it must be supplemented either by an inherited monarch (whose rights are limited by parliament), or by a plebiscitary elected political leader. As we can see, in the first case, the legitimacy of legal domination is enhanced by an appeal to tradition, in the second, by an appeal to charisma.

Returning directly to Weber's idea of strengthening the legitimacy of legal domination, we can say that it was the formal character of legal domination, which has no values in itself and requires as its complement a political leader who would be able to formulate certain goals, that led him to recognize the plebiscitary democracy. Plebiscitary democracy as a form of political system, according to Weber, most corresponded to the situation that has developed in contemporary Western European society. Only a plebiscite, in his opinion, can give a political leader the power of legitimacy that will allow him to pursue a certain oriented policy, as well as put the state-bureaucratic machine at the service of certain values. It is clear that for this the political leader must be charismatically gifted, otherwise he cannot win the approval of the masses. Weber's plebiscitary theory of bureaucracy is, in essence, an attempt to find some ideal model for the organization of a political system with the necessary elements to ensure its dynamism.

Religion in the sociology of M. Weber

Weber's research in the field of religion began with the work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905) and ended with large historical and sociological excursions devoted to the analysis of world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism.

In the study of religion, Weber did not pose as a central question the origin of religion, and therefore did not consider the question of its essence. He was primarily interested in the study of existing structural forms, the composition and type of religion. Weber focuses on the great world religions, which presuppose a relatively high level of social differentiation and, consequently, a significant intellectual development, the emergence of a person endowed with a clear logical self-consciousness.

Weber, through observation and comparison, fixes where and under what social conditions, among which social strata and groups the ritual-cult moment prevails in religion, and where the ascetic-active (meaning worldly activity), where the mystical-contemplative, and where the intellectual- dogmatic. So, for example, magical elements are most characteristic of the religion of agricultural peoples and, within the framework of highly developed cultures, for the peasant class. Belief in fate is a characteristic feature of the religion of the conquering peoples and the military class.

Considering the individual appearance of the world religious-ethnic systems, Weber gives their classification, in accordance with which social strata were their main carriers:

The bearer of Confucianism is the bureaucrat who organizes the world;

Hinduism - the magician ordering the world;

Buddhism - a monk wandering around the world;

Islam is a world-conquering warrior;

Christianity is a wandering craftsman.

Weber also classifies religions on the basis of different attitudes towards the world. Thus, Confucianism is characterized by the acceptance of the world, and, on the contrary, the denial of the world is characteristic of Buddhism. Some religions accept the world on the terms of its improvement and correction (Christianity, Islam).

World religions, as a rule, are soteric in nature (soter - savior, Greek). The problem of salvation is one of the central ones in religious ethics. There are two options for salvation: the salvation of a person through one's own action (Buddhism) and with the help of an intermediary savior (Islam, Christianity)

In his book, M. Weber also conducts a detailed analysis of statistical data reflecting the distribution of Protestants and Catholics in various social strata. On the basis of data collected in Germany, Austria and Holland, he concludes that Protestants predominate among the owners of capital, entrepreneurs and the upper skilled strata of workers.

In addition, differences in education are quite obvious. Thus, if Catholics are dominated by people with a liberal arts education, then among Protestants, who, according to Weber, are preparing for a "bourgeois" way of life, there are more people with a technical education. He explains this by a peculiar warehouse of the psyche, which develops in the process of initial education.

Weber also notes that Catholics, by not occupying key positions in politics and commerce, refute the trend that national and religious minorities oppose as subordinates to any other "dominant" group .... concentrate their efforts in the field of entrepreneurship and trade.

He wonders what is the reason for such a clear definition of social status in relation to religion. And, despite the fact that there really are objective historical reasons for the predominance of Protestants among the most prosperous segments of the population, he still tends to believe that the reason for different behavior should be sought in "sustainable internal originality", and not only in the historical and political situation. .

Protestantism is not the direct cause of capitalism, but it did produce a culture that emphasized hard work, rationality, and self-confidence.

By the spirit of capitalism, Weber understands the following: "a complex of connections that exist in historical reality, which we unite in the concept into one whole from the point of view of their cultural significance."

Weber divides capitalism into "traditional" and "modern", according to the way the enterprise is organized. He writes that modern capitalism, bumping into traditional capitalism everywhere, struggled with its manifestations. The author gives an example of the introduction of piecework wages at an agricultural enterprise in Germany. Since agricultural work is seasonal, and the greatest intensity of labor is needed during harvesting, an attempt was made to stimulate labor productivity by introducing piecework wages, and, accordingly, the prospects for its increase. But an increase in wages attracted a man born of "traditional" capitalism much less than an easier job. This was reflected in the pre-capitalist attitude to work.

Weber believed that for the development of capitalism, a certain excess of the population is necessary to ensure the availability of cheap labor on the market. But low wages are by no means identical to cheap labor. Even in a purely quantitative sense, labor productivity falls in cases where it does not meet the needs of physical existence. But low wages do not justify themselves and backfire when it comes to skilled labor and high-tech equipment. That is, where a developed sense of responsibility is necessary, and such a system of thinking in which work would become an end in itself. Such an attitude to work is not characteristic of a person, and can only develop as a result of a long education.

Thus, the radical difference between traditional and modern capitalism is not in technology, but in human resources, more precisely, the relationship of man to work.

The ideal type of capitalist, to which some German industrialists of that time approached, Weber designated as follows: “ostentatious luxury and wastefulness, intoxication with power are alien to him, an ascetic lifestyle, restraint and modesty are inherent in him.” Wealth gives him an irrational sense of duty well done.

traditional man	Modern Protestant
Working to live	Lives to work
Profession is a burden	Profession is a form of existence
simple production	Extended production
Don't cheat, don't sell	Honesty is the best guarantee
Main activity - trade	The main activity is production

Weber analyzes modern society and comes to the conclusion that the capitalist economy no longer needs the sanction of one or another religious doctrine and sees in any (if possible) influence of the church on economic life the same hindrance as the regulation of the economy by the state.

This is how the Weberian entrepreneur appeared - hardworking, enterprising, modest in needs, loving money for the sake of money itself.

CONCLUSION

From the point of view of M. Weber, sociology is the science of social behavior, which she seeks to understand and interpret. Social behavior , according to M. Weber, is a person's attitude, in other words, an internally or externally manifested position, focused on an act or abstaining from it. This relationship is behavior when the subject associates it with a certain meaning. Behavior is considered social when, according to the meaning given to it by the subject, it is correlated with the behavior of other individuals.

Tasks of understanding sociology of M. Weber: 1). Find out through what meaningful actions people try to fulfill their aspirations, to what extent and for what reasons they succeeded; 2). What consequences, understandable to the sociologist, had their aspirations for the meaningful behavior of other people. The cornerstone of his theory was the concept of ideal types, which served as a methodological justification for pluralism. He believed that the main thing was the search for motives: why did a person act this way and not otherwise? So M. Weber approached the creation of the theory of social action and identified the following types:

Purposeful rational (when a person clearly imagines the goal and ways to achieve it, takes into account the possible reaction of other people),

Value-rational (when an action is performed through a conscious belief in ethical, aesthetic, religious value),

Affective (action occurs subconsciously, in a state of passion)

And traditional (action is carried out through a habit).

The last two are not included in the subject of sociology, since only the first two are committed consciously.

According to Weber, religion can be a great force, as he demonstrates with the example of Protestantism ("The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). He was one of the first to consider the phenomenon of bureaucracy in the period of the early twentieth century, describing it as rational and highly effective.

Finally, he created the famous theory of 3 types of states: legal, ruled by bureaucracy and laws; traditional, where submission and obedience reign; and charismatic, in which the ruler is identified with God. The ideas of M. Weber permeate the entire building of modern sociology, making up its foundation.

A huge stage in the development and enrichment of knowledge about society, social reality ended by the beginning of the twentieth century. A new era was coming, requiring further reflection - the twentieth century.

LITERATURE

Gaidenko P.P., Davydov Yu.N. "History and Rationality: Weber's Sociology and the Weberian Renaissance"
Gromov I., Matskevich A., Semenov V. "Western theoretical sociology"
Zarubina N.N. "Modernization and economic culture: Weber's concept and modern development theories"
Kravchenko A.I. "Sociology of M.Weber"

The theory of social action by M. Weber

According to M. Weber, the science of sociology deals with social actions. She interprets and understands these actions through explanations.

It turns out that social actions are the subject of study, and interpretation, understanding is the method by which phenomena are causally explained.

Thus, understanding is a means of explanation.

The concept of meaning explains the sociological concept of action, i.e. sociology must study the rational behavior of the individual. At the same time, the individual realizes the meaning and purpose of his actions without emotions and passions.

Goal-rational behavior, in which the choice of goal is free and conscious, for example, a business meeting, the purchase of goods. This behavior will be free, because there is no coercion from the crowd.
Value-rational behavior is based on a conscious orientation, belief in moral or religious ideals that are higher than calculations, considerations of profit, momentary impulses. Business success fades into the background here and a person may not be interested in the opinions of others. A person measures his actions with higher values, such as the salvation of the soul or a sense of duty.
The behavior is traditional, which cannot be called conscious, because it is based on a blunted reaction to stimuli and proceeds according to the accepted pattern. Irritants can be various prohibitions, taboos, norms and rules, customs and traditions that are passed from one generation to another, for example, hospitality that takes place among all peoples. As a result, there is no need to invent anything, because the individual behaves this way and not otherwise, out of habit, automatically.
Reactive or as it is also called affective behavior that comes from within and a person can act unconsciously. This short-term emotional state is not guided by the behavior of other people, as well as by the conscious choice of a goal.

Affective forms of behavior include confusion before some event, enthusiasm, irritation, depression. These four types, as M. Weber himself notes, can be considered the most characteristic, but far from exhaustive, of the whole variety of types of human behavior.

Value-rational behavior according to M. Weber

According to M. Weber, value-rational behavior is an ideal type of social action. The reason is that this type is based on such actions performed by people, which are based on the belief in their self-sufficient value.

The goal here is the action itself. Value-rational action is subject to certain requirements. It is the duty of the individual to follow these requirements. Actions in accordance with these requirements mean value-rational actions even if rational calculation has a high probability of adverse consequences of the act itself for the individual personally.

Example 1

For example, the captain is the last to leave a sinking ship, despite the fact that his life is in danger.

These actions have a conscious focus, and if they are correlated with ideas of duty, dignity, then this will be a certain rationality, meaningfulness.

The intentionality of such behavior speaks of a large degree of its rationality and distinguishes it from affective behavior. The “value-based rationality” of an action absolutizes the value to which the individual is guided, because it carries something irrational in itself.

M. Weber believes that only the person who acts in accordance with his convictions can act purely value-rationally. In this case, he will fulfill what the law requires of him, the religious prescription, the importance of something.

The purpose of the action and the action itself in the value-rational case coincide, and side effects are not taken into account.

Remark 1

Thus, it turns out that the goal-rational action and the value-rational action differ from each other as truth and truth. Truth is what actually exists, regardless of the beliefs of a particular society. Truth means comparing what you observe with what is generally accepted in a given society.

Types of social action M. Weber

The correct type, where ends and means are strictly rational, because they are objectively adequate to each other.
In the second type, the means to achieve the goal, as it seems to the subject, will be adequate, although they may not be so.
Approximate action without a specific goal and means.
An action determined by specific circumstances, without a precise goal.
An action that has a number of obscure elements, therefore only partially understandable.
An action that is inexplicable from the point of view of a rational position, caused by incomprehensible psychological or physical factors.

This classification arranges all types of social action in descending order of their rationality and comprehensibility.

Not all types of action, including the external type, are social in the accepted sense. If an external action is directed at the behavior of things, then it cannot be social.

It becomes social only when it is focused on the behavior of others, for example, a prayer read alone will not be social in nature.

Not all types of human relationships are social in nature. Social action will not be identical to the same behavior of people, for example, when it rains. People open umbrellas not because they are guided by the actions of others, but in order to protect themselves from the rain.

Nor will it be identical to that which is influenced by the behavior of others. The behavior of the crowd has a huge impact on a person and is defined as behavior due to mass character.

M. Weber set himself the task of showing how such social facts - relations, order, connections - should be defined as special forms of social action, but the desire was not actually realized.

Remark 2

The most important idea of M. Weber was that social action leads to a social fact. M. Weber considers only the goal as the determinant of action, and does not pay due attention to the circumstances that make this action possible. He does not indicate among which alternatives the choice is made and does not have judgments about what goals of action the actor has in this or that situation. It also does not say what options the subject has when moving towards the goal and what type of selection he makes.